God is not only transcendent but immanent. If he was not immanent then he would be limited (or not perfect), and therefore not transcendent.
In fact, God is Being itself. He sustains everything in its existence. All things that exist participate in God's existence, since existence does not belong to the essence of any thing.
For example, is it not in the nature of a dog for it to exist. I know the nature of my deceased dog. But my dog no longer exists. Therefore existence is not a part of my dog's nature.
Main Entry: tran·scen·dent
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of transcendere
Date: 1598
1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence
- tran·scen·dent·ly adverb
Main Entry: im·ma·nent
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin immanent-, immanens, present participle of immanEre to remain in place, from Latin in- + manEre to remain -- more at MANSION
Date: 1535
: remaining or operating within a domain of reality or realm of discourse : INHERENT; specifically : having existence or effect only within the mind or consciousness -- compare TRANSCENDENT
- im·ma·nent·ly adverb
continuing your post...
In fact, God is Being itself. He sustains everything in its existence. All things that exist participate in God's existence, since existence does not belong to the essence of any thing.
Uh-oh. First "God is pure act", and now "God is Being itself"! I hope you consider what I said before about reification being the general logic error of which anthropomorphization is a specific case.
For example, is it not in the nature of a dog for it to exist. I know the nature of my deceased dog. But my dog no longer exists. Therefore existence is not a part of my dog's nature.
Is that what you meant, or did you mean "it is not in the nature of a dog..."?