Witnessing to Mormons using a Reformed Presuppositional Apologetic* © Jack Kettler 2010

Do we witness to Mormons and other non-believers by appealing to a supposed body of neutral facts and then ask them to objectively consider the evidence and then embrace the Christian faith? This may sound reasonable, but does it take into account the nature of fallen man? Will someone with a fallen nature be able to objectively look at the claims and demands set forth in the Word of God? If not, how do we get beyond this seemingly insurmountable problem? I will attempt to deal with these questions as we move through the material in this presentation. To start, lets consider the dynamics of what happens in a typical encounter with a Mormon and Christian.

Many times both the Mormon and the Christian appeal to evidence, or a supposed common body of neutral knowledge or facts that allegedly exist. Let me say at the outset that facts are not neutral. There are no such things as brute or neutral facts. There are God interpreted facts! We must seek to understand God's interpretation of facts.

As Christians, we need to be aware of our worldview. Or, it could be said we as Christians need to be epistemologically self-conscious. Epistemology is the study of how we know things. There are generally understood to be three types or theories of gaining knowledge, 1. empiricism (a view that experience, especially the senses is the only source of knowledge), 2. rationalism (a view that appeals to man's independent reason as a source of knowledge) and 3. dogmatism, or scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible). We need to understand and hold to a distinctively Christian theory of knowledge. We also need to understand that fallen man has a fundamentally different worldview than redeemed man.

What usually happens in witnessing encounters is that the Mormon typically will appeal to his testimony (he or she knows the Mormon Church is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet from burning in the bosom sensation), the Mormon priesthood and alleged archeological discoveries in support of Mormonism. Many times, the Christian likewise appeals to evidence. Does this approach get anywhere?

It seems to me that what is taking place many times between Christians and Mormons is that both sides end up batting evidence back and forth without either side seeing the real fundamental differences involved. To understand this we must first understand that the real issue between Mormons and Christians is one that involves a fundamental difference in presuppositions or a difference in worldviews. Evidence must be interpreted within the framework of a worldview or by presuppositions in order to have any meaning.

Why is this? Two people looking at the same evidence but from different presuppositions or worldviews can and do get very different interpretations to the same evidence. For example, Psalms 19:1 says: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." We as Christians see evidence for God's existence everywhere in God's creation. Non-believers however when looking at the same evidence would reject the testimony of Psalm 19 and claim to see nothing in support of God's existence.

I would also like to say that when to opposing sides seem to agree on a particular interpretation it may be only a surface agreement. When you get below the surface agreement by defining terms the surface agreement often disappears. At many times you have the non-Christian becoming inconsistent and borrowing from the Christian world view in order to function. Non-believers cannot consistently live out the implications of their belief system. Non-believers have never shown how their presuppositions or materialistic worldview can account for the laws of logic, ethics and science. See my "The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation" found at: http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/kettler/jk_pagan2.pdf

It cannot be stated strongly enough that the Mormon and Christian have rather obvious different worldviews. To say this another way, the Christian and Mormon have different fundamental commitments. The Christian is committed to dependence upon God's complete revelation revealed in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The Mormon on the other hand is committed ultimately to independence and rejection of God's revealed Word found in the Bible. I say this in-spite of Mormon protests that they do believe in the Bible. I reply to this protest by pointing out that Mormons always qualify their belief in the Bible by saying "as far as it is translated correctly." This qualification reveals Mormonism's rejection of the absolute authority of Scripture.

The Mormon or non-Christian commitment is a commitment of independence from God and His Word. You can call this commitment of independence, sinful human autonomy. Human autonomy is the starting principle of how sinful or fallen man operates. He has set himself in the place of God. He tries to be the measure of all things. This is also the essence of humanism. In contrast, the Christian or regenerate person lets God and His Word be the measure and standard of all things.

If we are going to be Biblical and consistent in our approach to Mormons and other non-believers we must challenge their false commitment which is ultimately a rejection of God and His Word. The only way to have true knowledge and certainty is to be dependent upon God and His Word. I say this since God is the creator of all things, including all facts in the Universe. For us to have true knowledge, we must have the interpretation of facts that God gives to them. Any interpretation of facts that refuses God's interpretation will be false.

Where do we find God's interpretation of the world? In the Bible which is God's revelation to man. It comes down to the Bible, or our thoughts and feelings in disregard for God's revelation. We are either dependent upon God, or we are committed to sinful human autonomy. The only thing that can cause the Mormon to forsake his sinful human autonomy is the Holy Spirit working through the preaching of the Gospel. If we are batting evidence back and forth without ever preaching the Gospel to them, our efforts are in vain. The very least we can do is give them a gospel tract. There are good gospel tracts, preferably a tract that challenges their worldview.

As Paul tells us, the heart of the Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2: 8,9). This truly good news! Mormonism is a complex system involving a works for salvation scheme and because of this they have no certainty of salvation, or good news.

If you've studied Mormonism at all you have seen some of the many changes, contradictions and outright rejection of biblical truth within its structure. These contradictions are the result of their rejection of God and His Word. Man made religious systems will always be full of contradictions, errors, inconsistencies and absurdities. This will always be so in light of the fact that they are misinterpreting the world that God has ordained and made.

Let me summarize what has been said so far: I believe many times Christians and Mormons end up batting evidence around that is interpreted differently because of our different worldviews or presuppositions. There are no neutral facts because God is the creator of all things. The Christian's commitment is to God and His Word and because of this we must stress that there are no neutral facts, there are only God interpreted facts. The Christian worldview and how we interpret evidence is controlled by our presupposition of the absolute authority of Scripture. The Bible is our starting point. We argue from Scripture.

In contrast, the Mormon worldview and how they interpret evidence is controlled by their presupposition that rejects the absolute authority of Scripture. They have set themselves up as the authority to determine truth. Romans 8:7 tells us "The mind is set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so."

We can expose and demolish Mormonism by using a series of questions that function as a reductio ad absurdum argument in that it reduces and shows Mormonism to be holding absurd and contradictory positions in its commitment to ultimate truth. These questions can be used against any system that rejects the absolute authority of God's Word.

Most importantly, our goal is to to challenge the Mormon through Gospel preaching to forsake his false independence from God and His Word that keeps him in darkness and confusion. We should then challenge the Mormon to believe the Gospel and become dependent upon God and His Word.

Some basics on how to witness to Mormons:

I start my witnessing opportunities with Mormons by telling them that I am a Christian and that everything that I tell them will be based upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Word of God is the authority for all of my life and beliefs. I also state that I would love to talk to them and see what they have to say. I tell them that I know that they would like me to give up my beliefs and adopt theirs. I take control by telling them: "if you want me to adopt your beliefs your arguments will have to be biblical since Scripture is the only authority I will listen too. Feelings will not convince me, or Mormon testimonies. They will have to convince me from the Bible that their doctrines are true.

Make sure they understand where you are coming from. Even have them restate your position so you know that they understand you.

The Language barrier:

An example of the language barrier: a Mormon will say: "I believe in God the eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." What is wrong with this statement? It sounds good on the surface. We need to cut through the language barrier that is there. How can we do this?

There are three questions that I like to use when challenging Mormons beliefs. These questions are good for any debate or witnessing encounter and help us 1. to get past the language barrier or surface meaning of words and 2. show the Mormon that his beliefs are not Biblical and that he can have no assurance or confidence in the finite Mormon deity and 3. also show the Mormon that he can have no confidence in the area of knowledge.

1. What do you mean?

This question forces the Mormon to define their terminology and gets beyond surface similarity.

2. How do you know that?

This forces them to give reasons for their definitions. Are they parroting things that they heard? Are their definitions Biblical?

3. So what are the implications of this?

This question forces them to look at the absurdities of their belief system and where it leads.

Areas to apply these questions and examples of questions:

Normally I like to start with epistemology since we need to know how we can know anything. In the case of Mormonism, when dealing with average Mormons I start with ontological questions since questions in this area quickly reveal the finite nature of the Mormon deity and then allow you to contrast this finite god with Scriptural passages on God's nature and attributes.

Ontology or Metaphysics, the ultimate nature of reality:

What do you mean by God? Has he always been God? Where did he come from? Are there other gods in the Universe like your god? Does your god have a body? If he is a glorified man with a body, is he limited or finite? How does he travel? A space ship? How does he communicate with the other gods in the Universe? Intergalactic phone service? Celestial conferences?

Keep contrasting the Mormon's answers with Scriptural passages on God's attributes. Also remember, they want you to surrender your beliefs and adopt theirs. Keep asking the question "how do you know that?" to expose their lack of biblical understanding and for that matter any coherent or rational explanation for these beliefs. It is also helpful at different points in the discussion to say; I'm not sure what you mean, go on.

The Mormon god is finite or limited because of his body. Some additional questions you can ask to expose the implications of this are: Has your god with a body traveled everywhere in the Universe? If so, when? How long would it take him to do this? Does your god know everything? If he has not been everywhere in the Universe how could he? Could your god ever be overthrown by other gods from a different part of the Universe that have a different agenda than his? If not, how do you know that? Can you give me a guarantee of this? Based upon what? Is there a creator/creature distinction? Do men and the Gods exist in a realm of being in general? Is God further up the scale of being than man? Are there two types of being; created/uncreated? Is reality ultimately one (a unity), or many (a diversity)? How do the universals relate to the particulars?

The Christian God cannot be overthrown since there are no other gods! Our God is Omnipotent (all powerful) and He is Omnipresent (everywhere present) and is Omniscient (all knowing).

Keep pressing questions like: If there are more senior gods in the Universe, why not put my faith in one of them? Why put my faith in a junior god? Could your god ever step down from being god? If he became a god, it is conceivable that he could quit someday.

After pressing them with questions for awhile you can summarize their position. You could say: I think you are saying that your god was once a man and now is god. There are other gods in the Universe like the god you worship and you may become a god yourself in the future. Contrast what they tell you with Biblical verses on God and His attributes and that God declares that there are no other gods.

Epistemology:

Are Mormons and your God, or gods, empiricists, rationalists, irrationalists, or do you hold to some

other concept of gaining knowledge? Former Utah University professor, Sterling McMurrin, on page eleven of his book, Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, states that Mormons and their Gods are basically empiricists [gain knowledge through experience and sensations]. Is McMurrin correct in his perception of Mormon epistemology? Are the revelations of the Mormon god empirically based revelations?

Aristotle, John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, and Bertrand Russell were all empirical thinkers. They would all agree that knowledge comes through the senses in the following order: (a) sensations (b) perceptions (c) memory images, (d) development of abstract ideas. Perceptions are inferences from sensations. How do you know valid from invalid inferences? About five percent of the population does not have any memory images at all. How can these people be empiricists? What about studies which deal in the areas of the threshold of sensations? These studies show unreliable the senses can be, especially sight (colors), and hearing (sound). Also, can tiredness, drugs, and optical illusions deceive the senses? What about sin? Demonic deception?

Empirical epistemology has its roots in the pagan philosopher Aristotle. Should a Christian incorporate pagan thinking into Christianity?

Ethics:

Is there a law structure above your god that he is accountable to? If so, how do you know he's interpreting if correctly? Where did this law structure come from? If there are eternal laws in the Universe above the Mormon god, wouldn't this law structure be God? Do all the gods interpret it the same? Are there evil gods in the universe? If not, how do you know? If so, could they destroy or defeat the good Gods? Do you believe that the free will argument is a solution to save your god from being weak and responsible for evil, and its results? How would you respond to Gordon Clark in his Religion, Reason, and Revelation that such a thing as free will can not save your god from being responsible? See also Antony Flew's God and Philosophy for similar rejections of the so-called free will argument to allegedly protect God from being responsible for evil. Antony Flew is a non-Christian philosopher.

Teleology:

Is history linear or endless? Is eternal progression a concept of history that involves endlessness? Will the Mormon god ever defeat evil in the Universe? Why haven't the more senior gods defeated it yet? Will time ever cease to exist in the part of the universe your god rules over? What about other parts of the universe? Is there any real substantial difference between eternal progression and the Hindu teleological concept of history? What is the difference, if any? Does your god control history? In what way? Partially? Completely? What is the ultimate purpose of creation? In what way does evolutionary theory differ from eternal progression? In what ways are they similar?

Be careful not to be sarcastic when asking questions like these. We don't want make fun of the Mormon. However, the Mormon is obligated to answer these questions. Remember you got them at the outset to agree that they wanted you to surrender your beliefs and adopt theirs.

I can assure you that you will never get answers to questions like these. These questions demonstrate the finite non-biblical nature of the Mormon god. The finite gods of Mormonism cannot save anyone. The Mormon god is really just a big man who is surrounded by ultimate mystery and contingency in the Universe. Since the Mormon worldview incorporates contingency or chance, it is possible that the Mormon god could literally become lost in space.

Don't let the Mormon use words like Sovereignty, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence. These words cannot be used to describe a finite god. Make them define their use of words biblically. The Mormon will have to explain how a finite god with a body can have biblically defined attributes applied to him. You can cite various numerous Mormon leaders and scholars who have admitted that the Mormon deity has limitations in every one of the aforementioned divine attributes.

The Mormon's use and appeal to God's divine attributes is an emotional appeal or a smoke screen to throw you off track. We are trying to get the Mormon to face the implications of their belief in a finite deity. We do this by pressing the antithesis or huge chasm between the Mormon and Christian worldviews. As you talk with Mormons you will quickly experience numerous examples of Mormons asserting absolutes and omniscient statements within the framework of a system that does not allow absolutes. When the Mormon without biblical authority asserts absolute omniscient statements, it is indefensible.

In contrast, the Christian God is transcendent above and beyond creation and the creator of all things. The Christian God is not surrounded by mystery since He is the author, creator and controller of history and the space time Universe. The transcendence of God should be understood as being connected to His divine sovereignty. The transcendence of God means that He is above, different than and separate from His creation.

The Christian God is also immanent. This means that God is is within or near His creation. Immanence is intimately related to God's omnipresence, in that God is always present within the universe, though separate from it. God is within the universe and is the sustaining cause.

To argue for God's transcendence only and deny God's immanence leads to deism. On the hand, to deny His transcendence and argue for His immanence leads to pantheism. Transcendence and Immanence are terms that cannot in any way be applied to the Mormon finite deity.

In conclusion, are these questions Biblical of just some kind of fun philosophical game? I would emphatically say, most certainly not. Elijah used questions like these to mock the false prophets of his day. Elijah said to the false prophets: is he asleep, or on a journey? Then wake him up.

Again, by raising questions of this nature, it allows us to contrast the Biblical doctrine of God with the Mormon finite deity. We are showing the antithesis between Mormonism and Christianity. By doing this we can more effectively challenge the Mormon to forsake his finite idols for the infinite God of Christianity who is holy and will judge all idolaters and has power to save those who put their faith in Him.

* What is Presuppositionalism?

An example of non-believing philosophical absurdity:

The philosophy of logical positivism is a good example. The positivist philosophy can be described as empiricism (all knowledge comes through sensations) with a vengeance. This positivist philosophy is a vengeance against all metaphysical statements. A popular contemporary form of empiricism that derives from John Locke is known as the theory that the mind at birth is a blank tablet (tabula rasa) and then assimilates knowledge through experience and sensations. This theory could be called the "blank mind theory" of knowledge.

The Positivist School boldly asserted as it's starting principle that they will only accept what can be verified empirically. The positivists would accept a statement like "some cars are red," because this could be verified empirically. A color-blind person would have to take this statement by faith. A statement like "God exists" would be rejected since God cannot be brought into a science laboratory and inspected. Once upon a time, someone asked, "How does the positivist school verify its own starting principle empirically?" With that question, the empirical, positivist school collapsed. There are still those who promote elements of this philosophically discredited theory, not realizing that in doing so they have become an irrationalist, or guilty of inexcusable ignorance. Positivism collapsed because, as in all non-Christian philosophy, it contains its own internally self refuting contradiction. This positivist contradiction is in the same category as with those who assert "there is no truth." Supposedly, this assertion is true.

Fallen man cannot consistently live with the implications of his worldview. This why you always hear non-believers talking about how things are evil or immoral like the Nazi extermination of millions of Jewish people. They do this in-spite of the fact that the term evil cannot be defined coherently within their system. All the non-believer can do is beg the question and say that they do believe certain things are evil and immoral. They also beg the question in the area of the laws of logic and science. They cannot demonstrate how the laws of logic and science can arise in a materialistic Universe. They have stolen these things from the Christian worldview which can account for such things because God has spoken in history and revealed truth to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

As Christians we have a coherent theory of knowledge. God has spoken. This is certain: God speaks to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. In conclusion, non-believers have never shown how their presuppositions or worldview can account for the laws of logic, ethics and science. In fact, and because of this, presuppositionalists argue that Christianity "is true because the impossibility of the contrary."

The following is taken from my "Some Unanswered Questions Regarding the Mormon Worldview":**

A. Epistemology:

William James describes empiricism as a "tough-minded materialistic epistemology". Mormon epistemology could be described as an Aristotelian based empirical system.

Mormon philosopher Sterling McMurrin appears to confirm this analysis of Mormon epistemology: But it is possible to say that Mormonism in its philosophical inclinations participates strongly in the empirical attitudes that are characteristic of recent and contemporary thought. It [Mormon epistemology] acknowledges the claims of scientific method - [and] a combination of empiricism and qualified rationalism and it even exhibits sensory empirical leanings in its references to revelation.

B. Ontology:

Mormon Ontology could be described as a Stoic, i.e., a materialistic, fundamentally monistic metaphysic.

McMurrin describes Mormon Ontology as follows: On the question of the qualitative nature of reality, the Mormon position is perhaps best described as fundamentally monistic but with an important dualistic facet. It should also be noted that for Mormonism ultimate reality contains diversity such as countless corporeal finite gods scattered throughout the cosmos. It should also be of interest to again see McMurrin's analysis: Mormon philosophy is an unqualified commitment to metaphysical pluralism. The concept of reality as a composition of independently real entities is established explicitly in certain statements that have been accepted by Mormon writers as normative for doctrine, and it can be discerned as a fundamental presupposition of popular Mormon thought by inference from innumerable ideas and attitudes that are commonplace with Mormon people.

How Mormonism attempts to escape this metaphysical monistic/pluralistic contradiction will be of interest. McMurrin goes on to tell us about the temporal, spatial, and material aspect of the Mormon god's being: There are numerous important implications for religion resident in the doctrine that God is a spacial and temporal being. Among these in Mormon theology are the belief, contrary to the verdict of Christianity generally, that God is an embodied being with a spatially configured form, and the belief that not only is heaven located somewhere but that the eternal life of a heavenly being is temporally ordered.

C. Ethics:

Mormon ethics could be described simply as a type of pragmatic platonic humanism.

McMurrin has described Mormon ethics in this very way: Yet even though its moral philosophy has a pronounced platonic character, Mormonism in practice has always exhibited marked pragmatic tendencies. Both William James and John Dewey evidenced an interest in the pragmatic facets of Mormonism, Dewey finding that Mormon group life expressed much that was central in his own instrumentalism.

McMurrin goes on to say this about Mormonism: It is the belief that though he is finite man nevertheless has necessary being, that constituted the philosophical justification of much that characterizes Mormon theology, supporting, for instance, its pelagian and arminian tendencies, and giving fundamental encouragement to its accent on the positive facets of human existence. Here is the philosophical ground for the paradoxical Mormon concept of the fall of man, the denial of original sin, the rejection of the traditional doctrine of grace, the intense preoccupation with the freedom of the will, the opposition to the dogmas of election and perseverance, the liberal estimate of human nature, and the affirmation of the radically unorthodox concepts of God and salvation.

It should be noted that the Mormon is continually trying to interpret reality-utilizing methods of science, which are based upon man's finite reason and sensory experience, along with the revelations that the Mormon Kolobian [the Mormon god comes from a planet near the star Kolob] deities give him. This is the essence of humanistic ethics. Or again as McMurrin puts it: Indeed, it is not entirely inaccurate to describe Mormonism as a kind of naturalistic humanism within a general theistic context.

D. Teleology:

Mormon teleology could be described as cyclical. All pagan teleology was of this nature until Christianity introduced a linear view of history. Mormon history keeps repeating itself with new earths, and new saviors on to infinity.

Again to quote McMurrin: It is of major importance to Mormon doctrine that it is grounded in the idea that the universe is for the most part dynamic in the sense of there being a kind of cosmic evolution with the world moving endlessly in time toward goals which when reached inevitably propose others beyond.

The ultimate goal for the faithful Mormon and their offspring is essentially the same and is best stated by Plotinus: In all this there is no sin - there is only matter of discipline - but our concern is not merely to be sinless but to be God. In can be said in summary that the philosophical positions advanced by the Greeks influenced to such a large extent the areas of epistemology, ontology, ethics, and teleology that the Greek argumentation is a sufficient cause for positions that have been adopted by western religions and philosophy. These same concepts have influenced present day Mormonism. While admitting that Mormonism may not be aware of the original source of some of its positions, it nevertheless is dependent upon Greek philosophical ideas at numerous points. Apostate thinking down to present day has never escaped entirely from Greek thought. Mormon positions along with other forms of paganism are related, too, and are the result of the superior apostate thinking of the Greek philosophers.

The Mormon world view could be described as an empirical epistemology working closely with a contradictory Stoic monistic/pluralistic metaphysic, along with a form of a pragmatic Platonic ethical dualism which incorporates a radical pelagian/free will view of man's nature combined with a cyclical teleology. Or, briefly, you could describe this as the Greek, Mormon, Gnostic world view.

**Notes are in the original article which can read online at:
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Mormon4.pdf

God is Omnipotent (all powerful):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Job 42:2

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1

These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Psalms 50:21

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Psalms 90:2

For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens. Psalms 96:5

They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. Psalms 102:26-27

Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee. Jer. 32:17

I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter the city. Hosea 11:9

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Malachi 3:6

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matt. 19:26

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Mark 10:27

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev. 1:8

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Revelation 19:6

God is Omnipresent (everywhere present):

But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: how much less this house which I have built! II Chron. 6:18

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me" Psalm 139:7–10

Thus Saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest? Isaiah 66:1

Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? Jer. 23:24

Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down. Amos 9:2

God is Omniscient (all knowing):

Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. Psalms 147:5

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. Proverbs 15:3

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Matthew 10:29, 30

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Hebrews 4:13

God is Transcendent:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9