A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Is uniformity order?
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
By definition, yes.
J
john_doran
Guest
so, like, did you really mean to ask if it’s necessary that god, you know, be kind of quiet, but with a very dry sense of humor? or maybe the life of the party? or something?Thank you for this. I am beginning to see how seriously flawed the caption for this thread is. Oh dear, forgive me all.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Please post philosophy threads in the BackFence forum.
This is the Apologetics forum.
Thanks. :tiphat:
This is the Apologetics forum.
Thanks. :tiphat:
C
cpayne
Guest
As I understood it, this is where the Philosophy posts were supposed to go until otherwise directed. Is that incorrect?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Elsewhere I saw a message from an admin directing philosophy questions to the BackFence.
C
cpayne
Guest
Hi, Mirdath. I wouldn’t state the proposition as “uniqueness is a perfection” (although that might be right, I don’t know). Rather, I would state that the inability to express oneself would be a lack. A supreme Being would not suffer such a lack.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?
Entropy might conquer all physical states. Would the laws of entropy apply to non-corporeal states?
God’s personality might not NECESSARILY be understood as such by humans. In fact, there are aspects of it (triune nature, for example) that had to be revealed. B-i-b-l-e, yes that’s the book for me.
But a great deal seems to be understood by analogy; for example, Jesus says, “When you pray, say, Our Father in Heaven,” etc. God’s Fatherhood is understood by way of analogy.
C
cpayne
Guest
Okay, I’m not doubting you. Ani Ibi, have you seen this?
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
You are correct. Here is the post from the Philosophy Forum thread in Suggestions:
As for the question at hand. Only if you can apply accidents to God. Since God transcends everything, I would say no. He is the basis for all existance.
A
anon50111284
Guest
Questions about the appropriateness of a particular thread for a particular forum are to be directed to the forum Mod via the Report Post feature. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/report.gif
Please do not make such comments in a thread. They are off-topic.
Please do not make such comments in a thread. They are off-topic.
C
Carol_Coombe
Guest
I have no thoughts on this one. I wish I did. All I have is the same confusion you have: the difference in the nature of the Creator God, and the personal God who listens to my prayer. And the two seem utterly distinct.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Is it necessary in what sense? Logically it’s necessary because God is the Divine Nature, and the Divine Nature is Personal, so God is Personal. It’s like saying “is it necessary that a duck be a duck?”
I don’t think this is the way you intend the question, however, so I’m asking for clarification. Are you asking if it’s logically deducible through natural reason that “God” must be a person? If so, what do you mean by person, just so we can give the most correct study of the question; obviously the answer is going to be different if by person you mean individual, versus if you mean an actor.
Peace and God bless!
I don’t think this is the way you intend the question, however, so I’m asking for clarification. Are you asking if it’s logically deducible through natural reason that “God” must be a person? If so, what do you mean by person, just so we can give the most correct study of the question; obviously the answer is going to be different if by person you mean individual, versus if you mean an actor.
Peace and God bless!
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
I disagree. You need to understand that Apologetics, by its very nature must also deal with topics that are unmistakably philosophic in orientation, such as for instance arguing for the existence of God in response to questions or criticisms by an atheist, questions which can be effectively dealt with on the philosophical/logical level. Such is what Apologetics is all about. So, what is the problem?
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
I must say yes, God does have a personality, if personality is to be understood as one who has rational self-awareness and identity. The possession of intellect and will entails that He is a person because only a person can exercise such faculties, and such faculties would have meaning only in union with a person. Without personality, God would be no different from electricity and gravity.
C
cpayne
Guest
Responding both to Carol and Ani, whom Carol quoted but the quote doesn’t come through on a re-quote:
Sometimes a term can have general and specific application at the same time, correct? Like “First Lady” (a general title) and “Laura Bush” (a name which in specific terms has the same referent as “First Lady,” but which does not have the same general meaning).
So when someone speaks of God the Creator as possessing self-expression and other attributes of Personality, I understand the referent as being the same Person Who loves me individually and listens to my prayers and gives me strength, etc. The title God in the second case has the same referent but a different application. It’s like logical inference gives us a new home, but biblical revelation shows us there’s a whole lot more features in that home than we had thought. It’s still the same house, it’s still our home, it’s still good, but it’s better than we could have discovered on our own, without special guidance.
C
cpayne
Guest
By the way, for a really chilly definition of person, here’s Aquinas quoting Boethius: A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.
By that definition, yes, God is a Person and thus possesses personality as an individual. But yikes–“individual substance of a rational nature”? Just doesn’t come across as “Father.”
By that definition, yes, God is a Person and thus possesses personality as an individual. But yikes–“individual substance of a rational nature”? Just doesn’t come across as “Father.”
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Good one, john. 
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Would you be willing to describe your understanding of what entropy is and provide some links please? That might help me follow your line of thinking. Thank you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Most of my thread questions are open ended. If you would like to demonstrate the Personhood of God through natural reason, I am sure many of us would benefit from your contribution. You lead. We’ll follow.
You decide for purposes of your demonstration. Thank you, ghosty.
C
Carol_Coombe
Guest
Remember that it took us thousands of years, and considerable intellectual evolution to understand anything at all about electricity and gravity. I have argued elsewhere that our brains are too little evolved, and the multiverse (universe of universes) far too complex, to understand many of the things that we may come to understand in the future.
I would argue therefore, that we cannot know in any way at present - and certainly the scriptures do not help me in this regard - whether God Creator has rational self-awareness, intellect and will. We can understand that God created the multiverse, but the capacities with which He did that clearly outstrip any comprehension we might have at present. Beyond the Big Bang are many questions remaining to be answered, not all of them scientific.
I feel certain that God Creator is not a person: He could not have done what He did if He were limited to mere personhood. Right now, his core traits are beyond our comprehension. We can however begin to understand His nature - though not His personality if He has one - by His acts and through His creation.
In this sense it is not necessary, as you have put it, for God to have a personality. But right now it is impossible to know more than just the very outside limits of God Creator.
Finally, there seems to be a subtext here that suggests a bifurcation of our understanding of God’s nature as between God Creator, and *Abba *Father - God the Father.
- Status