I'm not sure it is part of this thread, but briefly the argument in theology circles is if God is Almighty, He logically can assert it as the only power source in and outside of existence (more than the universe). The argument: If One claims omnipotence, He is simultaneously claiming omniscience, omnipresence and every other omni by logical necessity.
Well there is no such thing as "outside of existence". Anything that is "outside of existence" does not exist, by definition.
Aside from that, I have no issue with the rest of what you'd said here except to say that I'd have to see the actual argument that purports to establish this logical necessity.
Logical answer: "No." Difference does not equate ''limitation" especially when the One Who is God, exceeded what is seen as the actual limitation: Vishnu. When you compare an ultimate of definition of "God" with anything subpar, the limitation is the pale comparison, not God. Do you see the logic?
Let me stop you for a moment because I think at this venture we are both using specific ideas of what limitation means. I may agree with you if we simply disagree on terms (we've had this as a problematic in the past where we agree on the overall but have definition difference). A 'limit' generally is cut-off, a ceiling, not a thing one won't do or is better than, as far as my definition.
I see no definition of "limitless" that would permit such a caveat. You are giving God's "limitlessness" lip service. You simultaneously acknowledge limitations and insist that He is limitless. Why do that? Where is the profit in redefining the term "limitless" to include certain limits?
He identifies as beyond already: Ephesians 3:18-20 (beyond measure/limitless). However, I'm not convinced we are in overall disagreement here. God is the 'source' of everything that exists, but everything that exist isn't all of Who God is. He doesn't dwell 'in' the Universe alone, He is the creator of it. In every sense rather, the Universe exists in and through Him as Colossians 1:16-20 affirms.
He is the primary source of everything that exists, except Himself. (i.e. He didn't not create existence.)
Further, this phrase "everything that exists isn't all of Who God is" along with being too dogmatic about just what "in Him all things consists" actually means runs the risk of preaching pantheism.
I'd tread a bit more lightly here, if I were you.
Omnipresence BUT are we off topic? I don't want to hijack your thread. In so much as we grasp God's qualities, it may serve in an overarching manner, just help me help you not hijack, please, and thank you.
The thread is years old, Lon. I think we can discuss pretty well anything that is even partially related to God's character.
Great! Why then does He have to come down to see what is happening in Sodom and Gomorrah?
News flash! The people in those cities weren't followers of God! They weren't praying to God, they weren't even acknowledging God's existence. God would have nothing to hear, except from those who He did hear from which were telling Him how awful these cities had become and so and investigated further to confirm.
I genuinely cannot fathom how that is such a difficult concept to understand.
Not the intention. Paraphrase? Certainly. Simply correct it but very nice job describing the issue (sincerely). It is exactly why strawmen are so problematic. I rather said it 'leads' to an assumption, not necessarily that it is a correct one. I have had Open Theists argue with me that God had no idea where Adam was. Because of it, I'd think it is up to the Open Theist to correct and clarify. If it is 'stupid?' Great! actually. Correct it so we can get on page with what you do believe. From what we are reading, God literally had to see, He'd only heard rumors etc. Let me ask point blank what this means, how you understand:
Genesis 18:20-23 17And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. 20And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
What is there to explain, Lon?
Seriously! I honestly cannot understand what you don't get about what that passage says!
It means EXACTLY what it says! You could literally go find any random ten year old child and read that passage to him and ask him what he thinks it means and he'd absolutely get it totally correct! Just read it and take it to mean just precisely what it sounds like it means. That IS what it means!
God's attributes aren't 'ruling' God, but rather, are extensions of Who He is (the prospects of His character aren't reflexive/reversible).
That sentence make no sense whatsoever.
if I say God is 'logic' I can/mayhap make 'logic' my god and miss the God Who is Logical simply because He isn't 'just' that. He is more. He isn't just any particular definition like 'logic' or 'morality' but is the source of all things for their meaning and all things only find their meaning in Him. Morality, for instance, has no meaning but as an attribute of part of our apprehension of Who He is, if you follow. If you don't I'll try a bit further: "God is love" is a scriptural given but never Love is god, by the same token.
Exactly!
There are things about God that we cannot fully put in to words or that aren't fully expressed when we do put them into words. What precisely does it mean to say that God is Love or that God is Life or that God is Truth. We do not simply mean that God is loving, living and honest. NO! We mean that God IS Honesty. That somehow, God Himself is Honesty itself. What does that mean? Well, there are whole books written on such subjects but in the end, all of those books put together probably only barely scratch the surface of what such statement actually mean. And, in the same way that every Christian on Earth affirms without qualification that God is Love, the bible also teaches that God is Logic (Reason), which goes well beyond saying that God is logical but that the very concept of rational thought itself derives its very meaning from who God is.
Supra, if I didn't clear it up, we can go further. I'm not saying God isn't logical. I'm rather saying these terms are inadequate for definition of God our Father. The point isn't 'no' but rather 'not reflexive' if you are following 'logically.'
I do not understand your use of the term "reflexive".
I'd posit for argument, that you aren't being logical right now 0.o It proves my point, rather. We often don't apprehend nor think logically else we'd never 'learn and grow.' So what I said is that God is logical, but what you and I proffer as logic, isn't always. IOW, I believe you wholly supported my point!
On the contrary! I have defeated your point, or rather you have defeated your own point! You cannot defeat logic with logic, Lon! It is only irrationality that can be defeated with logic. More than that, it is ONLY logic that can defeat irrationality. Indeed, it is only via logic that the irrational can even be detected! By you own statement, we learn and grow when we make mistakes but that only happens when those mistakes are discovered and a correction is attempted. That cannot be done except by a process of rational thought.
These are 'our' logic laws.
No sir! They are THE logic laws. The alternative is a complete inability to even detect reality much less know anything about it. The laws of reason are quite literally irrefragable and as immutably true as God Himself, Who is their very personification and source.
I'm not saying they are wrong, but I'm still discovering God's universe and new mathematicians and quantum scientists blow me out of the water for what I think is logical and true, often enough.
Any scientist that asks you to believe a logical absurdity is a liar and undermines his own profession. Mathematics is NOT science! It is a form of reasoning but it does not play by the same rules as reality. Mathematics can, and often does, deal with absurdities, contradictions and things that do not exist (infinities, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, arbitrary addition of dimensions, etc), reality does not (i.e. cannot) do such things.
That said, I don't think we are disagreeing, we are talking about logic vs 'what passes for it' (I think we are actually pretty close to the same page after years of discussing this with you).
I doesn't feel to me like we're very close on this at all. If logic doesn't work then God can lie! How would you prove otherwise?
All of us! Where do we all get our ideas? It is why we do TOL (for one). We want to please Him with trying to grasp Him and know Him.
All the above, but there is a pecking order: Scripture says we know Him by His handiwork and by His other revelations. I had to take philosophy in secular college for my AA. I'm not so hung up on secular philosophers as I am on biblical thinkers but these have to take a back seat to scriptures and God's other direct revelation to us.
A pecking order, seriously?
Was this you just trying your best to misunderstand the point of the question?
If it continues to serve the thread...some Omni's are already given in scripture. "Almighty" (El Shadai) means omnipotent (all+mighty).
No, it does not mean "omnipotent"!
In a pure etymological sense, "omnipotence" has a similar meaning to "Shaddai", yes, but in common usage, no!
It can become circular reasoning, but the Lord Jesus Christ is a good foundation for scriptures being from God. I may not be following your point or picking up your intention with the question. Help, ty and please if not.
All reasoning is ultimately circular UNLESS you presuppose the existence of God!
This is one of the most amazing aspects of the doctrine that teaches that God is Reason! Reason itself turns in on itself and becomes circular if the God who is Reason is not presupposed. I invite you to read
Battle Royale VII where that exact point is made.
Definitions please: 1) Logic and 2) Sound reasoning.
The terms 'logic' and 'reason' are often used as perfect synonyms in English. Sound reason is a system of thought that adheres to rules formulated around the fact that existence is real and that what is, is. This is known as the law of identity. It is the foundation of all knowledge (secondary only to God Himself) and it has two corollaries which give us the so called "laws of reason"....
1. The law of identity: What is, is. A is A.
2. The law is excluded middle: A truth claim is either true or it is false (given a specific context).
3. The law of contradiction: Two truth claims that contradict cannot both be true (given a specific context).
So, if you want to make a distinction between 'logic' and 'reason' then you would say that 'logic' are the rules that are derived from these axioms and 'reason' is the actual act of thinking in compliance to those rules.
And, to quote Pastor Enyart from the Battle Royale linked to above....
"A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory...., there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself."
A lot of Open propositions, but specifically in thread at the moment, that God doesn't know where you or I are at any given moment without coming down to look,
No Open Theist would ever even suggest that God is not fully aware of everything any believer does, says, thinks feels or desires! We are not merely saved from sin's consequences, He has suffered those consequences in our stead and we are a new creation. We were crucified in Him and it is no longer we who live but He lives His life through us. The life we live in this flesh we live by faith IN HIM. It isn't just that we put our faith in Him, we live by faith, yes, but we live IN HIM - by faith!! God cannot deny Himself! For even when we are faithless, He remains faithful! Our faith is HIS faith! Indeed, Galatians 2:20, which is the passage I'm primarily referencing, actually says (in the Greek) that....
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith
OF the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (KJV)
So, NO! We are the very apple of God's own eye! There is never a time when He is not paying direct attention to each and every one of those who are His.
nor knows other than rumor, that Sodom and Gomorrah were evil.
It wasn't merely rumor!
Why do you do this? Where do you find any open theist teaching any such thing? As I told you before, if you are rejecting caricatures of someone's position, you aren't rejecting their actual position. All you're doing is lying to yourself!
Why is it so difficult to understand that God has his agents through which He deals with probably every aspect of His creation? What is it about that proposition that frightens you so much that you have to twist it into something grotesquely unrelated to what we actually teach and believe? Is the plain reading of the text of scripture so hard to believe? It's not like we snuck passages like Genesis 18:20-21 into the bible without anyone noticing. It didn't freak out Abraham! So what does that say about your freaking out about it? Are you going to argue with Abraham and Moses?
It'd depend on how you understand the passages if you believe we are setting up strawmen, thus it is important to ask again how you understand the men going into Sodom as well as asking Adam where he is in the Garden.
All you have to do is read the passage and form your doctrine around what it says. They aren't written in some sort of code where only people who bring Aristotelian doctrines about the nature of God with them can understand it, as Bishop Ambrose and Augustine believed!
Limitations, generally speaking, are things desirable that I cannot do. We'd not think, for instance, that telling lies is a good thing thus it is not a limitation if I don't or cannot tell one. The truth is the fullness, the 'lie' the limitation thus not doing it cannot be a limitation. Our disagreement is mostly over the overarching scope of the term 'limitation.
Again, there is no such thing as limited limitlessness.
Trying to suggest otherwise gets you into weird conundrums like trying to explain why God sanctions some lying....
I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
