On the face of it, the characteristics of transcendence and immanence appear to be in conflict. A transcendent God is one who is beyond perception, independent of the universe, and wholly "other" when compared to us. An immanent God is one which exists within - within us, within the universe, etc. - and, hence, very much a part of our existence. How can these qualities exist simultaneously?
Read Article: God is Transcendent & Immanent
On AE we were presented with an argument that the laws of logic are transcendent. Not logic generally (the simple construct of a logical argument), but the basic laws:
1. Law of Identity
2. Law of contradicting
3. Law of the excluded middle
The current stance Matt is maintaining is that he agrees they are transcendent. And while I’m open to hearing more, I’ve seen him debate this point several times in depth after being presented with it, and so far I’m inclined to agree with his point (which is only to say that I have not found the chink in the armor on this, if one exists).
However, it cannot be denied that these laws, while they would apply anytime/anywhere (at least apparently) that can be conceived, they are demonstrably existent and working within the material universe in which we live. They would apply in this universe, and also in any context imaginable outside this universe. If there is a context that is not imaginable in which they would not apply, that would be moot–since we have no means to put forward such an existence.
In the end, I am, at least currently, inclined to agree that a thing can be both transcendent and existing and working within the universe. And I think this argument is going to catch on. The moment we were presented with it on AE, we began to see it repeatedly come up. And to be honest, the atheist rebuttals we received were very weak. And the concept was beyond what most atheists were equipped to handle. Not that they were stumped by it–but their intellectual grasp of the issue appears to be such that they were, often, unable to even grasp the problem presented. And I don’t put that out lightly. Some of the atheists who contacted us were equipped in physics, so they weren’t stupid. But they did not really grasp what these laws, above, are actually stating or how they apply. We were offered numerous examples of things that are not what they are–and all failed. But the people presenting the examples had an extremely difficult time understanding _why_ they failed.
My rebuttal to this so far has been to point out that the way we know these laws are at work in this universe is that we are able to actually demonstrate that reality by examples that cannot be denied. In other words, I can “show you”–not just claim, that a mug is not a park bench–that it is what it is and not what it’s not. However, the idea of a immanent god is not demonstrable. Where is the undeniable example of the god that works within the universe?
Have you encountered this point before–that these laws are both transcendent and observably working within the universe? Obviously with your educational background, I’d be interested in your take on it. And if you have an article already, a link is sufficient. Thanks.
I want to add one other thing. In addition to most atheists who contacted us having little grasp of the central problems with this argument, we found most theists who presented it had little understanding of it as well. I see this as an issue with a high likelihood of ending up on forums all over the Internet where both sides are tossing out irrelevancies and errors–making horribly flawed points–and ultimately just confusing the entire issue.
Most theists simply used the logical laws as their “examples”–knowing they were good examples–because they understood Matt had accepted them. However, the theists weren’t really able to grasp “why” the examples were good–they couldn’t really carry any indepth discussion after they’d tossed out these examples. They had different, but just as flawed, grasps on the issue.