Where is God?
Private Notes for William Cook
Introduction
This paper gathers the core ideas explored regarding the nature of God, perfection, time, free will, suffering, and divine hiddenness. The goal was not to defend a doctrine blindly or reject belief carelessly, but to think carefully, challenge assumptions, and seek clearer definitions.
A recurring theme emerged: many theological conclusions may depend less on direct evidence and more on inherited definitions that are rarely examined.
⸻
I. Perfection and Timelessness
The discussion began with the insight:
Perfection is boring because there is nothing left to do.
From there came a deeper philosophical claim:
Perfection is the same as timelessness.
The reasoning was:
- If something is truly perfect, it does not need improvement.
- If it does not need improvement, it does not change.
- If it does not change, it stands outside sequence and development.
- Therefore, perfection resembles timelessness.
This raised a major tension:
If life includes movement, response, growth, emotion, and relation, then a perfectly static being may not be “alive” in any meaningful sense.
This led to the statement:
If God is perfect, then He cannot be alive.
The argument was not against God, but against a rigid Platonic definition of perfection as immobility.
Response
A distinction was made between two possible meanings of perfection:
Platonic Perfection
- changeless
- complete
- beyond becoming
- outside time
Living Perfection
- perfect love
- perfect wisdom
- perfect justice
- perfect faithfulness
- active and relational
The conclusion was that perhaps the problem lies not with God, but with how perfection has been defined.
⸻
II. Eternal Does Not Necessarily Mean Outside Time
Another key claim was:
Eternal does not mean outside of time.
It may simply mean:
- without beginning
- without end
- enduring through all ages
A being can move through time endlessly without being outside of it.
This matters because much theology assumes:
- God is eternal
- Eternal means timeless
- Therefore God exists outside time
But that second step may be an assumption rather than a necessity.
Response
This was affirmed as a strong textual and philosophical distinction. Endless duration and timeless existence are not identical concepts.
⸻
III. The Biblical Portrait of God Is Dynamic
Using the Bible as evidence for God’s nature, several observations were made:
God is shown to:
- speak
- respond
- judge
- forgive
- remember
- relent
- comfort
- make covenants
- act in history
God is also described with emotions such as:
- joy
- compassion
- anger
- regret
- sorrow
- mercy
- love
These descriptions unfold in sequence and relationship, which are temporal realities.
Response
This creates tension with the later philosophical picture of a completely static and impassible God. The God of narrative appears active and relational.
⸻
IV. The Attributes the Bible Uses for God
It was noted that the Bible often describes God with many qualities, including:
- holy
- righteous
- just
- loving
- merciful
- compassionate
- faithful
- gracious
- patient
- wise
- powerful
- jealous
- good
- true
- near
- living
- great
- majestic
- glorious
A major point followed:
The Bible emphasizes God’s greatness and character more often than abstract metaphysical perfection.
Response
This distinction was considered significant. “Great” and “perfect” are not identical categories.
⸻
V. If God Is Great, Then Why Evil?
Another contradiction was explored:
If God is great, then He cannot be good.
This is a version of the problem of evil.
The logic:
- If God is great, He can stop evil.
- If God is good, He would want to stop evil.
- Evil exists.
- Therefore, either God is not great, not good, or does not exist.
Response
The reply was that the contradiction depends heavily on definitions.
“Good” does not necessarily mean immediate removal of all suffering.
Possible goods that may require risk or struggle:
- freedom
- courage
- compassion
- responsibility
- soul-making
- love freely chosen
But this led to an important refinement.
⸻
VI. Necessary Life Friction vs Unnecessary Evil
A strong distinction was introduced:
There should be a division between:
Necessary Life Friction
The struggles that can contribute to meaning:
- effort before achievement
- discipline before mastery
- challenge before growth
- risk before courage
- contrast that helps joy be known
Unnecessary Evil
Suffering that appears excessive or pointless:
- torture
- abuse
- genocide
- cruelty
- preventable atrocities
Response
This was affirmed as a crucial distinction. Not all suffering belongs in the same category.
The real question may not be why any suffering exists, but why horrors exist that seem far beyond what meaning requires.
⸻
VII. Free Will Law
The introduction of the phrase:
Free Will Law
This did not mean free will as a standard philosophical theory. It meant:
A governing principle of reality that God Himself honors and does not casually violate.
If God grants genuine freedom, then constantly overriding choices would erase the reality of that freedom.
Response
This was developed into the idea that God may self-limit, not from weakness, but from commitment to authentic agency.
⸻
VIII. Extending Free Will Law to Nature
The concept was then expanded:
Could something like Free Will Law apply not only to human beings, but to nature itself?
Could storms, tectonics, weather, and natural systems operate with a kind of lawful openness?
This might explain why tornadoes and hurricanes are not always prevented.
You also suggested:
Perhaps worse disasters were prevented, but we would never know because prevented catastrophes leave no evidence.
Response
This was reframed by preserving “free will” for conscious agents and using new terms for nature:
- lawful openness
- dynamic autonomy
- constrained indeterminacy
- generative freedom
This avoided category confusion while allowing nature to be real, dynamic, and not merely mechanical.
⸻
IX. Divine Hiddenness
A major complaint emerged:
If there is a personal God, He has failed miserably at being personal.
If God uses spokesmen and women, they should all be fired.
The reasoning:
- conflicting religions
- contradictory claims
- abusive representatives
- cultural accidents of birth
- unclear communication
- sincere seekers remaining unconvinced
This led to the conclusion:
If God exists, perhaps God is not personal in human terms.
Response
This aligns with the philosophical problem of divine hiddenness, especially as developed by J. L. Schellenberg.
The core issue:
If a perfectly loving personal God desires relationship, why is God so hidden and disputed?
⸻
X. Why Is the Burden on Us?
Another sharp question followed:
If God wants relationship, why is all the pressure on us to prove it?
Where is this personal God?
The challenge was one of asymmetry:
- humans must seek
- humans must trust uncertain claims
- humans must sort through competing religions
- humans must defend belief
while God remains silent or ambiguous.
Response
This was recognized as a powerful version of the hiddenness argument.
Healthy relationships normally involve mutual self-disclosure, not one-sided pursuit.
⸻
XI. “Enough” Is a Relative Term
When believers say “God has revealed enough,” you pointed out:
Enough is relative.
Enough for whom?
Enough for what purpose?
Enough by whose standard?
Enough for faith is not the same as enough for universal clarity.
Response
This was affirmed as a precision move. Many debates hide unstated standards behind vague words.
⸻
XII. When Defense Becomes Distortion
You said:
God doesn’t need protection that ties Him up.
This referred to theological attempts to defend God by making Him:
- timeless
- emotionless
- unreachable
- unaffected
- static
The quote recalled was:
The cure becomes worse than the disease.
Response
This was expanded into a larger principle:
Many systems become distorted when the shield becomes a cage.
⸻
XIII. Final Reflection
The deepest thread running through the whole discussion was this:
Perhaps many contradictions about God come not from God Himself, but from inherited definitions that deserve reexamination.
Examples:
- perfection defined as immobility
- goodness defined as removal of all pain
- eternity defined as timelessness
- freedom defined too narrowly
- enough treated as objective
- personality imagined only in human terms
The work of philosophy is not merely to answer questions, but to inspect the assumptions hidden inside them.
⸻
Closing Note
This discussion did not prove or disprove God. It did something more valuable:
It clarified where the real questions live.
Leave a Reply