The Necessarily Random Nature of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter ngill09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So God defines His own nature?
It is more correct to say that God IS His own nature. This is what St. Thomas was trying to say when he said that God’s essence is His existence, while in the rest of us our existence is separate from our essence. You should read a translation of St. Thomas’ De Ente et Essentia. It is available online in English and it goes into some of this stuff in pretty good depth.
 
It is more correct to say that God IS His own nature. This is what St. Thomas was trying to say when he said that God’s essence is His existence, while in the rest of us our existence is separate from our essence. You should read a translation of St. Thomas’ De Ente et Essentia. It is available online in English and it goes into some of this stuff in pretty good depth.
I’ll do that. Got any other theological/apologetic recommendations?
 
I’ll do that. Got any other theological/apologetic recommendations?
To be honest, this stuff is some pretty rareified air, honestly. Even the thick books get thin around this area. Do a Google Book search for theology books that include commentary on De Ente Et Essentia and you’ll encounter some thinkers who know more than I do about this stuff (which isn’t saying much since I only know enough to get in trouble and answer some basic questions).
 
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?
It is not “just by chance” that God is good. “Goodness” holds it’s shape. To say that God is good by mere chance…is to say that stone building is not blowing away on the breeze just by accident.

God’s essence is why He Is. Didn’t you ever notice all the mentions of God Law leading to Life in the Bible?
God’s Law is wise and a path of life.
 
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.
Since English is not my first language, my head kinda overheats when I start thinking in it about philosophy 😃 . What I might say is, that if we consider every negative characteristic, every negative value to be just an absence of its positive opposite (in the way darkness is just an absence of light, not a value in and of itself), we could conclude, that God not only possesses some positive values (goodness, truth, beauty,…), but that God possesses every (maybe even infinite number of them) positive value, including some, let’s say x-ness, that we as human beings are not able to perceive. In this way, God’s nature is not random, but absolutely positive. This seems to me to be logical and it would not be random.
 
Arbitrariness suggests a lack of knowledge or understanding about something, so that we don’t know how certain things come about.* But since God lacks nothing, and nothing exists outside of God’s will, including goodness, then we can’t say God is only arbitrarily good, since it is only by His Nature that we even know what goodness is in the first place.*

It’s like asking the question, is the color blue only arbitrarily blue?* The question makes no sense because you can’t judge the concept of “blueness” by it own definition, because it’s the definition that gives it any meaning.

In the same way, you can’t say that God is good simply by a lucky dice roll, because you are using the concept of goodness to measure the cause that breathes meaning into the concept of goodness to begin with.

Say a man was born blind and had no concept of colors.* Yet for just one instance, he saw the color blue.* If you then ask him the question, was it the color blue you saw, or only a partially blue color?** He would have no idea what you were asking, because the only color he knows is blue, and the only concept of color he has is “blueness”.* Therefore all color is blue as is the meaning of color itself.*

A partially blue color is a non-starter, in the same way an all good God is only arbitrarily good.

Another example is the age-old, oft-repeated (ad nauseum) question, can God make a square circle?* Or in other words, is the “circle-ness” God made only arbitrarily round?* The question makes no clear sense because the concept of circle-ness is what makes a circle round by definition.* Therefore a circle cannot be arbitrarily round, it is definitely round.* Therefore God does not make square circles because God does not contradict the meanings of the concepts He creates and ultimately defines.
.

When we ask why something happens, there’s two ways you can answer that question, 1) with a physical explanation, or 2) a personal explanation.* So if we ask why, for instance, that water is boiling, we can say that because the physical properties of water are affected by the increase of heat until the molecular bonds are broken and water vapor is the result.* Or, we could simply say that it is boiling because I wanted to make some tea.* Both are valid explanations.* One explanation is physical, the other is personal.*

And since there is no physical explanation why the universe exists (since there was nothing physical or material to produce it), then we are only left with a personal one.*

Because a Good God, who needs absolutely nothing, willed to create it, in an incredible, inconceivable act of benevolence.* And I think that can be the only explanation.
 
You’re misunderstanding what I’ve said. This is not the Euthyphro Dilemma. This is about the nature of God.
 
You’re misunderstanding what I’ve said. This is not the Euthyphro Dilemma. This is about the nature of God.
Your OP is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

Uncaused =/= arbitrary.

Any conclusion based on this premise is invalid.
 
Your OP is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

Uncaused =/= arbitrary.

Any conclusion based on this premise is invalid.
Having qualities without cause or reason makes those qualities random by any definition I know (notice the title).
 
Having qualities without cause or reason makes those qualities random by any definition I know (notice the title).
So you say. Do you anything more official that supports this definition?
From Dictionary.com
adjective
  1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
  2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
  3. Building Trades. a. (of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
    b. (of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
    c. constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.
  4. Informal. a. unknown, unidentified, or out of place: A couple of random guys showed up at the party.
    b. odd and unpredictable in an amusing way: my totally random life.
  1. God is not lacking aim, reason or pattern.
  2. God is not subject to probability
  3. God is not contruction material
  4. God is know and clearly not out of place.
Your OP claim is what is truely random.
 
So you say. Do you anything more official that supports this definition?
From Dictionary.com
  1. God is not lacking aim, reason or pattern.
  2. God is not subject to probability
  3. God is not contruction material
  4. God is know and clearly not out of place.
Your OP claim is what is truely random.
Actually God was not made by any reason or purpose if God is a non-contingent being. I need only ask “For what purpose was God made?” to which you would no doubt reply “God was not made at all” and that leads necessarily to “If God was not made, then God was not made for any purpose” which matches definition 1.
 
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?
God does not exist; God is Being Itself, and therefore requires no “reason” for existing. Rationale, causality, reality, and existence derive themselves from God being God. There aren’t actually any words we can use to describe this. He is so “Being” that He cannot be trapped in our abstract categories. His Principality and Necessity are so absolute that all existence is In Him.

To require a reason for God’s existence is to make a category mistake. His existence is the cause of causality, and the reason that anything has a reason behind it. Now I’ve used the word so many times that it’s lost all meaning. Isn’t that annoying? 😛
 
Actually God was not made by any reason or purpose if God is a non-contingent being. I need only ask “For what purpose was God made?” to which you would no doubt reply “God was not made at all” and that leads necessarily to “If God was not made, then God was not made for any purpose” which matches definition 1.
I don’t believe you.
If God not made, definition 1. cannot apply and has no bearing on the OP.
 
So you say. Do you anything more official that supports this definition?
From Dictionary.com
  1. God is not lacking aim, reason or pattern.
  2. God is not subject to probability
  3. God is not contruction material
  4. God is know and clearly not out of place.
Your OP claim is what is truely random.
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 said:
Having qualities without cause or reason
 
Dishonest quoting for humorous effect does not make an argument.
Well your “argument” was nothing more than a series of assertions. However, I’m thankful that you went ahead and summarized the absurdity of those assertions in your first statement “God does not exist”.
 
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?
God Is. He is “He Who Is.” Everything that exists, including reason, logic, and your thoughts, whether purposeful or random, exists for God’s purposes. So to say that all of existence ultimately devolves into mere chance is precisely to leave God out of the picture, which, given my previous sentence, is absurd.

The nature of God is Love. Love is not random, Love is purposeful. Therefore it is the nature of God to create for a purpose, namely, Love. When choosing a purpose for which to create, then, God has nothing from which to choose but Himself, and His nature is Love; therefore, the purpose of Creation is Love. Love is not random, therefore Creation is not random, nor purposeless.

To hold that it is by mere chance that God has the nature of Love is to place the supposed occurrence of mere chance events before Love. When Love alone existed, all was Love, not purposeless. So where is there room for “chance?” “Chance” is merely a human perception of a cause not traceable by us. We roll dice, and we call the outcome “chance,” but in actuality, the outcome of any roll of dice is entirely determined, not random. We only see it as random because we have no algorithm of prediction. But if we could see it from God’s perspective, it would not seem random at all, it would be a matter of cause and effect. The dice roll precisely as determined by their weight, shape, throwing surface, initial orientation, force and direction of throw, etc. All the factors are known to God, so what about it is random? Truly, nothing at all. So if there is nothing at all random, in reality, even about a roll of dice, how can you seriously apply our evidently flawed concept of randomness to He who knows all things?

God is Who He Is. His nature is Love. This is the deepest of all mysteries in the universe, so it should not be too surprising if it is difficult to grasp. But it is a grave error to take that which is difficult to grasp, and assign an explanation for it, “out of a hat,” as it were. In this, I agree with a previous poster who said it is not God who is random, but rather your thoughts that are random. You appear to be grasping at straws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top