# On the nature of God
**URL:** https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143
**Category:** Philosophy of Religion
**Created:** [May 28, 2026, 12:19am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143 "2026-05-28T00:19:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 10
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2026, 2:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/182 "2026-08-12T14:26:04Z")
> [@GregW](#):
>
> Would you try to change opinions about the rigidity of belief and resist settling on certain answers if the belief and answers are from you or your tribe?
I’m a lone thinker. I don’t have a tribe. Many of the forum members seem similar. It is one cost of being too serious about searching for truth, I think.
As for changing my personal beliefs, I love nothing more than having them attacked. It’s how I either make them stronger or else discard and replace them.
I don’t want faulty beliefs… beliefs which can’t survive examination.
> [@GregW](#):
>
> In post 159 of this thread, I explained to “180Proof” why I believe that God is not all powerful. He is perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His perfect power for evil, and He cannot use His perfect power to create perfection.
OK. For myself, I think that a belief in ‘evil’ tends to confuse us. I feel the same way about ‘perfect’. Those are terms which point to our personal opinions, not to things which exist out there in the cosmos.
In other words, there is no such objective thing as perfection. There is only an opinion by a human that a thing is perfect.
It seems necessarily so. Line up 100 people. Put an object in front of them. Then do a poll. Is the object perfect?
Of course, one of the 100 may insist that the object either is or isn’t perfect, but that is what we call a personal opinion.
> [@GregW](#):
>
> You may think that the guy you debated with knew too much about God, but he does not know too much about the natural sciences.
Yes. I’m saying that the reason he doesn’t know much about natural science is that he knows too much about God. He knows that God made everything in seven literal days. Therefore, the geologic column cannot contain evidence of evolution, no matter what his eyes tell him.
---
### Author:  [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2026, 6:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/183 "2026-08-12T18:28:55Z")
> [@GregW](#):
>
> What nature are you referring to? The nature of the natural world or the nature of God?
>
> WhoKnows:
Perhaps this is why you are unable to understand me.
I have not been arguing that there is “the nature of the natural world” as opposed to or different from “the nature of the creator of the natural world”.
> If so, then the good guys should be judged by the stories of their good actions.
If you feel that it is your place to judge, and that your judgement is sound, then that is your position to defend.
---
### Author:  [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2026, 6:56pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/184 "2026-08-12T18:56:04Z")
> **[On the nature of God](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143)**
The main problem with the OP is that it is more religious in context than philosophical.
For me, the word “God” does not invoke any particular religions ideas of what “God” is. Is is simply a word that - at its heart - denotes the idea of us existing within a created thing, therefore any sentient entity (or group of entities) which are responsible for the created thing, can be referred to as “God/Gods” and that is the philosophical position I take on the matter.
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2026, 7:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/185 "2026-08-12T19:45:17Z")
> [@GregW](#):
>
> [God] **cannot** use His perfect power to create perfection.
Explain why “perfect power” only creates _imperfection_.
---
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2026, 9:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/186 "2026-08-12T21:04:24Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> For me, the word “God” does not invoke any particular religions ideas of what “God” is. Is is simply a word that - at its heart - denotes the idea of us existing within a created thing, therefore any sentient entity (or group of entities) which are responsible for the created thing, can be referred to as “God/Gods” and that is the philosophical position I take on the matter.
Yeah, I debated religion for years, and that seems to be the fundamental concept underneath ‘God’-- for most people.
God is Whatever or Whoever got out of bed one morning and went to the trouble of creating this universe.
It’s just one of many concepts, of course, but in my experience, it is the most common one.
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 6:11am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/187 "2026-08-13T06:11:58Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > Would you try to change opinions about the rigidity of belief and resist settling on certain answers if the belief and answers are from you or your tribe?
>
> I’m a lone thinker. I don’t have a tribe. Many of the forum members seem similar. It is one cost of being too serious about searching for truth, I think.
>
> As for changing my personal beliefs, I love nothing more than having them attacked. It’s how I either make them stronger or else discard and replace them.
>
> I don’t want faulty beliefs… beliefs which can’t survive examination.
I concur.
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > In post 159 of this thread, I explained to “180Proof” why I believe that God is not all powerful. He is perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His perfect power for evil, and He cannot use His perfect power to create perfection.
>
> OK. For myself, I think that a belief in ‘evil’ tends to confuse us. I feel the same way about ‘perfect’. Those are terms which point to our personal opinions, not to things which exist out there in the cosmos.
>
> In other words, there is no such objective thing as perfection. There is only an opinion by a human that a thing is perfect.
>
> It seems necessarily so. Line up 100 people. Put an object in front of them. Then do a poll. Is the object perfect?
>
> Of course, one of the 100 may insist that the object either is or isn’t perfect, but that is what we call a personal opinion.
If there is no such objective thing as perfection, then are there such objective things as good, bad, virtue, and evil, or are they all personal opinions?
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > You may think that the guy you debated with knew too much about God, but he does not know too much about the natural sciences.
>
> Yes. I’m saying that the reason he doesn’t know much about natural science is that he knows too much about God. He knows that God made everything in seven literal days. Therefore, the geologic column cannot contain evidence of evolution, no matter what his eyes tell him.
I see the irony.
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 6:39am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/188 "2026-08-13T06:39:48Z")
I was unable to understand your statements, that’s why I needed to ask you these questions.
What morality have humans been confused about?
Based on what faulty moral assumptions have we been impeded from working out any creator’s nature?
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > What nature are you referring to? The nature of the natural world or the nature of God?
>
> Perhaps this is why you are unable to understand me.
> I have not been arguing that there is “the nature of the natural world” as opposed to or different from “the nature of the creator of the natural world”.
If you have not been arguing that there is “the nature of the natural world” as opposed to or different from “the nature of the creator of the natural world”, then what have you been arguing?
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> > If so, then the good guys should be judged by the stories of their good actions.
>
> If you feel that it is your place to judge, and that your judgement is sound, then that is your position to defend.
Okay?
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 6:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/189 "2026-08-13T06:57:05Z")
> [@180Proof](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > [God] **cannot** use His perfect power to create perfection.
>
> Explain why “perfect power” only creates _imperfection_.
Perfect power only creates imperfection because it cannot create perfection. Perfect things are not created by God. Perfect things are with God and a part of God.
---
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 2:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/190 "2026-08-13T14:32:45Z")
> [@GregW](#):
>
> If there is no such objective thing as perfection, then are there such objective things as good, bad, virtue, and evil, or are they all personal opinions?
Alas. When we look at it closely, how can we argue for objectivity?
If I say a thing is good, while you claim it is bad, then we either have differing personal opinions, or else one of us is a prophet of God, connected directly to God’s Perfect Opinion.
Down here on Earth, we can agree that humans are a social species and that the survival of humanity is a good thing. Then we can begin moral reasoning from a shared ground.
But what do we do with those who disagree with our premises? The anarchists-for-the-sake-of-anarchy, the nihilists?
These people have different opinions about the very ground of morality.
I see only two solutions.
1. We all agree on a particular prophet of God. A judge. A person who can inform us about what God really considers good and bad.
2. We can argue, openly and honestly, about what is good or bad.
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 4:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/191 "2026-08-13T16:11:55Z")
Well, that’s a tautology, Greg, not an explanation.
Imo, insofar as a “God” is _completely without needs_ (interests or concerns) it is “perfect” and therefore does not need to “create” or do anything at all.
---
### Author:  [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 7:51pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/192 "2026-08-13T19:51:02Z")
We cannot know the true nature of God, at best we can speculate and guess. I’d say that god is unchanging similar to Aristotle. I’d also add eternal too. Morality is a human interpretation for there’s no good or evil that can be bestowed upon god but men.
The problem of evil is a theological issue and it’s the price of free will rather than being an automaton. Perfect creation would only be possible if we were all angels or automatons.
the world is not perfect there’s natural disasters as well as man made wars. Neither of these are on god. Natural disasters are a way for god to delegate responsibility to its intelligent creatures such as mankind. Wars reveal mans worst aspects. Sometime ago these wars were carried in the name of god but with growing secularism there’s other reasons such as competition for reasources or self preservation.
---
### Author:  [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 8:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/193 "2026-08-13T20:03:08Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> Yeah, I debated religion for years, and that seems to be the fundamental concept underneath ‘God’-- for most people.
I don’t debate with religious people anymore.
> God is Whatever or Whoever got out of bed one morning and went to the trouble of creating this universe.
Humanly humourous.
> It’s just one of many concepts, of course, but in my experience, it is the most common one.
THe main thing is that if the word “God” is used, then many religious people (especially from the Abrahamic religions) assume one is talking about their idea of a creator.
I think that we exist within a created thing. Call it a simulation if you will - (I see no difference) - but I draw the line at accepting any religions claims about what the nature of the creator(s) are. We can deduce the nature of the creator(s), by examining the nature of the creation.
---
### Author:  [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 8:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/194 "2026-08-13T20:04:47Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> We can deduce the nature of the creator(s), by examining the nature of the creation.
Nature sometimes appears to be indifferent … would you ascribe this to god as well ?
---
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 10:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/195 "2026-08-13T22:06:35Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> I don’t debate with religious people anymore.
Oh, I love their minds very much. Fascinating.
But some say I am easily entertained.
More seriously, I study the observers along with the observed. If it’s the human mind which must explain the cosmos, then how does the human mind behave? What is the nature of the telescopes with which we observe the heavens.
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> THe main thing is that if the word “God” is used, then many religious people (especially from the Abrahamic religions) assume one is talking about their idea of a creator.
Sure. Most Americans probably assume that, even the non-religious.
So I like to challenge it. We change the language little by little.
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> I think that we exist within a created thing. Call it a simulation if you will - (I see no difference) - but I draw the line at accepting any religions claims about what the nature of the creator(s) are.
What evidence and arguments do you have for that view?
My leading hypothesis is that life moves in the direction of interest. Something like that. I haven’t found the right word formulation yet. Life explores.
I am more interested in life than in the rocks, I guess.
> [@WhoKnows](#):
>
> We can deduce the nature of the creator(s), by examining the nature of the creation.
Maybe we can deduce it, maybe not. We could be like the tick who’s trying to figure out human high tea etiquette. Maybe the tick is limited by its nature and just can’t ever do that.
But I agree that studying the creation seems like the only way. It gets messy, though. Someone may claim that his favorite prophet is part of creation, and the prophet can explain it all for us, with no more questions.
But if a prophet can’t foretell an eclipse as well as an astrophysicist, I’m going with the science guy.
---
### Author:  [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 11:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/196 "2026-08-13T23:02:19Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> What evidence and arguments do you have for that view?
None that is not available to anyone else.
But what I have peiced together is not for this particular thread subject. Now that I have been promoted in my membership status I plane to use the privilege to create threads re these.
> My leading hypothesis is that life moves in the direction of interest. Something like that. I haven’t found the right word formulation yet. Life explores.
Precisely. This aligns with what I wrote above. Without consciousness, there is no exploration or interest.
> I am more interested in life than in the rocks, I guess.
Rocks too, are interesting. Like I mentioned, without consciousness _interest_ is absent.
“Life” to me is consciousness - or more specifically within the context of the local environment currently begin experienced "Life is consciousness within form/formations.
---
### Author:  [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2026, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/197 "2026-08-13T23:06:03Z")
> [@invicta](#):
>
> Nature sometimes appears to be indifferent … would you ascribe this to god as well ?
Yes. The indifference would not through ignorance/non-consciousness.
I tend to think of nature as being the product of conscious creativity.
But the appearance of indifference may itself be a human misinterpretation.
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2026, 5:16am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/198 "2026-08-14T05:16:42Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > If there is no such objective thing as perfection, then are there such objective things as good, bad, virtue, and evil, or are they all personal opinions?
>
> Alas. When we look at it closely, how can we argue for objectivity?
>
> If I say a thing is good, while you claim it is bad, then we either have differing personal opinions, or else one of us is a prophet of God, connected directly to God’s Perfect Opinion.
>
> Down here on Earth, we can agree that humans are a social species and that the survival of humanity is a good thing. Then we can begin moral reasoning from a shared ground.
>
> But what do we do with those who disagree with our premises? The anarchists-for-the-sake-of-anarchy, the nihilists?
>
> These people have different opinions about the very ground of morality.
>
> I see only two solutions.
>
> 1. We all agree on a particular prophet of God. A judge. A person who can inform us about what God really considers good and bad.
>
> 2. We can argue, openly and honestly, about what is good or bad.
I see a third solution.
1. We can vote. We can let the majority inform us what is good and what is not good or what is just and what is unjust.
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2026, 5:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/199 "2026-08-14T05:57:52Z")
> [@GregW](#):
>
> > [@180Proof](#):
> >
> > > [@GregW](#):
> > >
> > > [God] **cannot** use His perfect power to create perfection.
> >
> > Explain why “perfect power” only creates _imperfection_.
>
> Perfect power only creates imperfection because it cannot create perfection. Perfect things are not created by God. Perfect things are with God and a part of God.
> [@180Proof](#):
>
> Well, that’s a tautology, Greg, not an explanation.
A tautologous explanation is a valid logical form.
> [@180Proof](#):
>
> Imo, insofar as a “God” is _completely without needs_ (interests or concerns) it is “perfect” and therefore does not need to “create” or do anything at all.
Although I too believe that God is completely without needs, I believe that God have desires. Imagine God, before Creation, in His perfection, eternal and unchanging. But perfection is static and sterile. The Creator of all things had the desire to create, and what He had created was good but not perfect.
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2026, 6:01am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/200 "2026-08-14T06:01:07Z")
> [@GregW](#):
>
> A **tautologous explanation** is a valid logical form.
A tautology is “a valid logical form” and yet also completely _uninformative_, therefore, not an explanation.
> [@GregW](#):
>
> But perfection is **static** and **sterile**.
🙄
So “perfection” is _less than perfect …_
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2026, 7:03am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/201 "2026-08-14T07:03:06Z")
> [@180Proof](#):
>
> A tautologous explanation is a valid logical form.
>
> A tautology is “a valid logical form” and yet also completely uninformative, therefore, not an explanation.
I will rephrase my explanation.
Your original question was: “Explain why “perfect power” only creates imperfection?”
Perfect power is exercised by God to create and affect change. Perfection is eternal and unchanging. Change is imperfect. That is why "perfect power only creates imperfection.
> [@180Proof](#):
>
> > [@GregW](#):
> >
> > But perfection is **static** and **sterile**.
>
> 🙄
>
> So “perfection” is _less than perfect …_
Perfection is eternal and unchanging. Eternal and unchanging perfection is static and sterile. Perfection is by definition perfect.
[Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=9)
[Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=11)