Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tackattack]

---

You have still to explain WHY God has a specific nature, which was my question.

Why do you have a personality?

Non-sequitur. I'm not an infinite being, nor do I possess the ability to go against the laws of nature to which I am bound. My personality is largely irrelevant and a bad analogy.

---

1. You didn't answer my question. I asked you why God has a nature, not if he HAS to have a nature. Why does God have a particular nature instead of no nature or a different nature?
2. First, I'm not alleging that I'm the author of my being, or the author of the natural laws I'm bound by. I'm a finite being, which isn't a good analogy. I'm asking if God can do things like lie and create a squared circle, and if not, why not?
3. What constructs have to be in place in order for a being such as God to have an effective will rather than an ineffective will? It is assumed God is the creator, but why is this so?
4. So why is he bound by a nature if there isn't anything he can't do?

Is there anything about God's existence that distinguishes him from being non-existent? Not that I can currently measure.

So if there isn't a way that God is distinguishable as being existent, how can you make the claim that he exists? Is there any good reason or argument you can put forth that would convey such a thing?

1- Why does God have one nature as opposed to another nature or anything nature at all? As an entity it's defined by having a definite, individual existence and is real in itself. Surely God believes God is real.

That made no sense and didn't answer the question, but it could be that I just didn't understand it properly. Can you rephrase it please?

2- I suppose God could lie or create a square circle, yes.

So why doesn't he?

3a-I'm tired you're going to have to define "effective will" and "ineffective will" for me please.

Effective will = God wills something and it happens, something akin to Genesis 1.
Ineffective will = God wills something and it doesn't happen.

What constructs have to be in place in order for things to follow God's will?

3b-The Judeo God is considered the creator because design is seen in nature and the Bible states he created.

So the Christian God is the creator because Christian doctrine says so.

4-I don't think God is bound by the "laws of nature" but bound by his nature as an entity, you're confusing the definition.

WHY is God bound to a necessary nature?

Keep in mind I'm assuming for the sake of argument that God is the author of natural law. It would not follow that he would have to be bound by a specific nature if he is in fact a prescribing force.

---

1- By the very definition of the word entity, all entities must have a definite, individual existence and is real in itself. The definition of personal nature is a set of inherit characteristics. If God is an entity and a consciousness then he has a self-identity and thus would have a nature. Is the nature I espouse 100% correct? I have no clue, it's a presumptions based on what little I observe, but a nature none-the-less.

2- Because it isn't in his nature or character. Why would he build laws and rules and then go break them.. is your presumption of his malevolence transparent yet.

3a- OK I think I understand the question now. I believe God has an effective will. You're asking what has to be in place for this to be so? Well I would guess logically that he would have to have somewhere and somehow to effect. Within the laws of the known universe he would also have to have something to create from (matter or energy). Is that what you're talking about?

3b- If you want a more generic answer. In the context of a creator, one can either create from inside and allow to grow outside your control or from outside and maintain that perspective. Since the topic of creation is chronologically prior to the creation of causality, the latter is logically the likely case. The most common concept for a creator is to call it god. The concept has evolved over the centuries and different sects of different religions attribute certain abilities and things to it and sometimes diversify it's attributes to multiple deities. As long as there is a question as to the how and why things got started, there will be a creator concept.

4- Just as the self has a nature, anything with a self-identity has a nature of who they are. Regardless of the effective power of said entity, it can't be anything other than what it is without denying self. An ant can only be an ant, A person can only be a person, etc.

---

It's shorter than an explicative definition and similar to love if love had an absolute moral true.

Just what is your definition of God's unique blend of love then?

You're still not changing your perspective. I'll use my hillbilly speak for this.

If you can't convince me otherwise regarding the Biblical God's apparent immorality through educated premises then you need to go back and rethink your argument, not start making uneducated guesses about its supposed nature.

Y'all okay with that?

---

1-love = a conditional and mercurial intense affection for another person based on familial or personal ties
God's Love = unconditional and self sacrificing-patience, kindness, truth seeking. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It's not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs and it never fails. Always seeks the best interests and a closeness with those who accept that love.
2- What you didn't like the abridged version? Well what I was pointing out was that it wasn't through neglect . It was intentional.. God thought eternity was important enough to let us know about it, by sending a part of himself to suffer human intolerance, ignorance and hatred and then die horribly for the glimmer of hope that mankind would listen. In the end, from an omnificent perspective, it will be worth it.

---

Saying we as mankind are sinners does not mean he created us to sin.

Well Tacky,that's one of those paradoxes so beloved of Jesuit sophists.

The Abrahamic God has the infinite qualities of omniscience. omnipotence and omnipresence. That means he knew precisely how each human being would behave before it was created. Predestination abrogates free will.

The answer of the sophists I was given at school was " knowing what will happen is not the same as making it happen". However,a better answer than the all time favourite Catholic response to difficult questions: "It's a mystery of faith"

While we're on free will: IF I'm given two choices, the outcome of one being truly splendid,and the other truly horrible, (such as heaven or hell) that is coercion. . "Believe in me and obey me or I'll hurt you" is bullying,the opposite of allowing free will. YHWH stacked the deck.

---

My answering of your questions is neither 'specious' nor 'deceptive' nor do I stand to gain anything from sharing with you my interpretation. You labeling of sophist doesn't stand in my book. Predestination only abrogates free will when the perspectives are equal, which I've said they're not. I would never say it's a mystery of faith, that's ridonculous (intentional sp?).
Knowing and actions aren't the same at all, do you deny that? That's why theism is a choice as opposed to atheism. You can choose to believe in something either splendid or horrible after you die, or be left with a null stance. How exactly is it coercion or bullying? If I told you it was raining outside and you didn't believe me and went outside and got wet, then decided to stay outside because you denied the rain would you say I coerced/bullied you into going outside by the mere fact you're by nature impetuous and willful (not anyone specifically just a question)?