The nature of being and God IS being. — Dfpolis

So that's the same thing as saying "the nature of God" no?

The nature of being and God IS being. — Dfpolis

So that's the same thing as saying "the nature of God" no? — Terrapin Station

Yes, as long as you do not take "nature" to entail limiting determinations.

Okay but there is a limit in that being is some ways and not others. We've already gone over and agreed that it's some ways and not others. The ways it's not are the limits.

Okay but there is a limit in that being is some ways and not others. We've already gone over and agreed that it's some ways and not others. The ways it's not are the limits. — Terrapin Station

But, what being is not, is nothing.

For example, the fact that nothing can be and not be in one and the same way at one and the same time, contra if it were the case that something could be and not be in one and the same way at one and the same time.

For example, the fact that nothing can be and not be in one and the same way at one and the same time, contra if it were the case that something could be and not be in one and the same way at one and the same time. — Terrapin Station

I understand the contrast, but not its point.

I think that we can prove that there exists a timeless Power maintaining the universe in being. — Dfpolis

And I think there is very little we can prove if you mean "prove" in a scientific sort of way? I'm pretty sure we can't prove what you said above, though.

Most people believe it is wrong to harm another person intentionally, although there is absolutely no way to "prove" this. All you can prove is what will happen if you are caught doing that (social condemnation, retaliation, possibly punishment).

Perhaps belief in God can enjoy a similar kind of status without upsetting too many people on either side of the debate.