The Necessarily Random Nature of God

[SonCatcher]

“God’s qualities occurring without reason” is not the same as “God’s qualities occurring without reason”?

That is not an acceptable paraphrase of either definition.

Indeed, where do you get off complaining about my definition?
Your definition:

adjective

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.

"My definition:

Having qualities without cause or reason

“Occur” means to come into existence. Since God did not “occur,” He is (i.e. without beginning), the first definition above does not apply to Him.

The second definition, oddly, seems compatible with the concept of eternity. Unfortunately, as “randomness” requires a beginning, it is not an acceptable definition of that word and you must coin a new one.

Further, you have still not justified your claim that god’s qualities are without reason, despite sound . I move that word be stricken from the definition.

What we have left is “having qualities without cause.” Perhaps we could use the word “uncaused.”

I think we have very different definitions of what God is.

So it seems. Throughout the entire conversation, you have described God in temporal terms.

 

[dmar198]

That is not an acceptable paraphrase of either definition.

“Occur” means to come into existence. Since God did not “occur,” He is (i.e. without beginning), the first definition above does not apply to Him.

The second definition, oddly, seems compatible with the concept of eternity. Unfortunately, as “randomness” requires a beginning, it is not an acceptable definition of that word and you must coin a new one.

Further, you have still not justified your claim that god’s qualities are without reason, despite sound . I move that word be stricken from the definition.

What we have left is “having qualities without cause.” Perhaps we could use the word “uncaused.”

So it seems. Throughout the entire conversation, you have described God in temporal terms.

I refer you to the fact that ngill09 has already agreed that the classic definition of God is sensible – at least as far as this thread is concerned. It therefore seems unnecessary to prolong the discussion any further. Do you agree? (And see the quote where he agreed to that below.)

Yes, your first response was good and makes sense. Now I’m trying to get everyone else to get there

 

[ngill09]

That is not an acceptable paraphrase of either definition.

“Occur” means to come into existence. Since God did not “occur,” He is (i.e. without beginning), the first definition above does not apply to Him.

The second definition, oddly, seems compatible with the concept of eternity. Unfortunately, as “randomness” requires a beginning, it is not an acceptable definition of that word and you must coin a new one.

Further, you have still not justified your claim that god’s qualities are without reason, despite sound . I move that word be stricken from the definition.

What we have left is “having qualities without cause.” Perhaps we could use the word “uncaused.”

So it seems. Throughout the entire conversation, you have described God in temporal terms.

Let’s ignore the definitions if they’re problematic for you. The words aren’t what’s important for me.

Do you agree that God has the nature he has for no reason and for no cause?

If so, then that is the point I’ve been trying to make: that God’s nature is the way it is for no reason.

If God does have the qualities he has for some reason or cause, then God is subordinate to that reason or cause.

It’s that simple.

Now, the good answer that has been provided is that God’s nature is necessary - that it would be logically impossible to be otherwise. While that needs to be expanded upon and justified, it’s pretty satisfying to the purposes of my OP.

 

[SonCatcher]

Let’s ignore the definitions if they’re problematic for you. The words aren’t what’s important for me.

Do you agree that God has the nature he has for no reason and for no cause?

If so, then that is the point I’ve been trying to make: that God’s nature is the way it is for no reason.

If God does have the qualities he has for some reason or cause, then God is subordinate to that reason or cause.

It’s that simple.

Now, the good answer that has been provided is that God’s nature is necessary - that it would be logically impossible to be otherwise. While that needs to be expanded upon and justified, it’s pretty satisfying to the purposes of my OP.

I agree His nature is without cause. However, I disagree with your use of the word “reason” here. If you refer to an external reason, that reason would necessarily be a cause, making use of that word redundant. I do think, as stated previously, that there is internal reason to God’s attributes, which is coeternal with Him and His attributes.

 

[dmar198]

Now, the good answer that has been provided is that God’s nature is necessary - that it would be logically impossible to be otherwise. While that needs to be expanded upon and justified, it’s pretty satisfying to the purposes of my OP.

I’m glad you see that. The understanding of God’s nature as the fullness of being, or the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, actually makes it a lot easier to justify qualities like love and justice and goodness as part of the nature of God, because the idea of “fullness of being” excludes any kind of potentiality.

• limited location – I am here right now but I could be over there later
• moral imperfection – I am being bad right now but I could be good later
• limited intellect – I don’t understand X right now but I might understand X later
• limited power – I can’t do everything but I can do some things.
  All these things would have to be unlimited in God – unlimited location (or omnipresence), unlimited moral perfection, unlimited intellect (or omniscience) and unlimited power (or omnipotence) – and the reason they would have to be unlimited is because God is the “fullness” of being. Everything that participates in reality, whether it’s power, or intellect, or perfection, or a particular location – all things have to be limited participations in the fullness of being that God is. If God decided not to be in some place, it would cease to exist, because when it is cut off from God, being itself has left it. Therefore any place that exists has to have God in it. If you carry that thought process out to its logical conclusion, you get a deity that knows everything, can do anything, is everywhere, and has absolute perfection in morality – and that is the classic understanding of God.

 

[ngill09]

I’m glad you see that. The understanding of God’s nature as the fullness of being, or the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, actually makes it a lot easier to justify qualities like love and justice and goodness as part of the nature of God, because the idea of “fullness of being” excludes any kind of potentiality.

• limited location – I am here right now but I could be over there later
• moral imperfection – I am being bad right now but I could be good later
• limited intellect – I don’t understand X right now but I might understand X later
• limited power – I can’t do everything but I can do some things.
  All these things would have to be unlimited in God – unlimited location (or omnipresence), unlimited moral perfection, unlimited intellect (or omniscience) and unlimited power (or omnipotence) – and the reason they would have to be unlimited is because God is the “fullness” of being. Everything that participates in reality, whether it’s power, or intellect, or perfection, or a particular location – all things have to be limited participations in the fullness of being that God is. If God decided not to be in some place, it would cease to exist, because when it is cut off from God, being itself has left it. Therefore any place that exists has to have God in it. If you carry that thought process out to its logical conclusion, you get a deity that knows everything, can do anything, is everywhere, and has absolute perfection in morality – and that is the classic understanding of God.

How does Hell fit into this, especially per the bolded?

 

[dmar198]

How does Hell fit into this, especially per the bolded?

Hell is included, fire and all. Fire, both in this world and in the next, participates in existence, and therefore God. In fact that has been a classic source of meditation in the Christian tradition – every creature, whether damned or blessed, is a creature that lives and moves and has its being in God. The reason the damned suffer is not because God is wholly absent, but because even in their hatred of God, they can’t escape Him. They feel His presence just as much as the blessed in heaven do; but they feel His justice in accordance with their guilt, and the blessed feel His justice in accordance with their righteousness.

 

[ngill09]

Hell is included, fire and all. Fire, both in this world and in the next, participates in existence, and therefore God. In fact that has been a classic source of meditation in the Christian tradition – every creature, whether damned or blessed, is a creature that lives and moves and has its being in God. The reason the damned suffer is not because God is wholly absent, but because even in their hatred of God, they can’t escape Him. They feel His presence just as much as the blessed in heaven do; but they feel His justice in accordance with their guilt, and the blessed feel His justice in accordance with their righteousness.

Ah, I’ve been hearing a lot of “Hell is the absence of God” stuff lately, so I was wondering how that fit in.

 

[PRmerger]

How does Hell fit into this, especially per the bolded?

Hell, as Catholic philospher Peter Kreeft proclaims, is nothing more than God’s love that is odious to the individual.

“The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.”

 

[SonCatcher]

dmar198;10698100:

Hell is included, fire and all. Fire, both in this world and in the next, participates in existence, and therefore God. In fact that has been a classic source of meditation in the Christian tradition – every creature, whether damned or blessed, is a creature that lives and moves and has its being in God. The reason the damned suffer is not because God is wholly absent, but because even in their hatred of God, they can’t escape Him. They feel His presence just as much as the blessed in heaven do; but they feel His justice in accordance with their guilt, and the blessed feel His justice in accordance with their righteousness.

Ah, I’ve been hearing a lot of “Hell is the absence of God” stuff lately, so I was wondering how that fit in.

The line of reasoning dmar posts is found more frequently among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox. It is not common in Western thinking, which is why you usually hear otherwise. Neither statement has been defined dogmatically so individual believers may adopt either reasoning.

 

[ngill09]

Hell, as Catholic philospher Peter Kreeft proclaims, is nothing more than God’s love that is odious to the individual.

“The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.”

So can you go to Hell without hating God?

*Yes, I realize we’re going way off topic but I don’t care.

 

[dmar198]

Ah, I’ve been hearing a lot of “Hell is the absence of God” stuff lately, so I was wondering how that fit in.

That’s because they don’t see the face of God. They still are present to His justice.

 

[PRmerger]

So can you go to Hell without hating God?

*Yes, I realize we’re going way off topic but I don’t care.

I don’t know. Strive to enter is what Jesus tells us.

I would say that anyone who chooses My Way rather than His Way is choosing to abhor the Light.

 

[Love4All]

If I understand you correctly,

You don’t.

you’re using circular reasoning.

Not.

“God’s nature is what He wills it to be. What God wills is consistent with His nature.”

Round and around.

You are driving a false wedge and creating a false dichotomy between God’s Nature and God’s Will. While God, remains utterly Simple.

What is the basis by which God makes His decisions?

Love.

His nature.

O.K., yes, God’s Nature is Love.

And what is His nature based on?

Love.

Either His will, which would be circular, or nothing, which would make his nature arbitrary or random.

Love is neither arbitrary nor random.

I pray that one day you’ll figure that out.

 

[ngill09]

You don’t.

Not.

You are driving a false wedge and creating a false dichotomy between God’s Nature and God’s Will. While God, remains utterly Simple.

Love.

O.K., yes, God’s Nature is Love.

Love.

Love is neither arbitrary nor random.

I pray that one day you’ll figure that out.

Right, so God is contingent upon Love, according to you. That’s fine.

 

[Love4All]

Right, so God is contingent upon Love, according to you. That’s fine.

No. God IS Love. There is no contingency in God. Love is the Necessary Being.

 

[ngill09]

No. God IS Love. There is no contingency in God. Love is the Necessary Being.

You do realize that Love is not a being, right?

 

[Love4All]

You do realize that Love is not a being, right?

How would one go about “realizing” such a statement? And to the point, why would one want to “realize” such a statement?

As a Catholic, I hold that God is Love, according to Saint John. And God is a Being, the Original Being in fact. Therefore Love is a Being, the Original Being in fact.

I am baffled as to why anyone would resist believing this. Can you clue me in? Thanks.

 

[ngill09]

How would one go about “realizing” such a statement? And to the point, why would one want to “realize” such a statement?

As a Catholic, I hold that God is Love, according to Saint John. And God is a Being, the Original Being in fact. Therefore Love is a Being, the Original Being in fact.

I am baffled as to why anyone would resist believing this. Can you clue me in? Thanks.

Is Jealousy a Being? Because God is Jealousy according to Himself (Exodus 34).

Love is not a person. It’s a trait, emotion, or experience.

 

[SonCatcher]

Right, so God is contingent upon Love, according to you. That’s fine.

You do realize that Love is not a being, right?

1 John 4:8
“God is love.”

No contingency there. (There is a contingency in the context, but it does not apply to God: “Whoever does not love does not know God.”)

Note, this is not transitive. One cannot say, “Love is God.” It is an identification, similar to “God is existence, itself” (to paraphrase one of the other thread contributors - I hope I understood the context properly).

Love, here, is not an emotion. It is the Greek “agape” or the Latin “caritas.”