Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise, Pt. 2
(this is continued from the last entry)
So how then do we account for a being that claims to be unchanging? It is an affront to a very important and tangible aspect of the way we define selfhood. I would like to submit to you, that in very important ways, we are incapable of dealing with any of the four words I’ve suggested to you in a meaningful way. We cannot fathom the depth of the knowledge theists aspire to their God/s. All four words are enigmatic, and the minute we attempt to discuss them, our vernacular betrays our complete lack of ability to define the concept. It’s impossible to talk about an immutable God without dealing with the question of time. I dare you to try. If it’s not impossible, it is so difficult as to be speaking in gibberish, even if it was possible. Let me give you an example, so you can see how ridiculous the discussion becomes:
Person #1: God changes his mind.
Person #2: Give me an example.
Person #1: First, God said [fill in the blank]. Then, later, He did something that seems to contradict what he said earlier.
In the dialogue above, I’ve used 25 words, 4 of which (Person #2’s statement) do not deal substantively with the issue at hand, so we have 21 words. Of those 21, 8 deal with time. All verbs inflect tense. The introductory words, which keep chronological order, denote order of change. The comparison word `earlier’ also inflects time. Do you see the problem here? 40% of the words in this attempt put constraints on God which are incorrect. The problem doesn’t become simpler when we deal with the other concepts. When we deal with God’s omniscience, the question often becomes, what does God know and when did He know it? Do you see the time aspect being displayed here? How about omnipresence? How did He get there, and how long did it take Him to get all over the place? Omnipotence? When did God do these things, and couldn’t He just do it all at once and get it over with? You’re beginning to see the issue.
I think the debate itself is flawed. Let me say one thing, and then I’ll try to go along with the debate as best I can. The Christian conception of God makes claims that put God, by definition, out of the realm of the understandable. This is part and partial to the Christian message-that God is beyond our capacity to describe Him. I don’t claim that this is for everyone, but the jump to say that those claims are true of God and that on one level, we will never understand Him while we’re in this life, is crucial to the Christian message. I would go so far as to call that a strength. While there are many people who are intent on fashioning their God in their own image, I prefer a God that fashioned me in His. There is a comfort factor in knowing that God is smarter than me. If I was able to understand God, wouldn’t that cheapen Him somehow?
Of course, the atheists and logicians in the mix will jump all over this claim, because it removes God from any meaningful dialogue, and seems to claim he is above idle speculation. This is the basis of the philosophical desire to undermine God comes from. Philosophers do not deal well with issues that are beyond definition. Before the advent of purely secular philosophy, we see a variety of philosophers trying to figure out the depth of their ineptitude to deal with a God who claims to be the `big 4.’ After the advent of secular philosophy, to avoid this matter for other pursuits, the philosophers basically came to the empiricist conclusion-if we can’t measure it (and all measuring requires change over time) then we aren’t going to acknowledge it. And God was left out of the equation. In other words, it’s not that God is irrelevant, it’s that He’s unexplainable, and to a world desperate for an explanation, the jump to faith from disprovable fact (one way or the other) is a jump many are now unwilling to make, I think understandably so. It’s a lot to ask.
But the question still has to be asked. And it is still pertinent for Christians. We believe God is these things, and even though we don’t understand the fullness of it, we attempt to get our feeble little brains around the ideas as best we can, usually in distinction to our own limits. We know God’s completeness only by comparing it like mathematicians talk about infinity-movement in a direction beyond the extents of our own personal frame of reference. How much does God know? How powerful is He? Where is He? I don’t know how far out He goes, but I know that He goes beyond my own limits, and the limits of anyone I’ve met-I can say that with certainty. As you approach him, your own limits become painfully clear.