How can God not be in Hell, if He is Omnipresent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dshix said:
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.

Do you suggest that God’s omnipotence is not complete?
Click to expand...
God’s omnipotence does not include the logically impossible. It is logically impossible to sustain something without being involved with it, since sustaining is involvement.
 
CutlerB said:
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.

OK, if Hell is not a place that makes things easier.
Click to expand...
Ok. If you do not understand it in that way, I’ll put it in another.

Let me present a paradox. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. This means that He has the power to do anything according to his nature, and He also is present everywhere.

What if God didn’t WANT to be present in a particular place? Would his incapability to not be somewhere mean that He is not really omnipotent?
Another example.

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent. He sees all evil in the world, knows it is there, has the power to destroy it, and is omnibenevolent, so has the goodness to want to destroy all evil. WHY does He not do it?

The problem of evil is explained in Catholic teaching, and thus I don’t present this to you necessarily as a question but more as a proof. Just because God CAN do something doesn’t mean He does it, if He has a reason not to do it. Similarly, just because He CAN be everywhere at once doesn’t mean he must be everywhere at once.
 
CutlerB said:
God’s omnipotence does not include the logically impossible. It is logically impossible to sustain something without being involved with it, since sustaining is involvement.
Click to expand...
What law of nature says that God must be present in or beside something in order to sustain it? The nature of His omnipotence means he could sustain it if it was in another universe, another dimension, even without His presence.
 
dshix said:
Ok. If you do not understand it in that way, I’ll put it in another.

Let me present a paradox. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. This means that He has the power to do anything according to his nature, and He also is present everywhere.

What is God didn’t WANT to be present in a particular place? Would his incapability to not be somewhere mean that He is not really omnipotent?
Another example.

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent. He sees all evil in the world, knows it is there, has the power to destroy it, and is omnibenevolent, so has the goodness to want to destroy all evil. WHY does He not do it?

The problem of evil is explained in Catholic teaching, and thus I don’t present this to you necessarily as a question but more as a proof. Just because God CAN do something doesn’t mean He does it, if He has a reason not to do it. Similarly, just because He CAN be everywhere at once doesn’t mean he must be everywhere at once.
Click to expand...
Hm. But God would not want to do the logically impossible, would He? I sort of get your point, but only sort of 😦
 
dshix said:
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.

Do you suggest that God’s omnipotence is not complete?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying he’s limited but I think it’s generally understood that God can’t do the impossible. To say that God can sustain our existence and be completly separated from us is a contradiction. Thinking in terms of participation is better. We only participate in Existence (God=Existence), how can we participate in something while at the same time be separated from it. If something exists, it exists in and through God. This would inclide the souls in Hell and the fallen angels as well.

Wasn’t there an “ask an apologist” about this question?
 
CutlerB said:
Hm. But God would not want to do the logically impossible, would He? I sort of get your point, but only sort of 😦
Click to expand...
It is difficult, isn’t it? 😛

I agree with others on the thread who say Hell is not an actual place, but I’d like to see Catholic teaching on the matter. I’ve never seen the official understanding of whether Hell is physical or not.

I would guess there is some physical aspect to it, because the people in it will have bodies after the general judgement, however…
 
dshix said:
It is difficult, isn’t it? 😛

I agree with others on the thread who say Hell is not an actual place, but I’d like to see Catholic teaching on the matter. I’ve never seen the official understanding of whether Hell is physical or not.

I would guess there is some physical aspect to it, because the people in it will have bodies after the general judgement, however…
Click to expand...
It is. Thinking of it as more of a state than a place makes things easier, but I guess we can’t understand it completely. I might call up CA on a show some day and ask them. That’s if I can stay up long enough…
 
dshix said:
Ok. If you do not understand it in that way, I’ll put it in another.

Let me present a paradox. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. This means that He has the power to do anything according to his nature, and He also is present everywhere.

What if God didn’t WANT to be present in a particular place? Would his incapability to not be somewhere mean that He is not really omnipotent?
Click to expand...
It is a contradiction to who God is for him not to be present somewhere, if he chose to, he would cease to be himself, which is a problem, because if God ceases to be himself, then he is not God. So, God (being truth), cannot contradict himself. Being everywhere and not being someplace contradicts what it means to be everywhere, and therefore must be present. Similarly, God’s omnipotence is not limited, but again, can’t do that which contradicts himself, otherwise he ceases to be himself. Similarly, God cannot lie, because he is truth.
 
bzkoss236 said:
It is a contradiction to who God is for him not to be present somewhere, if he chose to, he would cease to be himself, which is a problem, because if God ceases to be himself, then he is not God. So, God (being truth), cannot contradict himself. Being everywhere and not being someplace contradicts what it means to be everywhere, and therefore must be present. Similarly, God’s omnipotence is not limited, but again, can’t do that which contradicts himself, otherwise he ceases to be himself. Similarly, God cannot lie, because he is truth.
Click to expand...
That is precisely why I present the opinion that omnipresence is not the state of being everywhere but rather the **capability **to be everywhere.

One of the reasons I think this is because after the general judgement, all persons in Hell will have bodies. Where will these bodies be? It will have to be in some place. Since hell is a state of separation from God, and these people will have physical bodies (presumably in a physical place), how can there be a place that is, by definition, separation from God, and yet at the same time God is present? You have created yet another paradox.
 
I’m trying to find something in Aquinas to support my idea since I think that’s where it came from in the first place. I’m not finding anything directly but he did teach that nothing can be purly evil (i.e. contain no good). Existence is good. Since the souls in Hell exist, they have some good in them. Since God is the only source of Good, they can’t be completly separated from him.
 
J_Peterson said:
I’m trying to find something in Aquinas to support my idea since I think that’s where it came from in the first place. I’m not finding anything directly but he did teach that nothing can be purly evil (i.e. contain no good). Existence is good. Since the souls in Hell exist, they have some good in them. Since God is the only source of Good, they can’t be completly separated from him.
Click to expand...
That’s somewhat of a stretch. Actually, no, that’s QUITE a stretch. 😃

Let’s stick with, “hell is a state of separation from God.” 😃
 
dshix said:
That is precisely why I present the opinion that omnipresence is not the state of being everywhere but rather the **capability **to be everywhere.
Click to expand...
The issue I have with this is that it requires you to redefine a word that is already used as I have used it. So, given the common definition of omnipresence etc, you seem to be suggesting that God is not actually omnipresent as it is currently defined (as you would have to redefine the terms to still call God omnipresent while holding your position).
dshix said:
One of the reasons I think this is because after the general judgement, all persons in Hell will have bodies. Where will these bodies be? It will have to be in some place. Since hell is a state of separation from God, and these people will have physical bodies (presumably in a physical place), how can there be a place that is, by definition, separation from God, and yet at the same time God is present? You have created yet another paradox.
Click to expand...
There was a CAL episode, can’t remember when though, that explained about heaven and hell and how they could hold physical bodies without being a physical place. It is a bit of a mystery, but since heaven and hell, as far as we know, are not contained within our universe (neither is God), so, such a “place” could exist that is metaphysical (beyond physical) which can have “physicality” but still only be a state of mind. They explained it better than I could. So, it’s not so much a paradox as it is a mystery.
 
bzkoss236 said:
There was a CAL episode, can’t remember when though, that explained about heaven and hell and how they could hold physical bodies without being a physical place. It is a bit of a mystery, but since heaven and hell, as far as we know, are not contained within our universe (neither is God), so, such a “place” could exist that is metaphysical (beyond physical) which can have “physicality” but still only be a state of mind. They explained it better than I could. So, it’s not so much a paradox as it is a mystery.
Click to expand...
That’s very interesting; I’ll have to look into it.
 
sealoch said:
Yes, but if we all agreed it would be quite boring wouldn’t it
Click to expand...
That’s not really the point. The purpose of argument is to reach objective truth by debate, not to simply relish the state of arguing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top