What we’ve learned from Science is that it is from randomness that order and structure emerge; like the randomness of a coin toss yet the application of the law of large numbers implies a completely predictable outcome of what tossing coins looks like over all.
What we also know is that the more highly ordered a system, the more restricted the system, the more rigid and less free, and ultimately the more impossible because complete order implies an inability to “continue”, in other words, change.
When we ask about what God ontologically is, we must agree it seems, with Tillich, Spinoza, Robinson, even Krauss, and aquiesce that the Eastern religious conceptions of the divine are best. That is, God — or whatever eternality from which all else comes — must be the ground of being, not that “what is” or “something that is”. God must essentially be something which is not chaos, but certainly is something akin to pure potential; which is in effect calling God “that which is wholly undermined”. Science doesn’t name energy “God” or fluctuation for that matter. However, if we honestly want to call God “creator”, then this objective rather than metaphysical proposition must have an answer that purports to represents facts. Lawrence Krauss would in that case be happy to say, I think, something like: “God is the sort of potential we find at the beginning of ‘somethings’ and ‘everythings’, there’s just no other reason to so name it.”
Since if we take “creatio ex nihilo” as ontological rather than theological we entail special case fallacies and moot it as proof for God — which I won’t bother to explain here — then we have to propose another classic view. That is, “creatio ex se”. And once we do, having avoided any logical issues as a result, we squarely cannot conceive of God ontologically in any other way than as described above.
This was a passing thought as I read through Oord’s “The Uncontrolling Love Of God”.
Just a thought.