Philosophy: Is it necessary that God have a personality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since ‘personality’ is the pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person, ie the quality or condition of being a person, it would only be applicable to the ‘person’ of Jesus Christ and not to the deity of Jesus as this is God the Father.
 
Is it neccassary? Who knows? I don’t, but we are created in his image and likeness, so I think God has a very complex personality. (well of course, cause he is god 👍)
 
It might depend on one’s definition of personality. I think of at least a big part of having a “personality” as “being capable of self-expression.” If that’s even close to accurate, then God would have a personality; if God weren’t capable of self-expression, that would imply a lack in God, or a potential in God’s being not yet fulfilled.

And any characteristic of God’s would be necessary for God to have, I think?

Doesn’t Three “Persons” imply personality? Or am I confusing terms with actually separate meanings?
 
Hey, I just noticed–I’ve become a Senior Member.:extrahappy:
 
Personality makes one unique and uniqueness is a perfection. Since a God has all perfections, he must therefore have personality.

Hmmm.
 
cor said:
Personality makes one unique and uniqueness is a perfection.
Click to expand...
Prove it 😉

Is there not perfection, in a sense, in perfect (ahem) and total order and conformity? Could not most Gods be described as spirits of entropy, which eventually conquers all?

Second problem, if a deity has a personality, is it necessarily one that humans can understand as such?
 
When I used to hang out at pyschology websites relating to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I once read a fascinating post suggesting that Jesus had all the strengths of every personality type, and the weaknesses of none.

~~ the phoenix
 
“Is it necessary” begs the question:

So cows can be buckets?
So clowns can beat drums?
So Irving Berlin could dream of a White Christmas?
So Gaul could be divided into three parts?
So sea shells can fly to Mars?
etc.
 
40.png
Mirdath:
Is there not perfection, in a sense, in perfect (ahem) and total order and conformity?
Click to expand...
Conformity to what? The perfection in conformity is in the object of the conformity. Created things may resemble perfection, may evoke perfection, but are not perfect in themselves.
40.png
Mirdath:
Could not most Gods be described as spirits of entropy, which eventually conquers all?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what a spirit of entropy is. Could you describe that please? Thank you.
40.png
Mirdath:
Second problem, if a deity has a personality, is it necessarily one that humans can understand as such?
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC
When we say that God is a personal being we mean that He is intelligent and free and distinct from the created universe. Personality as such expresses perfection…
Click to expand...
He who is free and distinct from the created universe is not ‘a’ deity. ‘A’ deity implies that there can be more than one deity. Perfection requires simplicity (that is, no component parts) and therefore no extension in time and space.

‘A’ deity would be one of a set of deities and therefore one step more complex than the essence of deitiness – and therefore not simple.

‘A’ deity would also therefore ‘come into being’ in time and space and therefore be extended into time and space.

That’s at one level. At an abstract level. The level of philosophy, math, physics. What I have trouble with is matching the ‘personal’ with a small ‘p’ of God with the ‘Personal’ with a large ‘P’ of God. God as the Friend of my soul on the one hand and God as the Creator of the universe on the other hand.

Thoughts on that anyone?
 
Truthstalker said:
“Is it necessary” begs the question:

So cows can be buckets?
So clowns can beat drums?
So Irving Berlin could dream of a White Christmas?
So Gaul could be divided into three parts?
So sea shells can fly to Mars?
etc.
Click to expand...
No.
 
from the perspective of natural theology, the first cause must have free choice; free choice entails rationality; having free choice and the rationality necessary to exercise it are the fundaments of “personality”.

so, yes: god is necessarily personal.
 
Truthstalker said:
So what is necessary to God, who is self-sufficient (and self evident, if I may add that)?
Click to expand...
Oh I see the problem. Thanks for that. Let’s try this:

God is necessarily Personal. Yes? No?

But if I had said that then there is no telling what kind of response the thread would have received.

:rotfl: Oh, tears are rolling down my cheeks I am laughing so hard. Sorry. OK, I’m back.

PS: You can add self-evident any time you like, Sailor. 😉
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Conformity to what? The perfection in conformity is in the object of the conformity. Created things may resemble perfection, may evoke perfection, but are not perfect in themselves.
Click to expand...
To anything, really. What I’m getting at is order. From which the next one follows…
I don’t know what a spirit of entropy is. Could you describe that please? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Basically I’m referring to the tendency of any system to work towards its simplest state, towards a perfected uniformity. In Christian theology, this is heaven/hell; in some others, only heaven; and as far as I can tell, the end of the physical universe. God, in essence, works toward the goal of all existing either in heaven or in hell; assuming that dichotomy is the base state of our universe, he then would be operating in accord with entropy. Perfect order.
He who is free and distinct from the created universe is not ‘a’ deity. ‘A’ deity implies that there can be more than one deity. Perfection requires simplicity (that is, no component parts) and therefore no extension in time and space.

‘A’ deity would be one of a set of deities and therefore one step more complex than the essence of deitiness – and therefore not simple.

‘A’ deity would also therefore ‘come into being’ in time and space and therefore be extended into time and space.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind I’m working from an agnostic perspective. One God seems about as likely to me as many 😉 I refer to ‘a’ God only for that reason. Assume I’m just talking about one supreme being if it suits you.
That’s at one level. At an abstract level. The level of philosophy, math, physics. What I have trouble with is matching the ‘personal’ with a small ‘p’ of God with the ‘Personal’ with a large ‘P’ of God. God as the Friend of my soul on the one hand and God as the Creator of the universe on the other hand.

Thoughts on that anyone?
Click to expand...
I believe that if there is a God, it is entirely beyond human comprehension. I’m afraid that doesn’t help much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top