God's Nature and character

[Simon Moon]

I've heard from just about every apologist that God is omnipotent, as long as it doesn't conflict with his nature and/or character.

This leads to a question.

Where does God get his nature and character from?

If he provides himself with his own nature and character, why can't he change them?

[ShaMan]

[Mudhammam]

So, I don't ascribe to belief in anything that I'd consider deserving of the title God proper, but I'll take a crack at your question as if I were trying to formulate a rational framework by which I might call belief in God intelligible.

As philosophers have long argued, God is a necessary being--scratch that though, I don't like the application of being here, so call it "essence" of... the supremely mysterious), so its (again, I can't being myself to attach a gender title to this essence of something greater than the Universe) source of omnipotence lies in the nature of its own existence. That is to say, "nothing" as in the non-existence of everything is a meaningless concept. Something must exist, and this something is an essence that within its omnipotence can bring forth material actualities such as time, space, energy, and matter. The omnipotence of this essence exists in a state of duality between actuality and potentiality, and given its existence outside of time, or at least any conception of time we can perceive, this duality appears utterly contradictory. But like the Universe does not bend to our notions of rationality, neither can we strictly apply them to the supremely mysterious essence we call God.

Well, I said I'd take a shot, so don't hold me to any of that too seriously.

[John V]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent?s=t

[Simon Moon]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent?s=t

That means that not only can't God do anything that is not in his character and nature, but now he is not even responsible for his own character and nature.


So, God's omnipotence seems like it continues to lose the 'omni' part.

Got it.

[ShaMan]

Would a 'perfectly just' god condemn someone for the crime of another. That, to me, seems like the epitome of injustice.

[John V]

That means that not only can't God do anything that is not in his character and nature, but now he is not even responsible for his own character and nature.


So, God's omnipotence seems like it continues to lose the 'omni' part.

Got it.

Doesn't bother me. As I noted to Robby in another thread, most Bibles don't even have the word omnipotent.

[Welsh cake]

How can god be god if he didn't create anything?

The universe, i.e. reality has always existed in some shape or form. Existence means to exist. This is a constant. It cannot be created nor destroyed, it just changes constantly. Its nonsensical to say "it all happened before time", you cannot have a 'before the big bang'. Maths, logic and planck time all break down when you try to apply them before this event.

At the grand unification epoch the fundamental forces were meaningless, antimatter and matter coexisted, they could not react with each other.

So basically monotheists have to accept the universe is the same age as its creator.

But what they are doing is giving baggage to the word "universe" and looking to substitute it with the label "god".

They are essentially trying to personify reality as their god, no differently than Pagans personified attributes of nature as their gods.

Its sad that in desperate emotional need to get that "cozy warm feeling" that something is watching over you, they've chosen to ignore the real and true wonder of the vast cosmos that is staring at them in the face.

[John V]

Would a 'perfectly just' god condemn someone for the crime of another. That, to me, seems like the epitome of injustice.

God didn't condemn someone for the crime of another. Jesus volunteered.

[Mudhammam]

How can god be god if he didn't create anything?

The universe, i.e. reality has always existed in some shape or form. Existence means to exist. This is a constant. It cannot be created nor destroyed, it just changes constantly. Its nonsensical to say "it all happened before time", you cannot have a 'before the big bang'. Maths, logic and planck time all break down when you try to apply them before this event.

At the grand unification epoch the fundamental forces were meaningless, antimatter and matter coexisted, they could not react with each other.

So basically monotheists have to accept the universe is the same age as its creator.

But what they are doing is giving baggage to the word "universe" and looking to substitute it with the label "god".

They are essentially trying to personify reality as their god, no differently than Pagans personified attributes of nature as their gods.

Its sad that in desperate emotional need to get that "cozy warm feeling" that something is watching over you, they've chosen to ignore the real and true wonder of the vast cosmos that is staring at them in the face.

What perplexes me is the idea of the cosmic trigger, the appearance of a force so powerful that everything, including ourselves, are still literally in motion because of it. I agree it doesn't make much sense to speak of "before time" until time is better understood, though I can conceive, hypothetically in the abstract, that other modes of existence under different laws of time might be possible. But that trigger, which transformed the state of existence from a timeless void of sorts to a space in which matter and energy interact to eventually create intelligent beings that can comprehend this magnificant series of events, is where one might take comfort in the notion of an essence worthy of the title, "God" (again, not saying I do).