Omnipresence

[rstones199]

Omnipresence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresence)

Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere. According to eastern theism, God is present everywhere. Divine omnipresence is thus one of the divine attributes, although in western theism it has attracted less philosophical attention than such attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, or being eternal.

Since this 'God' is claimed to have Omnipresence by theists, then why isn't there any empirical scientific evidence to support this 'God'?

After all, 'being present everywhere' would include the known natural universe would it not?

[Donkey]

In modern theology, God is generally not to be considered a physical presence.

Next.

[rstones199]

In modern theology, God is generally not to be considered a physical presence.

Next.

Then it would be fair to say that 'God' is not omnipresent then correct?

[Donkey]

Then it would be fair to say that 'God' is not omnipresent then correct?
Incorrect.

[Michael]

Very interesting thread rstones199! :)

Omnipresence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresence)

Since this 'God' is claimed to have Omnipresence by theists, then why isn't there any empirical scientific evidence to support this 'God'?

After all, 'being present everywhere' would include the known natural universe would it not?
One might assert that it is God's will not to supply physical or empirical evidence of his existence. Perhaps God prefers the mystery? Who are we to judge God's will or God's ways?

Alternatively, one could assert that God's presence is akin to that of the soul. Many people assert that souls are real - yet there is no empirical scientific evidence to support that assertion.

Ultimately, the Christian religion is one of faith. Faith does not require empirical scientific evidence of anything. Ergo, there is no logical requirement that God's presence be empirically proven.

[Michael]

Incorrect.
I'd consider that reply to be insufficient.

As it stands, it is simply an utterance of unsupported opinion. :shrug:

[rstones199]

Incorrect.

If 'God' is not to be considered a 'physical presence' then how can he be omnipresent? After all the definition of Omnipresence states that is 'is the property of being present everywhere'.

[Michael]

Btw, what is "Eastern theism"?

Is that Hindu and/or Buddhism?

I can certainly see the claim for omnipresence being made by Buddhists.

Is omnipresence claimed as formal Christian doctrine by any major Christian sect?

[rstones199]

Very interesting thread rstones199! :)


One might assert that it is God's will not to supply physical or empirical evidence of his existence. Perhaps God prefers the mystery? Who are we to judge God's will or God's ways?

Alternatively, one could assert that God's presence is akin to that of the soul. Many people assert that souls are real - yet there is no empirical scientific evidence to support that assertion.

Ultimately, the Christian religion is one of faith. Faith does not require empirical scientific evidence of anything. Ergo, there is no logical requirement that God's presence be empirically proven.

As an atheist who requires evidence to change to support ones view, I find this question of omnipresence quite baffling to me.

Based on the definition of omnipresence, a theist should be able to present such evidence.

[dilettante]

Omnipresence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresence)



Since this 'God' is claimed to have Omnipresence by theists, then why isn't there any empirical scientific evidence to support this 'God'?

After all, 'being present everywhere' would include the known natural universe would it not?

To quote the next paragraph from your source (wikipedia):

In western theism omnipresence is roughly described as the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time - referring to an unbounded or universal presence (at the same time, some claim God is not omnipresent). It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be everywhere at once - that is, at every point in space during a given instant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant).

"Omnipresence" is really a pretty fuzzy word (as are all the "omni"s generally applied to Deity).
Of course, "God" is also a pretty fuzzy word without some sort of context...

[Michael]

As an atheist who requires evidence to change to support ones view, I find this question of omnipresence quite baffling to me.

As an atheist, you have already decided to reject God. As such, demanding that religion conform to science is just another statement of rejection of God.

Faith certainly is baffling to atheists. :shrug:

Based on the definition of omnipresence, a theist should be able to present such evidence.
Why is the onus upon God to prove his existence to you on your terms? That strikes me as rather egotistical.

[rstones199]

As an atheist, you have already decided to reject God. As such, demanding that religion conform to science is just another statement of rejection of God.

Faith certainly is baffling to atheists. :shrug:


Why is the onus upon God to prove his existence to you on your terms? That strikes me as rather egotistical.

Is it my terms? Or is it just taking what a theist says and using it?

[Michael]

Is it my terms? Or is it just taking what a theist says and using it?
If a theist says that God's omnipresence can be empirically determined, then yes, you'd have every right to demand scientific proof of that.

I just don't see how a faith-based claim being made by a believer must be subect to empirical scientific confirmation to be 'real'.

In other words, I don't see theists making the empirical claim - that is you making the demand for scientific proof (hence my comment about 'your terms').

[Donkey]

I'd consider that reply to be insufficient.

As it stands, it is simply an utterance of unsupported opinion. :shrug:
I know... :p
If 'God' is not to be considered a 'physical presence' then how can he be omnipresent? After all the definition of Omnipresence states that is 'is the property of being present everywhere'.
God is outside of the plane of physical reality. "Presence" does not necessarily imply a physical manifestation.

[Michael]

God is outside of the plane of physical reality. "Presence" does not necessarily imply a physical manifestation.

These statements appear to be logically problematic on several accounts. They appear to be more [unsubstantiated] statements of faith.

[dilettante]

Originally Posted by Donkey
God is outside of the plane of physical reality. "Presence" does not necessarily imply a physical manifestation.


These statements appear to be logically problematic on several accounts. They appear to be more [unsubstantiated] statements of faith.

Or simply a defining of terms. I.E. By "God" Donkey means a Being/thing that is outside the plane of physical reality. His definition of 'presence' does not require a physical manifestation.

[rstones199]

If a theist says that God's omnipresence can be empirically determined, then yes, you'd have every right to demand scientific proof of that.

I just don't see how a faith-based claim being made by a believer must be subect to empirical scientific confirmation to be 'real'.

In other words, I don't see theists making the empirical claim - that is you making the demand for scientific proof (hence my comment about 'your terms').

By the definition of Omnipresence, a theist should be able to come up with empirical scientific evidence.



I understand if this 'God' resides outside the natural world, then yes, there cannot be empirical scientific evidence to support the claim that this 'God' exist. This would be the same as asking proof of a unicorn, or a Phoenix.



But when the theist would also like to claim this 'God' is omnipresent, then that opens to door to ask for empirical scientific evidence, since this 'God' would now be part of the natural world too. It becomes the same as asking for proof of Mars, a black hole, a quasar, etc.

[dilettante]

By the definition of Omnipresence, a theist should be able to come up with empirical scientific evidence.



I understand if this 'God' resides outside the natural world, then yes, there cannot be empirical scientific evidence to support the claim that this 'God' exist. This would be the same as asking proof of a unicorn, or a Phoenix.



But when the theist would also like to claim this 'God' is omnipresent, then that opens to door to ask for empirical scientific evidence, since this 'God' would now be part of the natural world too. It becomes the same as asking for proof of Mars, a black hole, a quasar, etc.

If you're looking for a Western theist who believes that God is omnipresent, and by 'omnipresent' means "existing as a physical entity in all places simultaneously", I think you're going to have trouble finding one. You're essentially defining a belief that no one holds and then noticing, correctly enough, that there's not really any defense for it.

[Michael]

If you're looking for a Western theist who believes that God is omnipresent, and by 'omnipresent' means "existing as a physical entity in all places simultaneously", I think you're going to have trouble finding one. You're essentially defining a belief that no one holds and then noticing, correctly enough, that there's not really any defense for it.
Well, one is going to have a problem as soon as one asserts that "God is a physical entity". If that is the interpretation of 'omnipresent', then one is quite right to meet that assertion with a demand for empirical evidence.

However, I do think it is logically possible to assert that God is omnipresent and yet maintain that empirical evidence of this might not exist.

[Michael]

By the definition of Omnipresence, a theist should be able to come up with empirical scientific evidence.
I don't see how or why that is logically necessary. The definition of omnipresence given in the OP merely asserts that God is present everywhere. The logical necessity of empirical proof only arises if you define the term "present" as limited to 'physically present'. I don't think the term of 'presence' requires that limitation.

I understand if this 'God' resides outside the natural world, then yes, there cannot be empirical scientific evidence to support the claim that this 'God' exist. This would be the same as asking proof of a unicorn, or a Phoenix.
We are in agreement here.

But when the theist would also like to claim this 'God' is omnipresent, then that opens to door to ask for empirical scientific evidence, since this 'God' would now be part of the natural world too. It becomes the same as asking for proof of Mars, a black hole, a quasar, etc.
I don't believe this is necessarily so.

Omnipresence, to my understanding, doesn't logically require physical manifestation.

For example, it is reasonable to speak of the 'presence' of one's soul, or the 'presence' of one's will, where there is no empirical evidence of these things existing.

[rstones199]

Well, one is going to have a problem as soon as one asserts that "God is a physical entity". If that is the interpretation of 'omnipresent', then one is quite right to meet that assertion with a demand for empirical evidence.

However, I do think it is logically possible to assert that God is omnipresent and yet maintain that empirical evidence of this might not exist.

I do not see how it is logically possible to assert that 'God' is omnipresent, while maintaining there might not be empirical evidence to support this claim.

Just because we cannot see something does not mean something does not have a physical presence. 'Look' at air. :)

[rstones199]

I don't believe this is necessarily so.

Omnipresence, to my understanding, doesn't logically require physical manifestation.

For example, it is reasonable to speak of the 'presence' of one's soul, or the 'presence' of one's will, where there is no empirical evidence of these things existing.

Is there anything in this universe that is not required to have some type of physical presence in this universe?

Emotions (taken simplistically) is nothing more than chemical reactions. And chemicals do require a physical presence.

Even the 'soul' requires a physical human body. Why would 'God' be any different if 'God' truly is omnipresent and is part of the natural universe?

[Michael]

Is there anything in this universe that is not required to have some type of physical presence in this universe?
Some people assert that God fits this.

One might also assert that an explanation for it, also fits the bill. ;)

Emotions (taken simplistically) is nothing more than chemical reactions. And chemicals do require a physical presence.
Yes that is true, but I didn't offer the emotions as an example. I suggested 'will' (as in willpower, or the 'will to rule', etc). The human will is a powerful thing - and science cannot measure it as it has no physical presence. Some humans have it, some don't - science can't tell the difference.

Even the 'soul' requires a physical human body. Why would 'God' be any different if 'God' truly is omnipresent and is part of the natural universe?
Souls require physical human bodies? How do they get ressurected or do the 'eternity' thing?

[rstones199]

Yes that is true, but I didn't offer the emotions as an example. I suggested 'will' (as in willpower, or the 'will to rule', etc). The human will is a powerful thing - and science cannot measure it as it has no physical presence. Some humans have it, some don't - science can't tell the difference.

Willpower is the minds ability to exert his/her will over the inhibitions of their body or self. But again please note the word 'mind' The mind defiantly does need a physical presence.



Souls require physical human bodies? How do they get resurrected or do the 'eternity' thing?

By your own admission (indirectly), you are saying the 'soul' is a religious idea. Hence, I would reject the idea of a soul. Perhaps I should have stated that instead of the human body idea. :)

[The Drunk Guy]

I do not agree that God is a term comparable to "will." The word "will" is a definition of our mental drive to exist and succeed. I feel that subjective terms associated with mental processes receive a pass when it comes to objective testing. These words would include also "rights," "ideas," and "ego."

However, external subjectivity can come under the scrutiny of objectivity. Things that 'exist' outside the realm of the human mind, such as "God" and "souls" should be judged by objective means based on their mythological explanations.

[Donkey]

Rstones, I think you're arguing against definitions of a God and a Soul that nobody believes in.

[rstones199]

Rstones, I think you're arguing against definitions of a God and a Soul that nobody believes in.

Very well could be. :shrug:

[Michael]

I do not agree that God is a term comparable to "will." The word "will" is a definition of our mental drive to exist and succeed. I feel that subjective terms associated with mental processes receive a pass when it comes to objective testing. These words would include also "rights," "ideas," and "ego."
And how are these terms different than subjective belief in God?

However, external subjectivity can come under the scrutiny of objectivity. Things that 'exist' outside the realm of the human mind, such as "God" and "souls" should be judged by objective means based on their mythological explanations.
I don't accept that God or souls exist outside of the realm of the human mind.

I see no rational reason why I should see these things as anything but.

[Michael]

Willpower is the minds ability to exert his/her will over the inhibitions of their body or self. But again please note the word 'mind' The mind defiantly does need a physical presence.
The human will is as dependent upon physical presence as is God or the soul.

None of them can be empiracally tested, measured or determined.

By your own admission (indirectly), you are saying the 'soul' is a religious idea. Hence, I would reject the idea of a soul. Perhaps I should have stated that instead of the human body idea. :)
The contemporary idea of the soul is mostly religious, but it has long existance as a non-religious idea.

One doesn't need any religion to ascribe to a belief in souls.

[Greendruid]

One doesn't need any religion to ascribe to a belief in souls.

I'm confused by this statement. Do you mean organised religion here? The anthropological definition of religion is any belief in supernatural phenomena. It's broad, I know, but it works to classify pretty much all human cultures as having some form of religion. Extranatural would be a better term perhaps because in the anthropological sense this simply means, "that which is not a part of the known, natural universe". Ergo, belief in souls would constitute religion, organised or not.

[Zarquon]

The human will is as dependent upon physical presence as is God or the soul.

None of them can be empiracally tested, measured or determined.


The contemporary idea of the soul is mostly religious, but it has long existance as a non-religious idea.

One doesn't need any religion to ascribe to a belief in souls.
I'd assert that 'soul' is a term used by the original and true supernaturalists to refer to the consciousness, and that a scientific identification of consciousness within the brain/theory of consciousness(at present there are only hypothesis's without compelling evidence) would pretty much do away with the 'need' for a 'soul'.

[SMadsen]

Rstones, I think you're arguing against definitions of a God and a Soul that nobody believes in.
Nevertheless, omnipresence is part of any theistic deity. If a deity is said to be able to intervene and exert its will upon its creation then it must necessarily be omnipresent in such a creation, or, at least, be able to be present in any place at any time.

Even though it doesn't seem to be especially prominent in the usual perception of theistic gods, it's a necessary part of the conception of theistic gods.

[SMadsen]

I do not see how it is logically possible to assert that 'God' is omnipresent, while maintaining there might not be empirical evidence to support this claim.

Just because we cannot see something does not mean something does not have a physical presence. 'Look' at air. :)
Many people will tell you that love is impossible to treat empirically. Yet, love can easily be said to be omnipresent (for example: I love everything, ergo, my love is omnipresent).

[SMadsen]

I'm confused by this statement. Do you mean organised religion here? The anthropological definition of religion is any belief in supernatural phenomena. It's broad, I know, but it works to classify pretty much all human cultures as having some form of religion. Extranatural would be a better term perhaps because in the anthropological sense this simply means, "that which is not a part of the known, natural universe". Ergo, belief in souls would constitute religion, organised or not.
What about soul in the meaning of life-force? Surely any idea of a presence that may not be easy to pinpoint as a discrete entity must not necessarily be extranatural?

[The Drunk Guy]

And how are these terms different than subjective belief in God?


I don't accept that God or souls exist outside of the realm of the human mind.

I see no rational reason why I should see these things as anything but.
Rights and will and similar concepts exist inside each human mind. Perhaps not with that exact label in thought, but every human feels those concepts alive inside them. We are born with these drives and thoughts.

Gods and souls are taught to people before they can exist in their mind. They are inserted into minds after birth. That is the difference in my eyes.

[dilettante]

Nevertheless, omnipresence is part of any theistic deity. If a deity is said to be able to intervene and exert its will upon its creation then it must necessarily be omnipresent in such a creation, or, at least, be able to be present in any place at any time.

Even though it doesn't seem to be especially prominent in the usual perception of theistic gods, it's a necessary part of the conception of theistic gods.

True enough. However omnipresence as the ability "to intervene and exert its will upon its creation" and to "be able to be present in any place at any time" is one thing. Omnipresence as existing as a physical material filling all locations is another.
(Most) Theists may believe the former is an attribute of God, but none that I know of believe in the latter. Yet that seems to be the definition rstones is using.

[SMadsen]

True enough. However omnipresence as the ability "to intervene and exert its will upon its creation" and to "be able to be present in any place at any time" is one thing. Omnipresence as existing as a physical material filling all locations is another.
(Most) Theists may believe the former is an attribute of God, but none that I know of believe in the latter. Yet that seems to be the definition rstones is using.
Well, I'll go as far as saying that theists must necessarily believe that the former is an attribute of their god. Otherwise they are not theists. Or, rather, their god is not a theistic deity. Whichever comes first :)

As to the latter, I think you are right. Omnipresence doesn't really mean anything than the deity is attributed with a will. When a child is indoctrinated with the ferociously retributional qualities of a theistic deity, namely, that it can kick the child in the butt wherever or whenever the child is being obnoxious, then I doubt it's a real, physical manifestion that's being envisioned.

[dilettante]

Well, I'll go as far as saying that theists must necessarily believe that the former is an attribute of their god. Otherwise they are not theists. Or, rather, their god is not a theistic deity. Whichever comes first :)

Out of curiosity, what sort of deity would it be then? :ummm:
That is to say, if a group believes in and worships some personal entity with super-natural powers that intervenes in their lives, then surely it would make since to refer to that entity as their "god", even if they didn't include omnipresence amongst its super-natural powers. And if they believe in and worship a "god", how are they not theists?

[SMadsen]

Out of curiosity, what sort of deity would it be then? :ummm:
That is to say, if a group believes in and worships some personal entity with super-natural powers that intervenes in their lives, then surely it would make since to refer to that entity as their "god", even if they didn't include omnipresence amongst its super-natural powers. And if they believe in and worship a "god", how are they not theists?
A deistic god "can" easily get away with creating a universe and never be heard from again, thus having no need of being omnipresent.

A pantheistic god is usually omnipresent but for another reason; it usually IS all.

[dilettante]

A deistic god "can" easily get away with creating a universe and never be heard from again, thus having no need of being omnipresent.

But again, what about a worshiped, super-naturally powerful being that lacks omnipresence? Surely it's still a "god" (what else would you call it?). Indeed, weren't various members of ancient pantheons often associated with specific locations? IIRC, the Greek and Roman deities weren't omnipresent, certainly not by our modern definition of the term. You worried about Neptune when you went to sea, but you didn't think of him as an omnipresent deity looking over your shoulder at all times even then.

It seems to me that the "omni" qualities of the big monotheistic God(s) have somehow infected the conception of deity in general. But even for the monotheists, I think the philosophical notions we think of as "omnipresent", "omniscient", "omnipotent" have only really been conceptualized relatively recently. Personally I don't think they're worth the mental effort people expend on them.

[SMadsen]

But again, what about a worshiped, super-naturally powerful being that lacks omnipresence? Surely it's still a "god" (what else would you call it?).
Not a theistic god :)

Indeed, weren't various members of ancient pantheons often associated with specific locations? IIRC, the Greek and Roman deities weren't omnipresent, certainly not by our modern definition of the term. You worried about Neptune when you went to sea, but you didn't think of him as an omnipresent deity looking over your shoulder at all times even then.
As I said, omnipresence doesn't seem to be one of the most prominent attributes given to deities (except for the purpose of instilling fear in kids).

When I say that "theists must necessarily believe" that omnipresence is an attribute of their god, I don't really mean that the theist gives omnipresence much thought, or any at all (except when chastising their kids) but that I can't see any possibility for the theist to avoid attributing omnipresence to his god if forced to argue the subject. At least an anthropocentric kind of omnipresence, i.e. "omnipresence" with regard to humans.