# 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:** 8
**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:** [June 7, 2026, 7:02am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/141 "2026-06-07T07:02:56Z")
Give that “God” is an empty name, _fictional_ is “the nature of God”. > **[Empty name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name)** > > In metaphysics and the philosophy of language, an empty name is a proper name that has no referent. > The problem of empty names is the idea that empty names have a meaning when it seems they should not. The name "Pegasus" is empty; there is nothing to which it refers. Yet, though there is no Pegasus, we know what the sentence "Pegasus has two wings" means. We can even understand the sentence "There is no such thing as Pegasus." But, what can the meaning of a proper name be, except the object t... ---
**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:** [June 7, 2026, 3:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/142 "2026-06-07T15:48:09Z")
> [@Gnomon](#): > > OK. What’s your guess about the role of Good & Bad (causes & effects) in evolution (Sin vs Virtue)? Good and evil have very important contributions in life. For example, the pain is a sign of a problem in the body, so it is necessary; otherwise, we either damage the body more or never seek a cure for the pain. What we normally prefer as good is generally healthy and needed for life. > [@Gnomon](#): > > Which side is winning the race to the finish line of creation? Which god — Good or Evil — is likely to win the creation contest? I don’t think it would be a winner or loser as far as there is God who takes care of the balance. > [@Gnomon](#): > > Of course, those polar oppositions are human opinions & values. For non-human non-god Nature there are no moral sentiments : it is what it is. But natural selection based on Brain vs Brawn could explain the emergence of Consciousness in a competitive dog-eat-dog world **1**. Otherwise, how could "naked apes" **2** , lacking fangs & claws (brawn), rise from shrew-like mammals to rule the world (brains)? 🤔 I see what your point is, and I agree with it. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2026, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/143 "2026-06-07T15:50:47Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > Give that “God” is an empty name, _fictional_ is “the nature of God”. I don’t understand what your point is. Do you mind elaborating? ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2026, 4:18am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/144 "2026-06-08T04:18:12Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > I am afraid that I don’t find it fruitful to repeat myself. I invite you to contemplate what I said. Doubt might be the fruit of our discussion, and it might lead you to the truth. I have enjoyed our discourse. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2026, 4:28am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/145 "2026-06-08T04:28:34Z")
> [@NihilLoc](#): > > If we were made to be good, who are we made to be good for? We are made to be good for the betterment of ourselves and those around us. We desire those who are good. Those who are good for us and those who are good to us. ---
**Author:** ![24\_11](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/24_11/32/1026_2.png) [@24\_11](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/24_11)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2026, 10:47am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/146 "2026-06-30T10:47:27Z")
Isaiah 45:7 may support your argument. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2026, 3:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/147 "2026-07-28T15:53:04Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > 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. My first question would be to ask why any such entity would create anything at all. If it is all present, then its presence is itself alone. If it is all knowing, its knowing is of itself alone. If it is all powerful, its power is of itself alone. Thus to create something and call it “other” would be absurd because it would know that already. It cannot create an “other” because of those omni-attributes. And “other” would have to be something it does not know, understand or have full power over. There are of course many arguments coming FROM the assumption of an omni creator actually existing, that counter the idea that such an entity wouldn’t create anything.. _Before we ask why an omni-God did or did not do something, we must first ask: **Is there any good reason to believe such a being exists in the first place?** _ We are arguing about what an omni-God would or would not do, but we have not even established that ‘omni-God’ is a coherent or actual referent. Until that is established, all subsequent reasoning is hypothetical at best—and at worst, pure theology masquerading as philosophy. To add to this, I do think that we do exist in a created thing. Furthermore, I think “we” created it and did so with purpose - perhaps as a means of explaining our own existence. (Is acceptable even if we always existed because the notion might have surfaced whereby some of us questioned the possibility that we were created with the notion we had always existed and thus we needed to find a means to test that argument.) or perhaps simply as an act of play, or exploration, or love of novelty. (or both). What I don’t think is that “we” (in that prior state) are omni-anything…Extremely powerful, yes. Extremely knowledgeable, yes. Extremely present, also “yes”…and these in contrast/relation to the human experience we created to experience for ourselves…and in doing so somehow created a “God” which was omni…simply a mistake produced by the human experience itself - but also a designed one, due to the fact that the Blank Slate design was purposefully allowing us to have an experience of a beginning and in that - allowing for unknowns to potentially surface in the process. In effect what I am saying here is that we - as humans - created a false image of ourselves as creators of this Madventure… The omni-God concept that _does_ emerge from the human experience is a **false positive** - a mistake generated by the limitations of the Blank Slate - but its _incoherence_ is itself _data_ that points back toward the truth: we were not created by an omni-God; we are the creators, testing our own origins. _Now - I do not claim this as a provable fact - only as a framework that is more coherent, less contradictory, and more honest about its assumptions than the omni-God hypothesis._ The “problem of evil” in this framework is strictly a human problem. ---
**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:** [July 30, 2026, 1:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/148 "2026-07-30T13:41:36Z")
I am not interested in proving the Omni-attributes of God in this thread. I assume them and see what they lead to. In the same manner, I assume that the universe is the created thing. ---
**Author:** ![Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Angel](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Angel)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/149 "2026-07-30T17:16:09Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > Good and Evil, however, exist in our world. Good and evil do not exist in nature. In nature, some living creatures eat other living creatures and thus survive. Humans were the first to divide actions toward others into good and bad, because they are capable of empathy, so it was humans who invented the categories of good and evil. One could even figuratively say that humans were the first to taste the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which no one had tasted before. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 7:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/150 "2026-07-30T19:48:04Z")
[quote=“MoK, post:148, topic:1143, full:true”] > I am not interested in proving the Omni-attributes of God in this thread.[/quote] Okay. > I assume them and see what they lead to. Me to - which is why I came to reply as I did. > In the same manner, I assume that the universe is the created thing. For me it is more the case of connecting the dots so that less assumption is evident. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 7:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/151 "2026-07-30T19:53:08Z")
> [@Angel](#): > > Good and evil do not exist in nature. In nature, some living creatures eat other living creatures and thus survive. Humans were the first to divide actions toward others into good and bad, because they are capable of empathy, so it was humans who invented the categories of good and evil. One could even figuratively say that humans were the first to taste the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which no one had tasted before. If we accept that G&E do not exist in nature, then what do we make of empathy? Where (if not nature) did it derive and how has it helped? Given the mythology you point to, how does this knowledge help us collectively? What examples can be shown to support it? ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 7:56pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/152 "2026-07-30T19:56:29Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > God is, therefore, BOTH Benevolent and Malevolent. Or perhaps niether, because effectively G&E is a human construct created in an attempt to understand our collective situation. ---
**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:** [July 30, 2026, 10:14pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/153 "2026-07-30T22:14:31Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > Omni-attributes of God […] **I assume** them and see what they lead to. In the same manner, **I assume** that the universe is the created thing. MoK, as Epicurus shows, your 1st assumption is incoherent: • Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? _Then He is not all-powerful._ **(impotent)** • Is He able, but not willing? _Then He is not good._ **(malevolent)** • Is He both able and willing? _Then where does evil come from?_ • Is He neither able nor willing? _Then why call Him God?_ 💥 And your 2nd assumption ‘implies’ an infinite regress (i.e.) “the universe is created” _by a creator (also) created by … (also) created by … (also) created by …_ 🥱 Afaik, both assumptions lead to the same dead end. ---
**Author:** ![one\_withlife](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/48db29/32.png) [@one\_withlife](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/one_withlife)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2026, 4:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/154 "2026-08-04T16:40:17Z")
God is All That Is. When we say god is omnipresent, it means god is everywhere. For god to be everywhere, god must be everything. We also say Creation/God does not make mistakes. Which means everything in existence exists for a reason and belongs in creation. We have day and we have night. We have what we call “good” and what we call “bad”. Both belong and are essential parts of All that is/God. God is beyond the concepts of Good and Evil, as these ideas can play out in god, yet God is beyond these human concepts. The reason we have evil is because from many perspectives the evil is not evil and is actually the good thing. From many perspectives, good is the most evil thing in existence. For example to hold an entire population to a moral standard that many do not believe in is quite evil in my opinion. To many, evil means complete freedom. The night is dark but is by no means evil, the day is bright, but is by no means good. Both are simply what they are, night and day. To separate all that is into good (approved) and evil (not approved) is to banish and not approve half of creation. If a bully gets hurt, we feel good, yet to the bully it was evil. I think it is a perspective. ---
**Author:** ![true-happiness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@true-happiness](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/true-happiness)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 8:17pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/155 "2026-08-06T20:17:20Z")
Is it true that God created both good and evil? I heard from religion that all the people in this world are sinners with a sinful and ungodly spirit. How can sinners say they know God when they know sin instead? What is the number one driving force in this world? It is to start a business to make money and to get rich. So, what God can you expect to come from this? It should be a God that the general public can relate to. A God that is just like them with the same spirit. This world is obsessed with material and personal belongings. It is obsessed with wanting to be free, wild and out of control. (LOVING MATERIAL) If you take a child and teach them to love material. They will stop loving living things and love material things instead. This is why people do evil it’s for money, so then the child will do evil to others until they die. So, people are obsessed about being rich or richer instead of being happy. It is not about being rich, it is about being richer. “I would be happy if I was rich,” however rich turns into richer. So, you can never be happy because you can always be richer. What started all this? Here is the story how it all started. You have a world of people with technology and over time this technology advances. Then one day it happened and the technology reaches a threshold. Then the technology jumped to the end of technology advancement. At this time many people went into shock, and they were unable to think. They said, “look at all the power and things I have!” This the starting of the love for material and personal belongings. Now the hate for others has started and where all the others are trust passing. Then they said, “I am perfect and I can do nothing wrong!” The others say, “you should not do this, and you better stop it!” “Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do! I am perfect doing nothing wrong and I will do whatever I please!” The others say “this is what we are going to do. We will make a world and put them in it and work with them.” Then the war started and the corrupt spirited persons said, “I will get you first!” The problem is we have a energy force or spirit and if it is corrupt, it will have no control. So, if the person dies and the spirit is given a new body, it will pick up where it left off. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 10:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/156 "2026-08-07T22:29:22Z")
[quote=“WhoKnows, post:152, topic:1143”] > [@MoK](#): > > God is, therefore, BOTH Benevolent and Malevolent. Or perhaps niether, because effectively G&E is a human construct created in an attempt to understand our collective situation. [/quote], God is not both benevolent and malevolent, nor is God neither benevolent nor malevolent. By definition, the one true God is perfectly good and not evil. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/157 "2026-08-07T23:06:15Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > > [@MoK](#): > > > > Omni-attributes of God […] **I assume** them and see what they lead to. In the same manner, **I assume** that the universe is the created thing. > > MoK, as Epicurus shows, your 1st assumption is incoherent: > > • Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? _Then He is not all-powerful._ **(impotent)** This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of God. God is not all powerful. God is perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His power for evil and He cannot use His power to create perfection. > [@180Proof](#): > > • Is He able, but not willing? _Then He is not good._ **(malevolent)** God is able and willing to destroy all evil. He is just not willing to destroy all mankind. > [@180Proof](#): > > • Is He both able and willing? _Then where does evil come from?_ Evil come from imperfect mankind. > [@180Proof](#): > > • Is He neither able nor willing? _Then why call Him God?_ 💥 He is called the one perfect God because of His perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire. > [@180Proof](#): > > And your 2nd assumption ‘implies’ an infinite regress (i.e.) “the universe is created” _by a creator (also) created by … (also) created by … (also) created by …_ 🥱 > > Afaik, both assumptions lead to the same dead end. There is not an infinite regress. The one perfect God is not created. God came before all else and is the Creator of all things. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2026, 4:30pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/158 "2026-08-08T16:30:27Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > God is not **all** powerful. God is **perfectly** powerful Mere semantics. 🙄 > [@GregW](#): > > God is able and willing to destroy all evil. And yet God _hasn’t_ destroyed “all evil”. > [@GregW](#): > > Evil come from imperfect mankind. And “imperfect mankind” (like imperfect creation) “comes from” God – _the creator of evil_ (e.g. **Isaiah 45:7** ). > [@GregW](#): > > The one **perfect** God is not created. God came before all else and is the **Creator** of all things. Nonsense. If God is “the creator of all” _imperfections_, then God is not “perfect”. 🥱 ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 7:56pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/159 "2026-08-08T19:56:45Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > God is not both benevolent and malevolent, nor is God neither benevolent nor malevolent. By definition, the one true God is perfectly good and not evil. By who’s definition? And what evidence is there for a “one true God” and how is its nature determined? ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 5:40am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/160 "2026-08-10T05:40:34Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > God is not **all** powerful. God is **perfectly** powerful > > Mere semantics. 🙄 No, this is not mere semantics. All powerful is not the same as perfectly powerful. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of God. God is not all powerful. God is perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His power for evil and He cannot use His power to create perfection. > [@180Proof](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > God is able and willing to destroy all evil. > > And yet God _hasn’t_ destroyed “all evil”. In The Old Testament, God sent a great flood to wash away sin by destroying all flesh. God hasn’t yet destroyed all evil because He chose not to destroy all mankind. > [@180Proof](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > Evil come from imperfect mankind. > > And “imperfect mankind” (like imperfect creation) “comes from” God – _the creator of evil_ (e.g. **Isaiah 45:7** ). God created man, and man created evil. Isaiah 45:7 is wrong. God is not the creator of evil. God cannot use His perfect power to create evil. > [@180Proof](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > The one **perfect** God is not created. God came before all else and is the **Creator** of all things. > > Nonsense. If God is “the creator of all” _imperfections_, then God is not “perfect”. 🥱 God is perfect, otherwise we are not talking about the one true God. God is the Creator of all that is good, not all that is perfect. God cannot use His perfect power to create perfection. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=7) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=9)