(1) God's immensity, (2) omnipresence, and (3) eternity considered

 

  1. God’s immensity or absolutely immeasurability means that God is not a relative infinite. A relative infinity can be measured by a spatiotemporal respect. For example, the universe has a spatiotemporal respect which can be considered as a set and can be measured even if the universe was infinitely big. God, on the other hand, is absolutely infinite because he is infinite in every respect and cannot be measured by a spatiotemporal respect. So, it is wrong to think the following: God is infinitely wise but that wisdom can be comprehended as a set of individual wisdoms

  2. Omnipresence is a positive and relative attribute. This means that omnipresence has a positive ontological status in the universe, the universe itself being spatiotemporal. But this does not mean that God is limited by the universe, it just means he has a relation to the universe. God is omnipresent because of his power, knowledge, and essence. It is through his essence that he is substantially present to everything created, including demons, as the origin of their existence. Some might object by saying that it is unacceptable that God would sustain demons in existence because if then, goodness and evil would be of equal value to God’s efficient causality. The answer to this objection is that God efficiently caused the good and sustains good, but he did not efficiently cause evil. Even then, he sustains the evil as it is written, “...he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good” (Matt. 5:45). Goodness is still superior to evil in God’s efficient causality.

  3. God’s eternity is a concept of him being in a “permanent now.” In other words, there is a negation of sequence in God or in God’s action. A concrete example is that God does not go from thinking one thought in one moment to another thought in another moment. Neither does he create one thing in one moment and then creates another thing in another moment. Here is an analogy to understand this “permanent now” of God: a king stares off from his citadel to see his troops marching in a straight line. He himself is able to see the lined troops in one act of seeing even though the individual troops cannot see the totality of the line troops. To be more exact, the king would be analogous to God and the troops would be analogous to humans.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more