The Necessarily Random Nature of God

[ngill09]

God is often described as The Uncaused Cause, or as having existed eternally. If this is true, it is my understanding that God exists with the nature He does without any cause and without any reason. His nature therefore is completely arbitrary, and it is just by mere chance that He has the nature of goodness, justice, love, etc. If He possesses these qualities for some cause or reason, then His existence was preceded by some Other cause or reason. God could not have determined His own qualities, since He exists without cause or reason. The nature of God must therefore be random.

Moreover, “before” God created the material universe, it could be said that God was all that existed. It can therefore be said that at some point all of existence existed without cause, for no reason. All of existence, then, ultimately devolves into mere chance.

Thoughts?

 

[snarflemike]

Nice try, I will give you that. And welcome to our little world.

The flaw in your reasoning, as I see it, is that “evil” attributes are actually just a lacking. Evil is when you take everything and remove something. If God is “everything,” his attributes are thus fixed and he could have no others (that is, he could not be missing anything).

 

[ThomasMartin]

Long story short, I guess the issue is that God is not defined by goodness, truth, beauty, but the other way around, goodness, truth and beauty are defined by God, by the mere nature of God. God is the cornerstone of reality and the ultimate measure of all things.

 

[Polycarp1]

Good luck finding words that can encompass God!

 

[SonCatcher]

God is often described as The Uncaused Cause, or as having existed eternally. If this is true, it is my understanding that God exists with the nature He does without any cause and without any reason. His nature therefore is completely arbitrary, and it is just by mere chance that He has the nature of goodness, justice, love, etc. If He possesses these qualities for some cause or reason, then His existence was preceded by some Other cause or reason. God could not have determined His own qualities, since He exists without cause or reason. The nature of God must therefore be random.

Moreover, “before” God created the material universe, it could be said that God was all that existed. It can therefore be said that at some point all of existence existed without cause, for no reason. All of existence, then, ultimately devolves into mere chance.

Thoughts?

The ideas of randomness and chance require some form of disunity. However, God is also known to be One. There can be neither randomness for chance where the whole of existence is singular.

The creation of the Universe introduced randomness simultaneously.

 

[ngill09]

Snarflemike,

That’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure it works. For one, it would deny the existence of any morally neutral properties. Moreover, by what standard are you defining Good by which Evil would be defined by its imperfection? Sadism, for instance, seems to be a quality which is not defined by the absence of some good but by the addition of some evil. If God possessed all qualities to the greatest possible degree, then God would therefore have to be infinitely sadistic. The same goes for pedophilia, being defined as a sexual lust towards prepubescent children. I’m sure you could try to define these things as the absence of some good, but let’s move past that for a moment.

Why should we suppose that God’s nature is such that it is “everything”? That, too, seems arbitrary and random.

ThomasMartin, I’ll grant for the sake of argument that we define beauty, justice, etc. by God’s nature, but we’ve not accounted for God’s nature. Let’s say that those qualities we call “good” are so because we define them by God’s nature. But by what cause is God’s nature defined? God’s nature, being uncaused and without reason or purpose, is random. If God’s nature is the basis by which we define what is good, beautiful, just, etc., and God’s nature is random, then what we define as good, beautiful, just, etc. is ultimately random and without cause or reason.

 

[ngill09]

The ideas of randomness and chance require some form of disunity. However, God is also known to be One. There can be neither randomness for chance where the whole of existence is singular.

The creation of the Universe introduced randomness simultaneously.

This doesn’t seem to be a justified assertion.

If God’s nature is contingent, then God is contingent and therefore not Ultimate. If God’s nature is not contingent, then it is what it is without reason, cause, or purpose.

Another thought: consider the Triune nature of God. This seems fairly specific and I don’t see how it could be said that this is a necessary quality of God. One may argue that God is Triune, but I’ve not heard an argument that God must necessarily be Triune.

To illustrate my point a bit more, let’s take the example of Beauty:

Let’s say we define what is Beautiful by how much it reflects the nature of God. However, if God’s nature is without cause, reason, or purpose, then how we define what is Beautiful is ultimately without cause, reason, or purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

The ideas of randomness and chance require some form of disunity. However, God is also known to be One. There can be neither randomness for chance where the whole of existence is singular.

The creation of the Universe introduced randomness simultaneously.

In the spiritual realm nothing is random, nothing occurs by chance: God’s Kingdom has come, His Will is done, we are forgiven as we forgive others and we are liberated from evil…

 

[ngill09]

In the spiritual realm nothing is random, nothing occurs by chance: God’s Kingdom has come, His Will is done, we are forgiven as we forgive others and we are liberated from evil…

I’m probably using fuzzy terms here, so let me clarify. When I say that something possesses qualities “randomly” or “purely by chance” that is to say that there is no reason, cause, or purpose for which it possesses those qualities. So when we say that God is Triune, we say that God has a Triune nature either for some reason (in which case God would be contingent upon that reason) or for no reason (in which case God’s nature would be “random”).

 

[dmar198]

God is often described as The Uncaused Cause, or as having existed eternally. If this is true, it is my understanding that God exists with the nature He does without any cause and without any reason. His nature therefore is completely arbitrary, and it is just by mere chance that He has the nature of goodness, justice, love, etc. If He possesses these qualities for some cause or reason, then His existence was preceded by some Other cause or reason. God could not have determined His own qualities, since He exists without cause or reason. The nature of God must therefore be random.

Moreover, “before” God created the material universe, it could be said that God was all that existed. It can therefore be said that at some point all of existence existed without cause, for no reason. All of existence, then, ultimately devolves into mere chance.

Thoughts?

Classically the definition of God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens – subsistent being itself. God exists without a prior cause, but it does not follow that He exists without reason. The reason existence itself exists may be difficult to understand, but it seems that it would be due to some “inner” quality of existence rather than some external cause. Even that other cause, if it existed, would already participate in existence itself, so existence itself would have to precede any cause and somehow account for itself.

Anyway with that in mind, the non-sequitur in your argument becomes apparent, and it is in this sentence: “If He possesses these qualities for some cause or reason, then His existence was preceded by some Other cause or reason.” – On the contrary, He is pure act for some reason that is within Himself, and therefore His reason for existing is not prior to Himself, but within Himself.

Also, He possesses goodness, justice, love, etc. because these things are expressions of existent reality and the ultimate nature of that is God.

Anyway I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[ngill09]

Classically the definition of God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens – subsistent being itself. God exists without a prior cause, but it does not follow that He exists without reason. The reason existence itself exists may be difficult to understand, but it seems that it would be due to some “inner” quality of existence rather than some external cause. Even that other cause, if it existed, would already participate in existence itself, so existence itself would have to precede any cause and somehow account for itself.

Anyway with that in mind, the non-sequitur in your argument becomes apparent, and it is in this sentence: “If He possesses these qualities for some cause or reason, then His existence was preceded by some Other cause or reason.” – On the contrary, He is pure act for some reason that is within Himself, and therefore His reason for existing is not prior to Himself, but within Himself.

Also, He possesses goodness, justice, love, etc. because these things participate in existence and are therefore subsistent in Ipsum Esse Subsistens.

Anyway I hope that helps. God bless!

If I have this right, are you saying that God is self-defined or that God’s nature and qualities are logically necessary?

 

[dmar198]

If I have this right, are you saying that God is self-defined or that God’s nature and qualities are logically necessary?

I’ll take the question in two parts: is God self-defined and are God’s qualities logically necessary. To the first question, that language seems not to follow. Considering God as subsistent being itself leads to a different conclusion: that no cause could produce Him and no external reason can account for Him, because that cause or reason would itself have to participate in existence, and therefore existence itself would have to precede any cause that could produce it. From that we can conclude that existence itself exists for some reason inside itself. That does not seem to be the same as saying God is self-defined.

To your second question, God’s qualities such as love, justice, and goodness do seem to be logically necessary, because anything that participates in existence is participating in the ultimate nature of God. These things are expressions of existent reality and the ultimate nature of that is God. Therefore God is the ultimate nature of love, justice, goodness, beauty, etc.

 

[tonyrey]

• In the spiritual realm nothing is random, nothing occurs by chance: God’s Kingdom has come, His Will is done, we are forgiven as we forgive others and we are liberated from evil…*

To believe that God is contingent** upon **a reason implies that the reason exists independently! This assumption reflects an atomistic view of reality that needs justification because God is defined as He Who Is, the Creator, the First Cause and the Final End - “in Whom we live, move and have our being”.

The flaw in your argument is that God could not have determined His own attributes - which puts the Creator in the same category as everything and everyone else! It is more reasonable to believe that Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty, Joy and Love are interdependent and converge in one Absolute, Perfect Being that our finite minds can never hope to explain or fully understand.

 

[SonCatcher]

This doesn’t seem to be a justified assertion.

If God’s nature is contingent, then God is contingent and therefore not Ultimate. If God’s nature is not contingent, then it is what it is without reason, cause, or purpose.

Another thought: consider the Triune nature of God. This seems fairly specific and I don’t see how it could be said that this is a necessary quality of God. One may argue that God is Triune, but I’ve not heard an argument that God must necessarily be Triune.

The Unity and Trinity of God are revealed. Neither is contingent but, again, lack of contingency does not necessitate a lack of reason or purpose. However, since God’s reason and purpose are infinite, it is not possible for a finite mind to grasp them. There have been many attempts through the ages to make this more acceptable (e.g. Aquinas). No one attempt is entirely sufficient, which is likely where your issue starts.

To illustrate my point a bit more, let’s take the example of Beauty:

Let’s say we define what is Beautiful by how much it reflects the nature of God. However, if God’s nature is without cause, reason, or purpose, then how we define what is Beautiful is ultimately without cause, reason, or purpose.

Beauty is a subjective quality. It does not follow to use subjective qualities in objective terms.

I’m probably using fuzzy terms here, so let me clarify. When I say that something possesses qualities “randomly” or “purely by chance” that is to say that there is no reason, cause, or purpose for which it possesses those qualities. So when we say that God is Triune, we say that God has a Triune nature either for some reason (in which case God would be contingent upon that reason) or for no reason (in which case God’s nature would be “random”).

We say God is Triune because this has been revealed (is that the “cause” you are looking for - the origin of the doctrine, as opposed to the fact itself?). There is reason and purpose for this which we are incapable of fully comprehending.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll take the question in two parts: is God self-defined and are God’s qualities logically necessary. To the first question, that language seems not to follow. Considering God as subsistent being itself leads to a different conclusion: that no cause could produce Him and no external reason can account for Him, because that cause or reason would itself have to participate in existence, and therefore existence itself would have to precede any cause that could produce it. From that we can conclude that existence itself exists for some reason inside itself. That does not seem to be the same as saying God is self-defined.

To your second question, God’s qualities such as love, justice, and goodness do seem to be logically necessary, because anything that participates in existence is participating in the ultimate nature of God. These things are expressions of existent reality and the ultimate nature of that is God. Therefore God is the ultimate nature of love, justice, goodness, beauty, etc.

Writing at the same time we reached the same conclusions!

 

[ngill09]

I’ll take the question in two parts: is God self-defined and are God’s qualities logically necessary. To the first question, that language seems not to follow. Considering God as subsistent being itself leads to a different conclusion: that no cause could produce Him and no external reason can account for Him, because that cause or reason would itself have to participate in existence, and therefore existence itself would have to precede any cause that could produce it. From that we can conclude that existence itself exists for some reason inside itself. That does not seem to be the same as saying God is self-defined.

To your second question, God’s qualities such as love, justice, and goodness do seem to be logically necessary, because anything that participates in existence is participating in the ultimate nature of God. These things are expressions of existent reality and the ultimate nature of that is God. Therefore God is the ultimate nature of love, justice, goodness, beauty, etc.

The first part I agree with completely. In fact, this question I’m posing is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out that existence is either self-sufficient in some way or ultimately random. Positing God as an answer to the ultimate meaninglessness of the universe does not really address the problem unless you can also show that God’s nature is logically necessary.

However, I think your second part is circular. You seem to be saying that God has the qualities of love, justice, and goodness because God is the ultimate nature of love, justice, and goodness. These qualities still seem to be arbitrary or random.

To believe that God is contingent** upon **a reason implies that the reason exists independently! This assumption reflects an atomistic view of reality that needs justification because God is defined as He Who Is, the Creator, the First Cause and the Final End - “in Whom we live, move and have our being”.

The flaw in your argument is that God could not have determined His own attributes - which puts the Creator in the same category as everything and everyone else! It is more reasonable to believe that Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty, Joy and Love are interdependent and converge in one Absolute, Perfect Being that our finite minds can never hope to explain or fully understand.

Not sure what you’re saying here. You seem to be asserting jargon.

The Unity and Trinity of God are revealed. Neither is contingent but, again, lack of contingency does not necessitate a lack of reason or purpose. However, since God’s reason and purpose are infinite, it is not possible for a finite mind to grasp them. There have been many attempts through the ages to make this more acceptable (e.g. Aquinas). No one attempt is entirely sufficient, which is likely where your issue starts.

Beauty is a subjective quality. It does not follow to use subjective qualities in objective terms.

We say God is Triune because this has been revealed (is that the “cause” you are looking for - the origin of the doctrine, as opposed to the fact itself?). There is reason and purpose for this which we are incapable of fully comprehending.

My understanding of the term “contingent” is that it is defined such that something is “contingent” iff it has a purpose, cause, or reason external to itself. It doesn’t really matter if God is contingent upon some external “infinite reason” (whatever that means), that would still make God a contingent being.

I agree that Beauty is subjective but several people seem to have been claiming that Beauty exists by some objective standard and I’m just rolling with it.

I’m referring to the fact, not the doctrine. I take it as given that God is Triune, rather than Diune or Quadrune. The question is why God is Triune in fact. If God has a reason for being Triune, then God is contingent upon that reason. If God does not have a reason for being Triune, then God is triune for no reason or purpose, i.e. “randomly”. The possible out here is that it is logically necessary for God to be Triune, but I don’t see how that is the case.

 

[tonyrey]

To believe that God is contingent* upon ***

A facile evasion! Which terms are “jargon”?

 

[SonCatcher]

My understanding of the term “contingent” is that it is defined such that something is “contingent” iff it has a purpose, cause, or reason external to itself. It doesn’t really matter if God is contingent upon some external “infinite reason” (whatever that means), that would still make God a contingent being.
…
I’m referring to the fact, not the doctrine. I take it as given that God is Triune, rather than Diune or Quadrune. The question is why God is Triune in fact. If God has a reason for being Triune, then God is contingent upon that reason. If God does not have a reason for being Triune, then God is triune for no reason or purpose, i.e. “randomly”. The possible out here is that it is logically necessary for God to be Triune, but I don’t see how that is the case.

I think I see the problem.

God is completely fulfilled within Himself. That is why He has no need for us nor any part of Creation. There are no external reasons at all. The lack of external reason not not equate to a total lack of reason.

The reason I referred to is within Himself. Indeed, that is why such reason could be infinite in the first place.

 

[dmar198]

The first part I agree with completely. In fact, this question I’m posing is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out that existence is either self-sufficient in some way or ultimately random.

Quite true. It is either self-sufficient or random, and although we can’t completely unpack the what the Ipsum Esse Subsistens implies, we can know that it is not random, because by definition it has to have the reason for its own existence within itself.

However, I think your second part is circular. You seem to be saying that God has the qualities of love, justice, and goodness because God is the ultimate nature of love, justice, and goodness. These qualities still seem to be arbitrary or random.

I can understand your confusion. What I am trying to say is that God has the qualities of love, justice and goodness because God is the ultimate nature of existence and those things are expressions of existence.

If God does not have a reason for being Triune, then God is triune for no reason or purpose, i.e. “randomly”. The possible out here is that it is logically necessary for God to be Triune, but I don’t see how that is the case.

He does have a reason for being triune, but I don’t think we CAN know what it is. That’s just part of the mystery of God which we would be fools to think we could grasp.

 

[ngill09]

I think I see the problem.

God is completely fulfilled within Himself. That is why He has no need for us nor any part of Creation. There are no external reasons at all. The lack of external reason not not equate to a total lack of reason.

The reason I referred to is within Himself. Indeed, that is why such reason could be infinite in the first place.

So God defines His own nature?