The Necessarily Random Nature of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter ngill09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I realize that my original post is dealing with some pretty difficult language but it nevertheless frustrates me that I’m so frequently misunderstood. At least one other person who posted in this thread understood what I was talking about and addressed my actual point, so I know I’m not being incomprehensible.

So, to illustrate: Why is God’s nature Love? If your answer is anything like “It just is that way”, then I rest my case.
 
I realize that my original post is dealing with some pretty difficult language but it nevertheless frustrates me that I’m so frequently misunderstood. At least one other person who posted in this thread understood what I was talking about and addressed my actual point, so I know I’m not being incomprehensible.

So, to illustrate: Why is God’s nature Love? If your answer is anything like “It just is that way”, then I rest my case.
Ask yourself: what would your nature be, if you were God?
 
If I were God I wouldn’t be me, therefore it would be a contradiction.

Answer my question.
The answer to your question is contained in your actual answer to my question, which is by no means unanswerable.

And in my opinion, you need to take more seriously your responsibility for yourself. How do you know you’re not God? What if you are? Would your actions be different than they have been, if you were to discover that all along, you’ve been God?
 
The answer to your question is contained in your actual answer to my question, which is by no means unanswerable.

And in my opinion, you need to take more seriously your responsibility for yourself. How do you know you’re not God? What if you are? Would your actions be different than they have been, if you were to discover that all along, you’ve been God?
I think we have very different definitions of what God is.
 
I realize that my original post is dealing with some pretty difficult language but it nevertheless frustrates me that I’m so frequently misunderstood. At least one other person who posted in this thread understood what I was talking about and addressed my actual point, so I know I’m not being incomprehensible.

So, to illustrate: Why is God’s nature Love? If your answer is anything like “It just is that way”, then I rest my case.
Consider God determining His own Nature. How does He determine it? Since He is God, is He not free to choose any Nature He wants? Or does He have to determine it some other way?

Your original thesis is akin to asserting that God has a Nature-determining coin, which He flips, and if it comes up heads, His Nature will be Love, and if it comes up tails, His Nature will be Hate. What if He prefers Love? What if the coin comes up tails, and God would have preferred it to come up heads? Is He then bound to choose to be Hate rather than Love because of the coin flip? Is there some police force monitoring God’s decisions, there to arrest Him if He chooses to ignore the coin flip and be Love anyway, even thought the random command says He must be Hate? These are the absurd conclusions that arise from your initial assumption that God’s Nature is Necessarily Random.

Do you have a personal preference, or is it indifferent to you whether you experience Love or Hate?

If you are created in God’s image and likeness, do you suppose that God would somehow not have a personal preference?
 
Consider God determining His own Nature. How does He determine it? Since He is God, is He not free to choose any Nature He wants? Or does He have to determine it some other way?

Your original thesis is akin to asserting that God has a Nature-determining coin, which He flips, and if it comes up heads, His Nature will be Love, and if it comes up tails, His Nature will be Hate. What if He prefers Love? What if the coin comes up tails, and God would have preferred it to come up heads? Is He then bound to choose to be Hate rather than Love because of the coin flip? Is there some police force monitoring God’s decisions, there to arrest Him if He chooses to ignore the coin flip and be Love anyway, even thought the random command says He must be Hate? These are the absurd conclusions that arise from your initial assumption that God’s Nature is Necessarily Random.

Do you have a personal preference, or is it indifferent to you whether you experience Love or Hate?

If you are created in God’s image and likeness, do you suppose that God would somehow not have a personal preference?
If God chooses His own nature, then His nature is arbitrary. Unless there is some reason more basic and ultimate than God Himself by which He chooses to be Love rather than Hate.

Personally, I prefer love over hate, but that is partially because I have been created by a biological process which favors cooperation over disunity.
 
If God chooses His own nature, then His nature is arbitrary. Unless there is some reason more basic and ultimate than God Himself by which He chooses to be Love rather than Hate.

Personally, I prefer love over hate, but that is partially because I have been created by a biological process which favors cooperation over disunity.
Are your choices arbitrary?
 
If God chooses His own nature, then His nature is arbitrary. Unless there is some reason more basic and ultimate than God Himself by which He chooses to be Love rather than Hate.
How does God choose is own nature? God said that “I am who am”. There is no choosing involved.
Again it seems you are beating up on a strawman.
Personally, I prefer love over hate, but that is partially because I have been created by a biological process which favors cooperation over disunity.
Since all are sinners, despite this principle, all have ocassionaly chosen hate over love.
 
Are your choices arbitrary?
In some cases, yes. In other cases, they are influenced by my nature and reality. But I am a being contingent on my surroundings, experience, and nature. God is not contingent upon anything.

From dictionary.com:

Arbitrary: 1. based on a random choice or personal whim, rather than on any reason or system.

This definition gives us two options about God’s nature. If God chooses his own nature without any reason or system, then his nature is arbitrary. If God’s nature is based on a reason or system, then that reason or system is the ultimate authority, not God.
 
In some cases, yes. In other cases, they are influenced by my nature and reality. But I am a being contingent on my surroundings, experience, and nature. God is not contingent upon anything.

From dictionary.com:

Arbitrary: 1. based on a random choice or personal whim, rather than on any reason or system.

This definition gives us two options about God’s nature. If God chooses his own nature without any reason or system, then his nature is arbitrary. If God’s nature is based on a reason or system, then that reason or system is the ultimate authority, not God.
This is called the logical falacy of the false dicotomy. You claim is rejected on this basis.
 
In some cases, yes. In other cases, they are influenced by my nature and reality. But I am a being contingent on my surroundings, experience, and nature. God is not contingent upon anything.

From dictionary.com:

Arbitrary: 1. based on a random choice or personal whim, rather than on any reason or system.

This definition gives us two options about God’s nature. If God chooses his own nature without any reason or system, then his nature is arbitrary. If God’s nature is based on a reason or system, then that reason or system is the ultimate authority, not God.
God’s choices are not random, and God is consistent in His Will, not subject to “whims.” So, this definition of “arbitrary” which you have provided wouldn’t apply to God.
 
This is called the logical falacy of the false dicotomy. You claim is rejected on this basis.
It’s not a false dichotomy unless there is a third option, which you would need to demonstrate.
 
God’s choices are not random, and God is consistent in His Will, not subject to “whims.” So, this definition of “arbitrary” which you have provided wouldn’t apply to God.
If I understand you correctly, you’re using circular reasoning.

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

Round and around.

What is the basis by which God makes His decisions? His nature. And what is His nature based on?

Either His will, which would be circular, or nothing, which would make his nature arbitrary or random.
 
If I understand you correctly, you’re using circular reasoning.

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

Round and around.

What is the basis by which God makes His decisions? His nature. And what is His nature based on?

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

CCC said:
God alone IS

212
Over the centuries, Israel’s faith was able to manifest and deepen realization of the riches contained in the revelation of the divine name. God is unique; there are no other gods besides him.24 He transcends the world and history. He made heaven and earth: "They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. . . .but you are the same, and your years have no end."25 In God "there is no variation or shadow due to change."26 God is “HE WHO IS”, from everlasting to everlasting, and as such remains ever faithful to himself and to his promises.
213 The revelation of the ineffable name “I AM WHO AM” contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church’s Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.
 
You paradigm is faulty.
For the last time, why is God WHO HE IS? Saying “God is who He is” does not come close to answering that question.

And yes, you can’t just accuse me of making a false dichotomy if you’re unwilling to show how it is false. My dichotomy is “either God’s nature is arbitrary or it is not.” Last time I checked, that was a valid logical statement.
 
If I understand you correctly, you’re using circular reasoning.

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

Round and around.

What is the basis by which God makes His decisions? His nature. And what is His nature based on?
His nature is the only possible ultimate nature, the same one in which all existent things participate. The reason His nature isn’t otherwise than what it is is because no other nature is possible in the Ipsum Esse Subsistens. Does that solve your difficulty?
 
His nature is the only possible ultimate nature, the same one in which all existent things participate. The reason His nature isn’t otherwise than what it is is because no other nature is possible in the Ipsum Esse Subsistens. Does that solve your difficulty?
Yes, your first response was good and makes sense. Now I’m trying to get everyone else to get there 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top