Theological Fatalism

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

G_d is omniscient, but withdraws himself from acting, which sorta presages free will.....'>........

[Farcus]

time travel is always an awkard plot device and the omni^3 is perhaps the worst of it.

on practical level, the existence of some perfect observer with knowledge of the future makes not one sniff of difference to poor little ole me struggling with daily decisions so im curious as to what exactly this is except wordplay.

their is also some nuance here in regards the distinction between "creating the future" and "being aware of the future" - i seem to remember ive seen alot of religious arguments in relation to that on the ole spengler board and the varying viewpoints on gods mechanisms, from the explicit hands on view to the implicit rules view.

seems the same, except it isnt... explicit versus implicit.

the strict regiment of the marching band versus the chaotic story of the football game... wiggle room for chaos and choices affecting outcomes.

why are your certain that the gods view of the future doesnt include multiple possibilities ?

Simply because the past does not necessitate multiple, but single outcomes. Either Jones mowed his lawn on 6/1/2012 or he did not. We can not say he did both or neither without wiggling or having to invent whole universes for God to do things differently than he has.

I think we all understand about the practicality of what some have to believe is Jones' illusion of free will. The law doesn't see things as predestined, and holds you accountable for your actions in varying degrees. There's no requirement for other than naïve realism, and naïve realism feels like free will.
But the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter whether Jones is aware of it or not, which you also recognize.
That's what the thread's about: the facts rather than just perception. Else we could just vote on it.

[Farcus]

G_d is omniscient, but withdraws himself from acting, which sorta presages free will.....'>........

Since He doesn't withdraw Himself from perfect knowledge of exactly what Jones will and has done, and Perfect knowledge necessitates the inevitable outcome at the inevitable time....'>....how is Jones free to do other than what God has ordained?

[noddy]

how can one have facts about a non fact based concept like god and what religious people think god does and means ?

the atheist version of this argument is the strict deterministic rules based argument, which i suspect you must be a fan of.

on that level, im agnostic.. mayhaps we can reduce universe to a set of rules in a neat theory of everything, mayhaps we cant..

its is all just crude models at the moment and they work well enough for our toolmaking skills, they still need lots of insulation against failures and work in percentages rather than absolutes.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

G_d is omniscient, but withdraws himself from acting, which sorta presages free will.....'>........

Since He doesn't withdraw Himself from perfect knowledge of exactly what Jones will and has done, and Perfect knowledge necessitates the inevitable outcome at the inevitable time....'>....how is Jones free to do other than what God has ordained?

Because G_d doesn't ordain anything. Nothing is written, there is no Plan. Human beings can move towards His presence, or away. 'Bout all there's too it..........

[Farcus]

G_d is omniscient, but withdraws himself from acting, which sorta presages free will.....'>........

Since He doesn't withdraw Himself from perfect knowledge of exactly what Jones will and has done, and Perfect knowledge necessitates the inevitable outcome at the inevitable time....'>....how is Jones free to do other than what God has ordained?

Because G_d doesn't ordain anything. Nothing is written, there is no Plan. Human beings can move towards His presence, or away. 'Bout all there's too it..........

Except that He's an omniscient Creator, and He's omniscient.
Jones is only free to do what God knows he will do, and nothing else...'>.... else God would not have perfect knowlege and wouldn't be omniscient.

[Marcus]

. . i seem to remember ive seen alot of religious arguments in relation to that on the ole spengler board and the varying viewpoints on gods mechanisms, from the explicit hands on view to the implicit rules view. . .

Indeed, noddy, at the old ATOL forum, at the First Things forum, probably at Tinker's and now here . . nuthin' new under the sun . . there's always someone itching to start a new pissing match in terms of personal conflicts and prejudices over mutually-exclusive world-views crystallized ages ago.

Check the "trapline" thread in Hell if you want to know what's really afoot in this silly, redundancy . .

Been there, done that . . boring . .

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Except that He's an omniscient Creator, and He's omniscient.
Jones is only free to do what God knows he will do, and nothing else...'>.... else God would not have perfect knowledge and wouldn't be omniscient.

I..... don't get that, and don't see a point to that at all. G_d is disinterested in what a person wills or does. A person is allowed Free Will, which means a design that allows possibilities not anticipated by G_d because G_d imposes limitations on Himself not to for-ordain or impose a destiny. That's what the Christian G_d is - pagan gods will hammer you all over the place.....'>........

[Farcus]

Except that He's an omniscient Creator, and He's omniscient.
Jones is only free to do what God knows he will do, and nothing else...'>.... else God would not have perfect knowledge and wouldn't be omniscient.

I..... don't get that, and don't see a point to that at all. G_d is disinterested in what a person wills or does. A person is allowed Free Will, which means a design that allows [/i]possibilities not anticipated by G_d[/i] because G_d imposes limitations on Himself not to for-ordain or impose a destiny. That's what the Christian G_d is - pagan gods will hammer you all over the place.....'>........

This is about God's knowledge, which by virtue of Him being Who He Is, is the same thing as fact, infallibly, invariably, and eternally.
Omnipotence is not how Perfect Knowledge comes about. There is no act of power that forces or necessitates God's knowledge to be fact. Perfect knowledge is fact of it's own accord because God knows the facts, not simply because He Creates them.
So to set up blank spaces in God's Perfect knowledge of Jones' future is the same as doing the same for Jones' past, as the future is but a recollection for God, Who Created time. It also amounts to an "Immovable Rock" situation by begging the question: Does omniscience include the knowledge of how not to be omniscient?

[noddy]

yeh, this aspect is an obvious reductionist stance to you.

your talking about theology, not science and that stance is only one of many different theological stances and you reject the others based on the reductionist logic of your stance... which is nice... but nothing much to do with how various sects take their theology or god concepts.

i dont see much rational reductionism in theology - you get bits of it in some of them but usually it all becomes fishing about architecture.

mythology and poetry that triggers emotional responses/inspiration in humans doesnt need to be rational... i believe a certain depressed german philosopher who came up with the god is dead thing pretty much said that.

[Farcus]

yeh, this aspect is an obvious reductionist stance to you.

I haven't taken a stance, other than to explore the deterministic geneology of "To each his own" and it's close correlation with epidemic typhus.
And reduction isn't a bad word, unless one is an obscurantist with a childhood vendetta against word problems. It's a powerful tool to raise signal/noise ratio.
Overreduction? Yes, a problem for the overreducer. Please point out my over-reductions with glee. But be advised that when I drill down to simple points, they are usually at the bedrock where ideas are founded, and when I take a stance, I show my reasons and invite criticism. I also test knots I tie for the same reasons.
Also, people reduce when they respond to me because they either expect me to know their train of reductions, or be able to find enough to follow. It saves everyone a lot of work and is still considerably creative and thoughtful, unlike quote-bombs and drive-bys.

your talking about theology, not science and that stance is only one of many different theological stances and you reject the others based on the reductionist logic of your stance... which is nice... but nothing much to do with how various sects take their theology or god concepts.

Not really. I'm talking about the essential incompatability of two different concepts - the determinism brought about by God's omniscience (which some will seek to limit), and individual free will (which some will seek to expand). This is not flawed reduction, but least common denominators. New Advent agrees with me here.

i dont see much rational reductionism in theology - you get bits of it in some of them but usually it all becomes fishing about architecture.

mythology and poetry that triggers emotional responses/inspiration in humans dont need to be rational... that be missing the point i suspect.

But it's still OK to consider some things rationally, in between fucks and tears and golf swings and other displays of power.
That's what I want to do here: rational. I doubt anyone wants much of the other from me.

Theology lacks a lot of things, including unified answers to simple questions that must have unified answers. And you'd think the world would have had enough of silly love songs. But what's wrong with that, I'd like to know? Theology also includes a great deal of rational reduction, as it's an essential tool of the trade, and it's serious business. There are a lot of very very logical and precise theologians serving, comforting, challenging millions of minds and hearts. Making the world better, one idea, one reader, at a time, or by the thousand. They don't have to give up their critical or analytical standards to do it either.

Back to the OP, which is not about silly love songs or the magic of emotional connections. New Advent says that an atheist must perforce be a determinist, which by definition or implication excludes individual free will and choice. Westminster Creed holds that every person's every thought and action is caused and guided by God. "Hard Determinism" means that the only measure of a man's freedom is his freedom to be an instrument of God. This includes his freedom to have emotions or choices.
What do you think?

[noddy]

i think if new advent believes that, then they are idiots fishing round for reasons they are special.

i also am still suspect at your reading of westminster.. i dont have my own reading of westminster as im not religious and will not accept all the preconditions for understanding the damn thing in the first place... i hold it at arms length like all philosophy and try and pay attention as best i can.

the nuance between god setting some basic rules (lets call em physics and stuff) and god controlling every movement by hand make a tremendous difference in the experience for us humans, which is what religion is about ... by humans for humans.

the omni^3 that lets god see the outcomes before they happen is irrelevant to the human experience.

are we in a strict marching band like puppets with every aspect determined or are we in a great big sporting match with basic rules and free will to play those rules ?

god picks best and fairest rather than "winner" but noone knows the exact rules that get used for that anyway.. so still largely opaque to us humans )

this is not settled in theology, this was the fundamental argument in many many threads on the spengler forum so i cant really take it as a raw primitive ... it only shows up if you get hung up on the reductionist immovable rock and why god would self limit ... which is all the judeochristian god of love stuff as i understand it (poorly no doubt)

according to the spengler forum judeo christian promoters this was the problem with islamic god concepts - from their perspective that was the god of puppetry not the self limited god of free choices.

or something like that.

[Enki]

The problem here is that we do not look at morality in its objective terms anymore.

Morality is the key to being healthy and having a healthy society. Instead of this, "Do this, get a reward, don't do that you get punished.", it's more like, "The world works like this, and if you work in harmony with the world, the world will work in your favor, if you don't work in harmony with the world, the world will not work in your favor." True moral behavior leads to good health, and good relationships with those around you.

[Marcus]

logo.gif (4.44 KiB) Viewed 988 times

Experiments in Philosophy
The impact of psychological research on life's big questions.
by a Band of Philosophers

Can an Atheist Believe in Free Will?
Why isn't Dawkins as tough on himself as he is on believers?
Published on January 22, 2009 by Tamler Sommers, Ph.D. in Experiments in Philosophy

[A]n interesting 5 minute video accuses Richard Dawkins of being inconsistent in holding that belief in free will and moral responsibility is justified but that belief in God is unjustified. The argument goes like this.

In response to a questioner, Dawkins concedes that if you take a deterministic or mechanistic view of the universe, it seems absurd to think we have free will and that we can go around blaming criminals and praising distinguished authors. The whole idea of blame and praise seems to go out the window. It's like Basil Fawlty blaming his car for not running properly. And since there's likely no one alive who takes a more mechanistic view of human behavior than Dawkins, he should stop going around affirming free will and blaming and praising people. But when asked why he doesn't stop, he says first, that it seems to us that have free will and second, that life would be intolerable if we believed otherwise. In another post, I've challenged the latter point, but that's not the concern here. Let's grant Dawkins those claims. Dawkins concludes that "this is an inconsistency we have to live with" and so we may continue to believe in free will and moral responsibility, and blame and praise people accordingly. (In his defense, he does seem slightly uncomfortable about the tension.)

Now the video turns to his views on belief in God. A questioner asks him why he doesn't think that belief in God is a personal choice, given that some people find great comfort in that belief. Dawkins replies: Look, that's fine if some people find comfort believing in God, but that doesn't mean that belief is true! He says: "I'm afraid that something intolerable may still be true. That's just tough."

Now wait a minute! Didn't Dawkins just say that it's fine for us to go on believing in free will and acting accordingly because life would be intolerable otherwise? By that same reasoning, people who would find life intolerable without belief in God are justified in retaining it. What's sauce for free will goose should be sauce for the God gander, right? Or, on the flip side, why isn't it "just tough" for Dawkins that he would find life without free will intolerable? Why shouldn't he stop affirming it anyway? This seems like a deep inconsistency.

Now granted, Dawkins doesn't find life without God intolerable, nor does it seem to him that God exists. So Dawkins himself wouldn't be justified in believing in God by his own standards. But someone who did meet those conditions—and there are certainly plenty of those people—would seem to be justified in that belief.. After all, I'm someone who doesn't find life without free will intolerable. I see Dawkins on free will the same way he sees people who couldn't bear it if there were no God or afterlife. I don't think he's thought the implications through clearly. In any case, to resolve this consistency, it seems Dawkins has to either (a) think that it's justified for people to believe things that make life tolerable, or (b) repudiate his own belief in free will and moral responsibility as firmly as he thinks that others should repudiate belief in God. I don't see any other way out. Does anyone else?

[Enki]

Richard Dawkins cannot help but be the way he is, he has no free will.

[Marcus]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm

logo-1.gif (1.05 KiB) Viewed 983 times

Determinism is a name employed by writers, especially since J. Stuart Mill, to denote the philosophical theory which holds — in opposition to the doctrine of free will — that all man's volitions are invariably determined by pre-existing circumstances. It may take diverse forms, some cruder, some more refined. Biological and materialistic Determinism maintains that each of our voluntary acts finds its sufficient and complete cause in the physiological conditions of the organism. Psychological Determinism ascribes efficiency to the psychical antecedents. In this view each volition or act of choice is determined by the character of the agent plus the motives acting on him at the time. Advocates of this theory, since Mill, usually object to the names, Necessarianism and Fatalism, on the ground that these words seem to imply some form of external compulsion, whilst they affirm only the fact of invariable sequence or uniform causal connectedness between motives and volition. Opposed to this view is the doctrine of Indeterminism, or what perhaps may more accurately be called Anti-determinism, which denies that man is thus invariably determined in all his acts of choice. This doctrine has been stigmatized by some of its opponents as the theory of "causeless volition", or "motiveless choice"; and the name Indeterminism, is possibly not the best selection to meet the imputation. The objection is, however, not justified. The Anti-determinists, while denying that the act of choice is always merely the resultant of the assemblage of motives playing on the mind, teach positively that the Ego, or Self, is the cause of our volitions; and they describe it as a "free" or "self-determining" cause. The presence of some reason or motive, they ordinarily hold, is a necessary condition for every act of free choice, but they insist that the Ego can decide between motives. Choice is not, they maintain, uniformly determined by the pleasantest or the worthiest motive or collection of motives. Nor is it the inevitable consequent of the strongest motive, except in that tautological sense in which the word strongest simply signifies that motive which as a matter of fact prevails. Determinism and the denial of free will seem to be a logical consequence of all monistic hypotheses. They are obviously involved in all materialistic theories. For Materialism of every type necessarily holds that every incident in the history of the universe is the inevitable outcome of the mechanical and physical movements and changes which have gone before. But Determinism seems to be an equally necessary consequence of monistic Idealism. Indeed the main argument against monistic and pantheistic systems will always be the fact of free will. Self-determination implies separateness of individuality and independence in each free agent, and thus entails a pluralistic conception of the universe. (See DUALISM; MONISM.) In spite of the assertions of Determinists, no true logical distinction can be made between their view and that of Fatalism. In both systems each of my volitions is as inexorably fated, or pre-determined, in the past conditions of the universe as the movements of the planets or the tides. The opponents of Determinism usually insist on two lines of argument, the one based on the consciousness of freedom in the act of deliberate choice, the other on the incompatibility of Determinism with our fundamental moral convictions. The notions of responsibility, moral obligation, merit, and the like, as ordinarily understood, would be illusory if Determinism were true. The theory is in fact fatal to ethics, as well as to the notion of sin and the fundamental Christian belief that we can merit both reward and punishment. (See FREE WILL; ETHICS; FATALISM.)

[Marcus]

Free-Will-Cover_small.jpg (36.82 KiB) Viewed 982 times

Do We Have Free Will? Sam Harris Says No
March 6, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 98 Comments
Today marks the release of Sam Harris‘ new eBook, Free Will. A couple of exclusive excerpts from the book are below!

I had a chance to read the book a couple of weeks ago. As someone who prefers to avoid most philosophical discussions, I found this book easy to understand and quick to read. I’m in no place to argue for or against his thesis, but Harris definitely leaves you with a lot of food for thought and presents some compelling anecdotes to hammer his points home.
…
After discussing the cases of two criminals:
As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23, 2007 — that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state — I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this. The role of luck, therefore, appears decisive.
…
On the choices we make in life:
Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn’t choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime — by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?

[Enki]

I do not believe in 'free' will, but I believe in will. We do have the power to make choices.

[Marcus]

I do not believe in 'free' will, but I believe in will. We do have the power to make choices.

Ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will? I rather think he'd agree with you.

[Enki]

I do not believe in 'free' will, but I believe in will. We do have the power to make choices.

Ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will? I rather think he'd agree with you.

No, I haven't, I'll check it out.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Consider this classic example:



A rationalist may pronounce this an optical illusion and a mystic may state this an imperfect illustration of a valid reality beyond our comprehension. All of the classic proofs on the existence and nature of G_d presuppose things like infinitude and perfection can be adequately understood and discussed by human beings. You can probably guess my leanings, but I find arguments like this often baffling if not laughable. When 'the greatest that can be conceived' isn't very much, it's probably best not to seriously talk about such as if it meant anything. The infinite cannot be diminished. G_d can be infinitely wise and infinitely ignorant at the same time. G_d can be omniscient AND man can have free will. G_d is dead only because reason can be an illusion.....'>........

[Dioscuri]

Gentlepeople, we don't mean to be offensive, but your grounding theological concepts are horsesh*t. This isn't the fault of the concepts either, they can't help but to be what they are.

The real crevasse is not between Divine Omniscience and Free Will, it is between Subject (Consciousness) and Object.

You have two ideas of God.

The first Idea is that the consciousness of God is infinite. It knows All of the universe.

The second Idea is that God and the universe are different things. God "created" the universe, which means this here, all that WE see and know, is not God.

You think of these two features as having to be together, and this is the source of all your problems. You might try, difficult as this is for you, to approach the matter from strict logic.

What would it mean for an infinite consciousness to “perceive” something? It would mean perceiving everything about everything; it would have All Knowledge. So if the objects of this infinite consciousness are completely and absolutely known in their essence, which they must be if this consciousness is infinite, what does it mean to say that an object and this consciousness are two different things? For if knowledge of the object is complete and absolute, then the knowing of this knowledge must completely and absolutely pervade the object’s essence; in other words, if consciousness is infinite, the essence of the object itself must include its being known by consciousness, and since it is the object’s essence, that which knows must either include the object, or the object must include the knowing of it(self). And if the Knowledge of the object is infinite, then the Knowledge must also include the object’s entire history and future, everything that surrounds it and affects it, its precise status at all times. What difference then could there be between an infinite consciousness and the objects it is conscious of? Everything that the object is must be assigned ultimately to Knowledge. We must conclude that an infinite consciousness and its objects must be the same. Which means that either the “consciousness” or the “object” must be a false predication. There could be only one thing, not two.

The hypothesis of infinite consciousness forces pantheism upon the universe in which such a consciousness exists. If God is omniscient, then the entire universe must be God. If the universe is not identical with God, God cannot be omniscient. This, then, is the downfall of all traditional theologies that hold simultaneously that the deity is Infinite Consciousness and that the created world is distinct from the deity.

It is not to be held against you for not understanding. The languages themselves, what words are capable of saying, require and depend upon the separation of the two dimensions of Knowledge. It is this separation itself that is equivocated as the concept of "Freedom".

The ones who have seen this problem are doomed to be unable to satisfy your demand for dogmatic satisfaction. Maimonides, for instance, was such a man. No one ever notices that his 13 Principles of Jewish Faith do not include Divine Omniscience. Let us underline this, according to Maimonides, it is not required to believe that God Knows All.. Master equivocator that he was, Maimonides got away with this without anyone noticing. And the fact that no one noticed was likely a great and dark sadness of his old age. True Masters are rare things, and all the more rare since nearly no one recognizes a Master even when they are in one's very presence.

It seems like the kind of thing someone would have had to notice, but such is the power of dogma. We instinctively make the illusion of Omniscience fill in the gap in the concept of God. Unfortunately, we have never had the right to comfort ourselves in this way. And by the way, you'll have to be careful about the translations that you read. Often Maimonides' first principle is rendered "Creator and Ruler of all that has been created". "Ruler" is a mistranslation of horrible fatality. Maimonides in fact says that God "creates and guides all the created." "Guides" is manhig, from the root nahag. "Rules" is the root mashal, and if Maimonides had intended to use a word as momentous as mashal to describe God's disposition regarding the Creation, he would have done so. If you had the slightest love for wisdom you would curse and abominate every translator who has ever lived, how blindly and horribly they wrong your poor minds. In that equivocation everything hangs in the balance. This "guides," and the indeterminacy of the Knowledge of this guiding, is a key to great and terrible secrets, and Maimonides tried to do his best for you by placing a key in such a prominent place, Principle Number One!, but your skulls might as well be a ton of lead, so impervious are they to the rays of truth.

The fact is that something that merely "guides" is not logically required to know what it is doing. Blind chance can also be called "guidance", and do not doubt that Maimonides knew this when he wrote manhig.

Maimonides understood the terror of this problem, and he knew that he had to choose. You can have Divine Omniscience or you can have a Creator/World distinction (that is to say, a subject/object distinction). Maimonides was bound to follow Torah, and Torah begins with God creating, not with God knowing.

It was to fall to Spinoza to take up the opposition, to insist upon what Quantum Theory would arrive at nearly 4 centuries later, that any "existence" is both predicated upon and ultimately reducible to, Knowledge.

So long as our knowledge is finite, so long as an enormity of unknowns looms over consciousness, objects are perceived as separate, self-identical enclosures moving within space-time. But from a God’s-eye-view in which everything is known and there is no unknown, the difference between Consciousness and its Object breaks down: the objects themselves are revealed to consist only of Knowledge. "Bit before It" as a recent aphorism excellently puts it.

The question, then, is that if reality itself is ultimately nothing but Information, why is so much of this information so difficult to get at? The correct way to begin to approach this question of the inaccessibility of Knowledge is to analogize it to the question of spacetime: why all this void immensity surrounding miniscule little pockets of reified matter? Why has spacetime sprawled infinitely outwards? Why do the stars appear as tiny breaches in the covering of night, whereas if all the stars of the universe, which are infinite, in fact achieved all that their light endeavors to do, every point in the universe would be an absolute illumination?

We may be able to go at least some distance toward outlining how this question may be answered, if you do not prove too wearisome.

[Skin Job]

If anyone here deserves to employ the majestic plural, it may as well be you. A very interesting post, thanks.

[Skin Job]

I should not be difficult to identify much of the Dioscuri's stylings as a goad to provoke a certain reaction.

I'd be interested to read how they (the Dioscuri) propose to fashion an answer comprehensible to such limited minds.

[Marcus]

I should not be difficult to identify much of the Dioscuri's stylings as a goad to provoke a certain reaction.

I'd be interested to read how they (the Dioscuri) propose to fashion an answer comprehensible to such limited minds.

If a goad was intended, it was successful.

I'd rather imagine though that such esoterica patronizingly directed at the plebeian masses is more intended to establish intellectual superiority, i.e., Gnosticism, the object of which isn't so much enlightenment as it is submission.

After all, the question of God's immanence and transcendence is nothing new:

God’s Immanence and Transcendence

God’s immanence and transcendence relate to His relationship with the created world. They do not refer to His specific actions, but to His relationship with the world. According to the World Book Dictionary, the definition of immanence is, the pervading presence of God in His creation, and the definition of the transcendence of God is to be above and independent of the physical universe. The two attributes are opposite but complimentary, and need to be kept in the proper balance to understand God. He is both superior to, and absent from, His creation and yet very present and active within the universe.

The immanence of God is seen in His presence and activity within nature, with humans, and in history. There are numerous references to God’s immanence in Scripture. His activity within nature is seen in Psalm 65:9-13:

You care for the land and water it; you enrich it abundantly. The streams of God are filled with water to provide the people with grain, for so you have ordained it. You drench its furrows and level its ridges; you soften it with showers and bless its crops. You crown the year with your bounty, and your carts overflow with abundance. The grasslands of the desert overflow; the hills are clothed with gladness. The meadows are covered with flocks and the valleys are mantled with grain; they shout for joy and sing. (NIV)

God’s presence with man is noted in Job 33:4: The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life (NIV). And His activity in history is recorded in Isaiah 63:11: Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people– where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, (NIV). These are but a few of the examples of God’s immanence in the world.

Two of the attributes that exemplify God’s immanence are His omnipotence and omnipresence. He has an all-pervading presence and power within the world.

There are also some important implications of God’s immanence. He can, for instance, work indirectly to accomplish His purposes. The practice of medicine exemplifies this in instances in which a doctor or a medication is God’s channel for His activity of healing. God is also free to use individuals who are outside of His chosen people. In the Old Testament, He chose a pagan king, Cyrus, to free the Israelites from bondage. Another implication of God’s immanence is that we should appreciate all of creation since God created it. We can also learn something about God from His creation. Lastly, and most importantly, unbelievers can make a point of contact with God through His creation, primarily, the believers who have His indwelling Spirit.

The other important implication of His immanence, especially seen in His omnipotence and omnipresence, is that God is infinite. He is not limited to a certain spot within nature, He is beyond nature. There is nowhere that He cannot be found. He is infinite in relation to time, for He is timeless. God does not develop or grow. His understanding and wisdom are immeasurable. His power is unlimited and He is completely free of external influences. God is unlimited and unlimit-able, unlike anything we experience. Thus, we see God’s transcendence even within His immanence.

In the following passages, both God’s immanence and transcendence are found:

For this is what the high and lofty One says– he who lives forever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. (Isaiah 57:15, NIV)
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. `For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.’ (Acts 17:24, 28, NIV)

God is not only personal, and dwells within man, He is also exalted above all creation. He is active and present in our world, and yet superior, absent and removed from it.