When a higher being communicates with a lower being, it must always communicate on the lower being's terms.
That only washes if the higher being is not omnipotent and omniscient and not responsible for designing and creating the lower being. Case in point:
What does that even mean? It would be too tangential to explain here, but I've never accepted the labels "omnipotent" and "omniscient" when it comes to god. Neither of those labels make any sense and neither of them are a necessary or indispensable quality of a divine being
. If we were talking about a genie or a wizard, sure, but when applied to God, I think these labels and concepts arose, not out of necessity, but through Christians desire to say "My god is better than yours, my god can do ANYTHING!".
Omniscience implies that the being should know the outcome of that which is contingent, which is a logical impossibility. god does not know "everything
" and can't do "everything
I cant just "explain" to my cat that the needle is for its own good...
1. Is the difference between you and god the same as the difference between your cat and you? Based on the glowing terms people use for god, I would say no, not even close. People's opinions of their cats not withstanding.
Forget what people say about God, the only quality of god that need be considered here is that God has a higher intelligence than Man. If that is the case then the chasm between it and man when it comes to communication gets bigger, not smaller.
2. If you were omnipotent and omniscient, you could communicate that to the cat, no?
See my above opinion on those terms.
3. If you were O&O and designed cats, you could have designed them to understand you, no?
Then they wouldn't be cats. If I wanted to "design" a creature that could understand e, I could only design other O&O creatures, I could not "design" Dogs, Cats, People, etc.
Because of the limitations inherent in you and the cat. Your example is between differently developed, finite, imperfect creatures. That is not the situation between man and an alleged god. If you were O&O, those limitations would not exist.
Again, O&O isn't a concept that I accept as valid, it's an impossibility and contradictory, and you make that point very well when you propose a logical impossibility as a consequence of them. IE: A being that lacks the capacity to understand, understanding regardless.
It's like saying that of a God were O&O it would be able to add 2 + 2, have it equal 4, have 4 be an odd number and also be a 6.
Because it can do "anything" right?