Not logic, MM. You've avoided the logic, for the same 20 pages.

Not your logic.

It's not "my" logic. It's just logic.

I didn't invent the rules of logic. I've just presented logical arguments, and invited you to comment on some flaw of the logic, but you have refused to do so, not just here recently, but the whole time, which is understandable.

Your rules of logic do not explain how God can be everywhere at the same time. Time and space do not apply to God in the same way they apply to us.

Even given that time and space do not apply to God the same way they apply to us, logic does.

If your statement that time and space do not apply to God as they do to us is intended to address the argument, please make that clear (i.e., statement a) is not true because of ....)

There is a phrase used here, "time and space". What I would like to know is how time relates to space. Does, for instance, being able to be present in all of space automatically mean that one is also present in all of time? Why? Why not?

My understanding is that according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the answer would be no. If you have Boyd's book "Satan and the Problem of Evil," I think he may discuss this point in one of the chapters, maybe the chapter on questions.

Time and space are inseparable. The fact God is everywhere (space) at the same time (time) demonstrates this fact. Time is matter moving in space - the earth rotating and revolving around the sun or blood pumping and circulating in our body.

The only way God, a physical Being, can be everywhere at the same time is if the rules of time and space do not apply to Him in the same way they apply to us. The laws of logic, as we know it, do not explain how God can be everywhere at the same time.

God's ability to be everywhere at the same time "defies" the laws of logic as we know it. It "defies" our time-space continuum. It really doesn't "defy" the laws of logic as know it, it only seems that way to us. Given our experience and perspective, we cannot explain how God, a physical Being, can be everywhere at the same time.

Neither can we explain how God can know our future choices without it robbing us of our ability and freedom to choose as we please. Yes, we will choose how God knows, but it doesn't mean we are robots, devoid of choice or free will. Given our experience and perspective, we cannot explain it, but our inability to explain it doesn't change its truthfulness.

TMK 35
This wonderful problem--how God could be just and yet the justifier of sinners--is beyond human ken. As we attempt to fathom it, it broadens and deepens beyond our comprehension. {TMK 35.3}

UL 316
The existence of a personal God, the unity of Christ with His Father, lies at the foundation of all true science. From nature we can gain only an imperfect idea of the greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our comprehension. {UL 316.2}

ED 170
We have no reason to doubt God's word because we cannot understand the mysteries of His providence. In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with wonders beyond our comprehension. Should we then be surprised to find in the spiritual world also mysteries that we cannot fathom? The difficulty lies solely in the weakness and narrowness of the human mind. {Ed 170.1}

So, time and space are two aspects of the same thing because God is everywhere at the same time? Have we really figgured God out well enough to propose physical teories based on that knowledge?

Time is matter moving in space, and if God were to interact with some aspect of matter in space, this matter would be different after God acted upon it compared to before God acted. Thus Gods act caused time to move, which must mean that God is within time.

You wrote: "The only way God, a physical Being, can be everywhere at the same time is if the rules of time and space do not apply to Him in the same way they apply to us. "

First, where did you get the idea that God is a physical Being? The bible says God is spirit.
Second, the only way a physical being could be everywhere at the same time is explained by a theory called pantheism, a theory that certainly no SDA has any buisness courting with. (I know that there is also the Sci-Fi/Fantasy version where someone has the ability to stop time and move around while everyone else is still frozen, but the fact is that though time be frozen in relation to everyone else involved, it is still moving for the one who "froze" it, otherwise the person would also be frozen and incapable of any action, and that would not be very helpful would it?)
Third, the laws of logic take input from propositions and draw conclusions from them. To find out anything about time and space we would rather go to the laws of physics.

If it looks like a radish, smells like a radish, tastes like a radish, grows like a radish, feels like a radish, has the DNA of a radish, then maybe it acctually is a radish. If something we believe about God defies everything we know about the world around us, then either we lack knowledge about God or about the world around us. If we think God has an ability that defies our time-space cotinuum, then either we are wrong about God or about the time-space continuum.

The first quote deals with a moral aspect of God and is thus not relevant to a discussion concerning the physical reality we live in.

The second quote looks like it is relevant for our discussion regarding they physical reality we and God live in. However, when the context is consulted, we find that this is not so. It says:

"The existence of a personal God, the unity of Christ with His Father, lies at the foundation of all true science. From nature we can gain only an imperfect idea of the greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our comprehension. The ocean, the cataract, the lofty, rugged mountains reveal but imperfectly His handiwork. Satan has introduced confusion and deformity into the creation of God. Something more than nature is needed to reveal the character of the Father."

Ellen is not concerned with the physics of either creation or God, but Gods character only. A much different thing compared to what we are discussing here.

The third quote is good advice. However, your position might well be that I and Tom are doubting God's word while you are holding on to it. It might supprise you to hear that I do not share your opinion on this. I think the truth is rather that I have reached a different understanding compared with you when trying to follow the following advice found in the second document you quoted. As follows:

" We must be careful lest we misinterpret the Scriptures. The plain teachings of the Word of God are not to be so spiritualized that the reality is lost sight of. Do not overstrain the meaning of sentences in the Bible in an effort to bring forth something odd in order to please the fancy. Take the Scriptures as they read. Avoid idle speculation.--Manuscript 30, Oct. 29, 1904, "Redeem the Time." {UL 316.6}"

I believe my position follows Ellens words here.

Nicely done, Thomas. I wouldn't have known where to start.