Did you consult a dictionary? I meant exactly what I wrote.
No, to be honest, I didn´t consult a dictionary, due to several reasons:
1. My question may have been misunderstandable: I didn´t mean to ask "What are the standard definitions of the word 'nature', but
a. "What is this
sequence of words supposed to mean?" (You surely are aware that stringing together meaningful words in a grammatically correct way doesn´t grant the result to be meaningful, intelligible or even only unambiguous.), and
b. "How does this statement even answer the question for God´s intention behind creating?"
2.. I felt I was sufficiently familiar with the definitions of "nature" that are listed in the dictionary, but I couldn´t know which one of them
you wished to be applied when interpreting your statement.
3. In my experience, in conversations about the Christian God concept pointing to the dictionary isn´t typically well received. Usually theists go to great length telling me how God is unique etc., and thus our words and concepts do not apply in the same way when used to describe God as they usually do.
But it´s not such a bad idea, anyway, so here we go:
(from dictionary.com)
nature
 
Use Nature in a sentence
na·ture
[ney-cher] Show IPA
noun 1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the
natural world as it exists without human beings or
civilization.
3. the elements of the
natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4.
natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of
art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or
constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic
disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original,
natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.
16. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology . the moral state as unaffected by
grace.
So, with 17 - wildly different - definitions of the word "nature" it seems to be quite appropriate and charitable to ask "Which one are you working from in your statement?" (actually, you could have been expected to do that yourself, upfront), and obviously "I meant exactly what I said" is not helping.
So, what definition are you working from, for purposes of your statement?
Now, Quatona; since God is a such a unique (in more than one sense of the world) being, there are any numbers of 'characteristics' familiar to humans that simply do not apply to God.
Like, err, "nature", for instance?
For instance, "Age". Since God has existed forever, there is no meaning to His 'age'.
"Pride". Humans recognize two meanings of 'pride'; one is the positive sense of attempting to keep up a proper appearance, do a proper to excellent job of work and so on. The other meaning is the self aggrandizing pride, which goes along with the phrase 'neener-neener-neener'. Since God is the Ultimate of anything good or positive, 'pride' simply doesn't enter into the discussion.
But "nature" did, and you were the one introducing it.
However, in His nature does suggest that God acts like God.
Yeah, that´s beautifully tautological - but doesn´t answer anything.
One of the most commonly cited characteristic of God is 'love' (Greek word 'agape'.) Humans are capable of 'love' in various forms, but is an act of will, and limited by human ability. God loves as part of His nature, loves continually and does not let His love over-ride all other concerns.
So it is with 'creating'. God creates.
Yeah, I think that was the accepted premise of the question "Why did God create?". It´s not an answer, though.
A side issue here, attempting to clarify. "Force (to do)" is another verb that cannot really be applied to God. No one nor no thing 'forces' God to do anything which is not in His intent. That is, no 'outside' or 'other' entity causes God - against His will - to act in a specific manner.
One can speak of a human 'forcing himself to...' do something. As in, "Archie is forcing himself to not eat chocolate; he has weight to lose". So I am 'forcing' myself to do something other than my will. Additionally, it is due to my 'enhanced' weight dimension.
When God does something in accord with His will, there is nothing outside His will forcing Him to act. God lacks nothing, He is 'Perfect' in that sense of being complete and total. (Also in the sense of having no flaws, but that's another discussion.)
So, while God does create in accordance with who He is, He is not forced to create.
Yes, I agree: A completely irrelevant side issue. Nobody said that God was "forced".
The actual question is: Does God have two or several options (in which case the question "What is his intention...?" isn´t answered by "It´s his nature."), or does He not and instead is but doing what He can´t help doing (in which case the question for God´s intention is moot, simply because God doesn´t have a choice - "choice" being a human concept not applicable to a God).
That's like saying, "Because God has been around forever, He is old!" Nonsense! He's eternal; He is just getting started.
"Getting started" is also a nonsense-statement about a supposedly eternal being. It seems to me that you yourself are - in your use of language - permanently switching between the human perspective and the supposed perspective of your eternal God.
After all, even "God created" (passive tense, signifying an event, etc.) is nonsense from an eternal perspective.
The limiting factor and the distortion for humans is we (all) view things through the lens of a limited lifespan and life in general. Which, when considered isn't so strange; we don't really have an adequate view of the Universe from a trout's perspective, either.
Right. It just gets weird when people start pretending to speak from a perspective that they can´t have. It even gets weirder when - in doing that - they point to human definitions of human words in human dictionaries, just to - in the next step - fall back into pointing out how irrelevant human constructs are in these questions.
