How God could be omnipresent if He is spiritual?

[Bahman]

Being in ONE particular place means you cannot be anywhere else. Since God is everywhere, there is no one place where He is, because that would then make Him not somewhere else.

If you are at the store, you can’t also be at home. Since God is everywhere at once, we can’t limit him to a single place.

God is spiritual, doesn’t occupy any place, so He cannot be in everyplace.

 

[Bahman]

Correct! Finally, an apparent breakthrough. One cannot sense God’s presence through sight, touch, sound, taste or smell…

This only means that God is not material. We however have spiritual soul so we could somehow be able to experience God. Moreover a spiritual being cannot take any space.

 

[Bahman]

That sentence is exactly the reason you cannot understand or accept our explanations. Your concept of time is patently not the same as what is commonly held to be true. Time is not an illusion, since we all experience it. Just because you don’t understand it or can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Same goes for “outside space”.

We don’t experience time. We experience motion.

You say you’re a physicist, but you are not taking a scientific approach to the question of God. In fact, you’re doing the exact opposite. The scientific approach would be to take a fact or situation you have observed and try to come up with an explanation. For example, gravity. Everyone knows how things dropped fall to the ground. Scientists through the ages have made deductions and hypotheses about the rate, force, and universality of gravity, which have changed and refined our collective knowledge about just how it works. But the initial observation still stands. Stuff falls when you drop it.

You cannot use science to prove God. In fact you cannot use science to prove anything spiritual.

Theologians have the same method of finding out about God. They take what has been revealed to us through scripture, like his omnipresence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, and formulate philosophical theories on how these truths work. Of course, like scientists, theologians can disagree about the hows, but the truth that God exists is always there.

We didn’t need theologian if the scripture was written literally. Every time that we face with a part we argue that that part of scripture should not interpreted literally. So that part is subjected to human error.

You, on the other hand, seem set on coming up with theories about what God is not, can’t possibly be, when you are convinced there is no God in the first place. What scientist starts out by trying to disprove something he doesn’t believe?

Yes, because there are theories about what God is, so it is possible to find error within those theories. You need a new theory when there is an error in the old one. That is how science work.

You’re trying to prove to us that our concept of God is incoherent but you obviously aren’t clear yourself on what we mean by “God”. I think you need to prove or disprove God for yourself first. That’s fundamental if you are at all sincere in going “wherever it may go”.

I don’t know what God is but partially know what He isn’t.

 

[o_mlly]

"One cannot sense God’s presence through sight, touch, sound, taste or smell… ’ This only means that God is not material. We however have spiritual soul so we could somehow be able to experience God. Moreover a spiritual being cannot take any space.

That’s correct. Perhaps a better question, therefore, is: How could God be omnipresent if He is not spiritual?

As you correctly say above, we are partly spirit and it is through this commonality with our Creator that we may experience the omnipresent God. Again, the operative faculty is charity which subsists in the soul.

 

[SilverShadow22]

God is spiritual, doesn’t occupy any place, so He cannot be in everyplace.

This is incorrect.

I, as an author, created a world with laws, rules, places, and characters. I myself am not physically inside the book, which is a construct of my concepts.

I am not in a *particular, specific *sense inside the book. Yet, I am present throughout the book. Anyone who knows me will see echoes of me and my life and my thoughts inside the book, they will see the image of me in my characters, they will see my world-view in the course of events.

I am in my own story by my act of creation, even though I am not physically present in terms of place. Even in my own made-up story and world, each character can only be in one ‘place’ at a time, but I, the author, am everywhere in the book at once.

I can see the entire book from the outside, and enter the timeline when and where I choose, because I am not bound by the time and space represented in my story.

From the perspective of my characters, I am all-powerful and all-present. I can see the entire story all at once. I am not bound by its limitations except as I choose to be.

Now, upgrade the analogy to a truly all-powerful being, and maybe you can begin to grasp the concept.

 

[yppop]

A spiritual being cannot occupy any space. How could God then be omnipresent?

Here is something I recently posted on another thread:

… Matter is composed of configurations of discrete space that is immersed in the continuous space. This is a hylomorphic construction; the material world is formed from configurations of points of discrete space as referenced by rational numbers and the spiritual is provided by the continuous space as referenced by the real numbers. How else could God be omnipresent? …

I’ve been around this forum long enough to know that this idea would require further explanation before anyone would immediately grasp its meaning and I know from past discussion with you that you do not comprehend the truly amazing interpretations of the real and rational numbers and their representation of 3-dimensional space unless you’ve finally realized the signifigance of aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1), namely the innate omnipresence of continuous space.
Yppop

 

[dahbeegs]

Oh boy, Bahman. I’ll have to agree with what Cathaholic said earlier about his posts. I’m not sure of his motivations with his constant posts, if he’s trolling or if he legitimately wonders these things. This post is a great example of his ‘tactics.’ You can reduce all of them to him (deliberately?) misunderstanding a singled word. In this case, it’s the word ‘in.’ I’ll let F.J. Sheed, Theology for Beginners (Part III, God is Omnipresent and Eternal), do the talking for me.

Everywhere means where everything is. The phrase God is everywhere means that that God is in everything. Clearly a spiritual being is not in a material being as water is in a cup. We must look for a different meaning for the word “in.” A spiritual being is said to be where it operates, in the things that receive the effects of its power. My soul for instance is in every part of my body, not by being spread out so that every bodily part has a little bit of soul to itself, but because the soul’s life-giving energies pour into every part of the body. Everything whatsoever receives the energy of God, bringing it into existence and keeping it there; that is the sense in which God is omnipresent, is everywhere, in everything.

So there you have it. Your original question is really bereft of any significant meaning, and stems from using the word ‘in’ in its normal, physical context in the context of spiritual matters. That is simply wrong. I would suggest you pick up Sheed’s book and spend some time with it, it would probably suffice to answer many of your perceptions of logical inconsistencies with theology.

 

[Bahman]

This is incorrect.

I, as an author, created a world with laws, rules, places, and characters. I myself am not physically inside the book, which is a construct of my concepts.

I am not in a *particular, specific *sense inside the book. Yet, I am present throughout the book. Anyone who knows me will see echoes of me and my life and my thoughts inside the book, they will see the image of me in my characters, they will see my world-view in the course of events.

I am in my own story by my act of creation, even though I am not physically present in terms of place. Even in my own made-up story and world, each character can only be in one ‘place’ at a time, but I, the author, am everywhere in the book at once.

I can see the entire book from the outside, and enter the timeline when and where I choose, because I am not bound by the time and space represented in my story.

From the perspective of my characters, I am all-powerful and all-present. I can see the entire story all at once. I am not bound by its limitations except as I choose to be.

Now, upgrade the analogy to a truly all-powerful being, and maybe you can begin to grasp the concept.

That is very good approach. It just doesn’t explian how creation could have dynamic.

 

[SilverShadow22]

That is very good approach. It just doesn’t explian how creation could have dynamic.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘dynamic’.

But at least we’ve gotten somewhere with the relative meaning of ‘in’.

 

[Bahman]

Oh boy, Bahman. I’ll have to agree with what Cathaholic said earlier about his posts. I’m not sure of his motivations with his constant posts, if he’s trolling or if he legitimately wonders these things. This post is a great example of his ‘tactics.’ You can reduce all of them to him (deliberately?) misunderstanding a singled word. In this case, it’s the word ‘in.’ I’ll let F.J. Sheed, Theology for Beginners (Part III, God is Omnipresent and Eternal), do the talking for me.

Everywhere means where everything is. The phrase God is everywhere means that that God is in everything. Clearly a spiritual being is not in a material being as water is in a cup. We must look for a different meaning for the word “in.” A spiritual being is said to be where it operates, in the things that receive the effects of its power. My soul for instance is in every part of my body, not by being spread out so that every bodily part has a little bit of soul to itself, but because the soul’s life-giving energies pour into every part of the body. Everything whatsoever receives the energy of God, bringing it into existence and keeping it there; that is the sense in which God is omnipresent, is everywhere, in everything.

So there you have it. Your original question is really bereft of any significant meaning, and stems from using the word ‘in’ in its normal, physical context in the context of spiritual matters. That is simply wrong. I would suggest you pick up Sheed’s book and spend some time with it, it would probably suffice to answer many of your perceptions of logical inconsistencies with theology.

So in your opinion is that there is inner layer so called spiritual in any thing we call material? If it is so, why then we don’t spiritual world?

 

[Bahman]

Here is something I recently posted on another thread:

… Matter is composed of configurations of discrete space that is immersed in the continuous space. This is a hylomorphic construction; the material world is formed from configurations of points of discrete space as referenced by rational numbers and the spiritual is provided by the continuous space as referenced by the real numbers. How else could God be omnipresent? …

I’ve been around this forum long enough to know that this idea would require further explanation before anyone would immediately grasp its meaning and I know from past discussion with you that you do not comprehend the truly amazing interpretations of the real and rational numbers and their representation of 3-dimensional space unless you’ve finally realized the signifigance of aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1), namely the innate omnipresence of continuous space.
Yppop

If God is like a real number and we are integer then there is no way for God to exist in integer number. Moreover, you analogy fail to explain that God is spiritual since a spiritual being doesn’t occupy any room.

 

[yppop]

If God is like a real number and we are integer then there is no way for God to exist in integer number. Moreover, you analogy fail to explain that God is spiritual since a spiritual being doesn’t occupy any room.

Bahman
Since English probably is not your native language, I will excuse you on those grounds for your complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. In a past exchange with you some time ago you insisted that you could subtract a number from infinity and generate a lesser infinity. Apparently you still do not realize the significance of aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1).

God is not like a real number; God is God and not like anything else. God is omnipresent. Omnipresence means “in all places at all times” just as is continuous space… Only if you completely understand the significance of aleph(1) as a representation of continuous space as being “in all places at all times” can you understand how continuous space can be a representation of the spiritual. While at the same time the rational numbers are merely a representation of discrete space that I believe is the element from which the material world is constructed.

Just as continuous space, being an analog of absolute existence, “occupies all room” (as you might say), infinitely in extant and infinitely divisible, it is omnipresent and the only thing that is omnipresent is the spiritual, the Mind of God.

I don’t want to get in a discussion with if you find nothing of interest or worthwhile that would induce to ask a pertinent question or, at least, a pithy comment. I am willing to engage in a discussion but not a disputation. If you prefer a dispute, you can have the last word; I do not have time to deal with nonsensical comments.
Yppop

 

[meltzerboy]

By not taking up any space.

And by being an extra-temporal spiritual being, how could G-d NOT be omnipresent?

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘dynamic’.
But at least we’ve gotten somewhere with the relative meaning of ‘in’.

Consider each state of the creation as a frame of a movie or a page of a book. God see all the pages but this knowledge is static. God however must sustain creation at now which is the only actual state. The state of now however changes which mean that God’s knowledge of current now changes. We know that this is not allowed.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman
Since English probably is not your native language, I will excuse you on those grounds for your complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. In a past exchange with you some time ago you insisted that you could subtract a number from infinity and generate a lesser infinity. Apparently you still do not realize the significance of aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1).

God is not like a real number; God is God and not like anything else. God is omnipresent. Omnipresence means “in all places at all times” just as is continuous space… Only if you completely understand the significance of aleph(1) as a representation of continuous space as being “in all places at all times” can you understand how continuous space can be a representation of the spiritual. While at the same time the rational numbers are merely a representation of discrete space that I believe is the element from which the material world is constructed.

Just as continuous space, being an analog of absolute existence, “occupies all room” (as you might say), infinitely in extant and infinitely divisible, it is omnipresent and the only thing that is omnipresent is the spiritual, the Mind of God.

I don’t want to get in a discussion with if you find nothing of interest or worthwhile that would induce to ask a pertinent question or, at least, a pithy comment. I am willing to engage in a discussion but not a disputation. If you prefer a dispute, you can have the last word; I do not have time to deal with nonsensical comments.
Yppop

Thanks for your reply. But God cannot take any room in space as he is spiritual. I don’t understand how our discussion about infinity could resolve the problem.

 

[Bahman]

And by being an extra-temporal spiritual being, how could G-d NOT be omnipresent?

So you agree that God doesn’t take up any room but He is present everywhere!? How?

 

[SilverShadow22]

Consider each state of the creation as a frame of a movie or a page of a book. God see all the pages but this knowledge is static. God however must sustain creation at now which is the only actual state. The state of now however changes which mean that God’s knowledge of current now changes. We know that this is not allowed.

His knowledge is not static.

The book I wrote existed in my head before I wrote it down. The act of writing brought it forth and my continued will sustains it. If I decide to delete it from my computer it will cease to exist in reality but will still exist in my mind. I observe, control, and manifest all states of its existence.

I am a complete person with or without the book, but I choose to create and sustain the book. I did not have to create to be complete, but I prefer to. The existence of the book is dependent upon my will. If changes occur in the book, I know of the changes before they exist, since the entire book came from me.

I am limited to time and space, and I am mortal, yet I can do this. Imagine what God can do.

 

[meltzerboy]

So you agree that God doesn’t take up any room but He is present everywhere!? How?

G-d is present as a spirit everywhere, not as a physical, material being.

 

[Bahman]

His knowledge is not static.

The book I wrote existed in my head before I wrote it down. The act of writing brought it forth and my continued will sustains it. If I decide to delete it from my computer it will cease to exist in reality but will still exist in my mind. I observe, control, and manifest all states of its existence.

I am a complete person with or without the book, but I choose to create and sustain the book. I did not have to create to be complete, but I prefer to. The existence of the book is dependent upon my will. If changes occur in the book, I know of the changes before they exist, since the entire book came from me.

I am limited to time and space, and I am mortal, yet I can do this. Imagine what God can do.

God knowledge of course is static/changeless. He is omniscient.

 

[Bahman]

G-d is present as a spirit everywhere, not as a physical, material being.

Can a spiritual thing occupy any space? If yes we can call Him as matter prime. So problem is solved.