# On the nature of God **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2026, 8:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/41 "2026-05-28T20:45:55Z")
> [@Fooloso4](#): > > In that case I do not agree. They are adjectives not nouns. They are not entities. Sorry, it was my fault. Let’s consider them as an adjective. ---
**Author:** ![Helix\_Perichora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/fbc32d/32.png) [@Helix\_Perichora](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Helix_Perichora)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2026, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/42 "2026-05-28T20:50:16Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > That was your logic. And I was telling you it doesn’t follow. And you are saying it doesn’t follow either. No—that is the direct implication of the definition you keep insisting on. > [@Corvus](#): > > If Omnipotence cannot do something because of the nature of the Omnipotent being, then He is no longer omnipotent being. No—this is a false dichotomy. > [@Corvus](#): > > Saying He is, when He cannot perform things which is not His nature is a contradiction. That is not what the term has historically meant in Christian theology, and it is not what the Bible teaches. > [@Corvus](#): > > That sounds like opposite. True omnipotence can do anything even perform miracles. If not, then it is no longer omnipotence. The limited omnipotence and compromised omnipotence is not true omnipotence. Miracles (walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.) do not contradict God’s nature—they are fully consistent with it. The Bible is explicit that there are things that are impossible for God precisely because of who He is: > **“…it is impossible for God to lie…”** (Hebrews 6:18 ESV) It does **not** say “unless it is necessary.” It says it is impossible. True omnipotence is the power to do everything that is logically possible and consistent with God’s nature. It does **not** include the ability to cease being God. I won’t be replying to any more claims that I’ve clearly shown to be false. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2026, 8:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/43 "2026-05-28T20:59:25Z")
> [@Helix\_Perichora](#): > > True omnipotence is the power to do everything that is logically possible and consistent with God’s nature. It does **not** include the ability to cease being God. Being God is being omnipotent. Being omnipotent means being able to do anything including performing miracles, and whatever God feels or decides as necessary. Not being able to do so would be ceasing to be God. > [@Helix\_Perichora](#): > > I won’t be replying to any more claims that I’ve clearly shown to be false. I have been only replying from best of my own reasoning, to the points you have raised and asked. So it is up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2026, 11:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/44 "2026-05-28T23:46:29Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > People have different beliefs, they are killing each other, they are stealing from each other, children die because of cancer, children are abused, … Could you please tell me what the points of a Benevolent God are in creating such a universe? I will try and answer, although I can’t claim to know an answer. My own convictions are more Buddhist than Christian, and in the Buddhist world, suffering is inherent to existence, it is not imposed on the world by God or by any external agent. But at the same time I come from a Christian cultural background, and I don’t know if your ‘charges against God’ would be warranted from within that perspective. In our culture, we expect the best from our life on Earth, so we want to do everything possible to reduce suffering and injustice, which is perfectly admirable. But Christians believe that life on earth is not their final destination. I don’t think there is a promise in the Bible that life on earth will ever be free of suffering, is there? Although Christianity has traditionally always done a great deal to ameliorate suffering. Hospitals and Western medicine were all initiated by Christians. So I question holding God to human expectations of what life ought to be. The challenge seems to assume God is something like a powerful manager with obligations to meet our standards of fairness — but that’s not the God the faithful actually believe in. The gap between Creator and creation in classical theology is of a different order than any human relationship of power and responsibility. Whether or not that theology is true is another question — but the argument as stated may be aimed at a target that isn’t really there, kind of a ‘straw God’ argument, if you don’t mind me saying. I did write an essay on this topic recently which can be found [here](https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/the-hotel-manager-theodicy-14f9d8abba4e?source=friends_link&sk=e8de8725ef07da40fd8097359b97b35a) if you’re interested. ---
**Author:** ![kimberly88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kimberly88](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/kimberly88)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 1:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/45 "2026-05-29T01:57:24Z")
I think God had a purpose in all of this, He had desire from the beggining. Jesus may not mean much to you & to be honest, i question it myself. But this Father Son relationship holds some value in the sense that we as a society perpetuate in that way. We move forward..that way. Its not a mystery. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 2:18am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/46 "2026-05-29T02:18:35Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > I have never said that our understanding of reality can match that of God. I am just saying that God is both Benevolent and Malevolent. But how can you make an assessment of this unless you understand reality as God sees it? An assessment like this is surely only possible from a human perspective, in which case it is missing vital information. Or it can be made from a position of fully understanding reality and God’s nature. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 2:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/47 "2026-05-29T02:57:08Z")
I don’t think I follow your point. ---
**Author:** ![kimberly88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kimberly88](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/kimberly88)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 3:35am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/48 "2026-05-29T03:35:00Z")
If we believe we can fully grasp why God has done things in this way,we lose the idea of God..in other words He should be the God that fits our sphere & our limitations. To be complete, i wouldn’t want a God I could put in a box or control. If Hes not bigger than me..why would i want Him as God? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 5:31am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/49 "2026-05-29T05:31:01Z")
I guess that’s just a repackaged and slightly more detailed form of the old, “God moves in mysterious ways”, isn’t it? One of the problems is that if we are never to understand God then he can do anything at all and we have no capacity to know good from evil. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 3:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/50 "2026-05-29T15:53:56Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > I will try and answer, although I can’t claim to know an answer. I don’t think that there is a valid answer to the problem of suffering, assuming that God is Benevolent. Just accept that God is Benevolent and Malevolent, and all logical problems regarding the problems of good and evil are solved. > [@Wayfarer](#): > > In our culture, we expect the best from our life on Earth, so we want to do everything possible to reduce suffering and injustice, which is perfectly admirable. Reducing the injustice is alright. But to be honest, I am unsure that reducing suffering in a world created by a God who is Malevolent is a good idea. What if we get punished eternally for doing so! What if we get punished eternally for doing good only? I am a simple human being. I am created very weak. God, on the other hand, is all-powerful, so sometimes I am dealing with dilemmas about what is the best decision in a situation, considering that God is both Malevolent and Benevolent! > [@Wayfarer](#): > > So I question holding God to human expectations of what life ought to be. The challenge seems to assume God is something like a powerful manager with obligations to meet our standards of fairness… I am not saying that at all. I am just concluding something about the nature of God here. > [@Wayfarer](#): > > I did write an essay on this topic recently which can be found [here](https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/the-hotel-manager-theodicy-14f9d8abba4e?source=friends_link&sk=e8de8725ef07da40fd8097359b97b35a) if you’re interested. Thank you very much for the link. I will read it when I have time. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 4:09pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/51 "2026-05-29T16:09:53Z")
> [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > But how can you make an assessment of this unless you understand reality as God sees it? We are certain about what Good and Evil are. Are you saying that God has a different understanding of Good and Evil? I don’t think that is the case. When I say I cannot see the reality as God sees it, I mean I don’t have God’s knowledge, so I cannot be sure about many things. But I certainly say something that I am sure about, like what Good and Evil are, Good and Evil exist, and God’s nature. > [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > An assessment like this is surely only possible from a human perspective, in which case it is missing vital information. This is an argument for the nature of God, and it is not an assessment. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 5:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/52 "2026-05-29T17:04:58Z")
On what _evidentiary grounds_ do you assume the universe – any aspect of reality – was “created” in the first place? It seems to me that all we can _validly_ infer from a “created universe”, iff this is the case, is that “the nature of god” is … to create universes (i.e. _mere_ omnipotence). ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 5:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/53 "2026-05-29T17:18:55Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > On what _evidentiary grounds_ do you assume the universe – any aspect of reality – was “created” in the first place? This is a thread on the nature of God, not about whether the universe is created or not. By this I mean that, granting that the universe is created by God, then we can say that God is Malevolent and Benevolent, given the fact that Good and Evil exist. > [@180Proof](#): > > It seems to me that all we can _validly_ infer from a “created universe” is, iff that is the case, “the nature of god” is … to create universes (i.e. _mere_ omnipotence). We can say more. God is certainly Omniscient as well. That follows from the fact that the universe is lawful, so it must be designed. Knowledge is required for the design. Therefore, God has knowledge. God is Omni since otherwise another entity would be Omni, hence God is Omniscient as well. I already discussed God being Malevolent and Benevolent in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 5:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/54 "2026-05-29T17:38:10Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > … granting that the universe is created by God, then we can say that God is Malevolent and Benevolent, given the fact that Good and Evil exist. Nonsense. Is god growing and decaying as well _because_ growth and decay exist? 🙄 > [@MoK](#): > > … the universe is lawful, so it must be designed. Knowledge is required for the design. Therefore, God has knowledge. Circular reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 6:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/55 "2026-05-29T18:13:30Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > Nonsense. Is god growing and decaying as well _because_ growth and decay exist? 🙄 This is discussed in the OP. > [@180Proof](#): > > Circular reasoning. It is not circular at all. ---
**Author:** ![NihilLoc](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/nihilloc/32/843_2.png) [@NihilLoc](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/NihilLoc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 6:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/56 "2026-05-29T18:28:29Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > Could we agree that Good and Evil exist in the world? The problem with this is that Good and Evil are judgements relative to the needs/wants of people in very specific transient contexts. A bountiful feast is good for those whose lives are sustained by it but bad for those whose lives are taken away or diminished by it. A material analysis of the full systemic effects of an action as good or bad can make us reevaluate our judgement as to what is good or evil. We often lack the knowledge of, or do not care to know, the full consequence of actions we might judge to be good or at least neutral/permissible. If evil can arise from pure ignorance, what/who conditions that ignorance in a universe where an all powerful God desires a particular outcome? Why is there inequity in the distribution of self-awareness, knowledge of and capacity for good and evil? ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 7:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/57 "2026-05-29T19:38:17Z")
> [@NihilLoc](#): > > The problem with this is that Good and Evil are judgements relative to the needs/wants of people in very specific transient contexts. I am not talking about what people prefer or want to do, whether Good or Evil. I am talking about things, whether our wants, emotions, or acts, in reality can be divided into two main categories, namely Good and Evil. > [@NihilLoc](#): > > A material analysis of the full systemic effects of an action as good or bad can make us reevaluate our judgement as to what is good or evil. We often lack the knowledge of, or do not care to know, the full consequence of actions we might judge to be good or at least neutral/permissible. We all know what are Evil and Good things are. Love is Good, hate is Evil, generosity is Good, greed is Evil,… We should, however, care for our actions since each comes with a consequence as well. > [@NihilLoc](#): > > If evil can arise from pure ignorance, what/who conditions that ignorance in a universe where an all powerful God desires a particular outcome? I don’t think that evil is the result of ignorance. We love certain things and hate other things, and people are different in what they hate and love. That is completely natural. > [@NihilLoc](#): > > Why is there inequity in the distribution of self-awareness, knowledge of and capacity for good and evil? That is a good question, but I don’t understand its relevance to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 8:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/58 "2026-05-29T20:18:38Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > Good and Evil are two fundamental features of any reality that are important when discussing the nature of God and existence in general. God is mostly considered to be Good or Benevolent. It is not clear why humans have never appreciated the Evil or Malevolent God. The existence of Evil, however, is a serious challenge to a Benevolent God; as such, the existence of Good is a problem for a Malevolent God. God is considered to be Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent additionally. It is then natural to ask why a Benevolent God with all these Omni attributes didn’t create a Good reality in which Evil does not exist. One can also ask another question: Could a Benevolent God create a world in which Evil is possible at all? The answer to the first question is simple and yes. We can imagine such a world; therefore, it is possible. The answer to the second question is a little trickier, but it is still simple and no. Why? Because the Evil must be an ingredient of creation somehow, and that is not permissible in the act of creation by a Benevolent God. Moreover, only Good can come from Good in a Good creation. Therefore, a Benevolent God cannot create a world in which Evil is possible because the act of creation is Good, and from Good only comes Good in a Good creation. The same types of questions and answers apply to Malevolent God. Good and Evil, however, exist in our world. This means God cannot be ONLY Benevolent or Malevolent. God is, therefore, BOTH Benevolent and Malevolent. > [@MoK](#): > > God is mostly considered to be Good or Benevolent. “The One True God” is considered to be perfect, perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire. > [@MoK](#): > > It is not clear why humans have never appreciated the Evil or Malevolent God. Humans have worshiped evil or malevolent gods as well as benevolent gods. > [@MoK](#): > > The existence of Evil, however, is a serious challenge to a Benevolent God; as such, the existence of Good is a problem for a Malevolent God. God is considered to be Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent additionally. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God. God is not omnipotent, not all powerful. God is perfectly powerful. Which mean that God cannot use His perfect power for evil or use His perfect power to create perfection. > [@MoK](#): > > It is then natural to ask why a Benevolent God with all these Omni attributes didn’t create a Good reality in which Evil does not exist. One can also ask another question: Could a Benevolent God create a world in which Evil is possible at all? The answer to the first question is simple and yes. We can imagine such a world; therefore, it is possible. The answer to the second question is a little trickier, but it is still simple and no. Why? Because the Evil must be an ingredient of creation somehow, and that is not permissible in the act of creation by a Benevolent God. Moreover, only Good can come from Good in a Good creation. Therefore, a Benevolent God cannot create a world in which Evil is possible because the act of creation is Good, and from Good only comes Good in a Good creation. “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” Not perfect. God’s good creations can sometime become bad. Adam and Eve were created to be good, but their desire for knowledge, power, and freedom led mankind to evil. > [@MoK](#): > > The same types of questions and answers apply to Malevolent God. Good and Evil, however, exist in our world. This means God cannot be ONLY Benevolent or Malevolent. God is, therefore, BOTH Benevolent and Malevolent. A god who is both benevolent and malevolent would be the same as a man, only more powerful. He is not the “One True God”. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 8:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/59 "2026-05-29T20:55:25Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > “The One True God” is considered to be perfect, perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire. What do you mean by perfect here? > [@GregW](#): > > Humans have worshiped evil or malevolent gods as well as benevolent gods. Are you saying that people were practicing killing humans, raping, lying, torturing, …? > [@GregW](#): > > This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God. God is not omnipotent, not all powerful. God is perfectly powerful. Which mean that God cannot use His perfect power for evil or use His perfect power to create perfection. God has to be Omni, otherwise another Entity is Omni, and therefore S/He is God. > [@GregW](#): > > “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” Not perfect. God’s good creations can sometime become bad. Adam and Eve were created to be good, but their desire for knowledge, power, and freedom led mankind to evil. I am not interested in discussing any religious text here. I have another thread on “Who is responsible for the original sin?” We can discuss the origin of sin there if you are interested. > [@GregW](#): > > A god who is both benevolent and malevolent would be the same as a man, only more powerful. He is not the “One True God”. And by your definition, the true God is Benevolent. How do you deal with the problem of Evil? ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2026, 9:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/60 "2026-05-29T21:04:32Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > This is a thread on the nature of God […] granting that the universe is created by God, … Why are _you_ “granting that the universe is created by God”? [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=2) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=4)