But isn’t that something different? If God is by nature omnipresent, and if He can’t act against His nature, how could He say “OK, good bye place XYZ”? Him choosing not to work in a person’s life is different from Him actually being present in a place.Simple…If God is who He is, then if He chooses to deny His presence to certain people or a place then who’s to stop Him.
It is the ultimate penalty of sin. Sort of as if God says, “So you reject me from your life? Then, so be it. I withdraw from you so that you may experience the reality of what you have lost.”
This is incorrect. God has made Hell to be a place completely separate from Himself; he is not present there in any way.It depends on how you define “present”.
A student in a classroom can be present physically, but his mind is somewhere else.
I think this similarly applies to God. God is present in being in hell, but in spirit/mind he is absent.
This is also assuming hell as a “place”. You could also look at it as God being present, but since those in hell chose to separate themselves from God, they are the ones ignoring (or being absent in mind/spirit in the presence of) God.
Exactly. Seems like this question comes up a lot because I feel like I typed this before but…If someone were truely separated from God they would cease to exist. Every existing thing has God as it’s/their center. We can easily ignore Him though.It depends on how you define “present”.
A student in a classroom can be present physically, but his mind is somewhere else.
I think this similarly applies to God. God is present in being in hell, but in spirit/mind he is absent.
This is also assuming hell as a “place”. You could also look at it as God being present, but since those in hell chose to separate themselves from God, they are the ones ignoring (or being absent in mind/spirit in the presence of) God.
Culter,
The reason God is not in Hell is because Hell IS, by definition, a “state of separation from God.” The reason Hell is so… well, ‘hellish,’ is because all beings within it are eternally separated from the love of God by their own choice.
Hell is a place created for the express purpose of being away from God, and that is what makes it Hell.
It’s still kind of hard to understand how that fits in, because then the two definitions are contradictory.This is incorrect. God has made Hell to be a place completely separate from Himself; he is not present there in any way.
I would disagree, but what evidence do you have to show that God is not at all (in being and in spirit) present in hell?This is incorrect. God has made Hell to be a place completely separate from Himself; he is not present there in any way.
That’s exactly the point! Hell is not necessarily (key word here) a physical place; it is a STATE of being. This state of being is separation from God.it’s still kind of hard to understand how that fits in, because then the two definitions are contradictory.
Hell: By definition without God’s presence
God: By definition everywhere
Another thing is, according to Michelle Arnold in one of the Quick Questions on CA, god did not create Hell but rather permitted it to be. (I don’t understand how that works either, since nothing can be created apart from God.)
That would seem to mean that God didn’t create hell, but allowed it to exist because of sin. This is easier to understand if you don’t think of hell as a place.Another thing is, according to Michelle Arnold in one of the Quick Questions on CA, god did not create Hell but rather permitted it to be. (I don’t understand how that works either, since nothing can be created apart from God.)
The bolded is is the problem with your argument. As I said in my previous post, omnipresence is not a limitation, it is an ability. To suggest that God could be forced by His own power to be everywhere if He does not wish to be everywhere is ludicrous.I would disagree, but what evidence do you have to show that God is not at all (in being and in spirit) present in hell?
My argument:** If God is omnipresent, then God must be everywhere, at least in being. If God would not be present in being somewhere, that would be contradictory to who he is, and therefore could not happen.** You can’t be absolutely everywhere and not be in some place, at least not in being. It would make more sense that he is present in being, but absent in spirit.
Yes.That would seem to mean that God didn’t create hell, but allowed it to exist because of sin. This is easier to understand if you don’t think of hell as a place.
How can God sustain the existance of someone if he is completly separated from that person? We can’t cause our own existence, it can only come from God (i.e. we mearly participate in Existence).That’s exactly the point! Hell is not necessarily (key word here) a physical place; it is a STATE of being. This state of being is separation from God.
Now, one other problem is that you are looking at God’s attributes as limitations. Omnipresence does not mean God is incapable of NOT being everywhere at once; it simply means that he is capable of being everywhere he wishes (which happens to be everywhere except for Hell).
I have never heard of the idea that God’s omnipresence is an “ability”. That sounds very foreign to me. Just as God can by nature not lie, He is omnipresent. At least that’s what I’ve always been accustomed to. It’s not God’s ability to not lie, it’s His very Being.That’s exactly the point! Hell is not necessarily (key word here) a physical place; it is a STATE of being. This state of being is separation from God.
Now, one other problem is that you are looking at God’s attributes as limitations. Omnipresence does not mean God is incapable of NOT being everywhere at once; it simply means that he is capable of being everywhere he wishes (which happens to be everywhere except for Hell).
OK, if Hell is not a place that makes things easier.That would seem to mean that God didn’t create hell, but allowed it to exist because of sin. This is easier to understand if you don’t think of hell as a place.
I am puzzled. You are stating that God is the cause of the continued existence of everything that exists, (which is true, evidence of his omnipotence) and in the same statement, you say that he couldn’t sustain everything’s existence if he is separated from it.How can God sustain the existance of someone if he is completly separated from that person? We can’t cause our own existence, it can only come from God (i.e. we mearly participate in Existence).
I was posting that before I was able to see your definition of omnipresent. I don’t agree with that definition, but if we go by that definition, then yes it is possible for God to not be present in hell. However, I’ve always understood omnipresence to mean God is “all present”, meaning God is present everywhere, just as omnipotence means “all powerful”, meaning that God can do all that is possible, or omniscience, or “all knowing”, meaning that God knows all that there was, is, or will be. So, this theme of all implying that it is an encompassing thing (omni meaning “all” or “all things”). I wouldn’t call this a limitation on God, but part of the definition of God. Not a limitation, but a fact. Just as if God is Truth, then God cannot be anything that is false. Given your definition, it would be like saying that omniscience means God knows all that he wants to know, which would mean that God could potentially not know something, which seems contradictory to who he is.The bolded is is the problem with your argument. As I said in my previous post, omnipresence is not a limitation, it is an ability. To suggest that God could be forced by His own power to be everywhere if He does not wish to be everywhere is ludicrous.