Problems with omnipresent

[Bahman]

Omnipresent by definition is the property of being present everywhere.

There are two problems related to omnipresent:

A) Timeless state is impossible in presence of time

B) Perfection state is impossible in presence of imperfection

Your thought.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you asking a question? Can you be more specific?

Are you asking if anything is omnipresent in the universe.

Yes. Space-Time is omnipresent everywhere.

 

[Bahman]

Are you asking a question? Can you be more specific?

Are you asking if anything is omnipresent in the universe.

Yes. Space is omnipresent everywhere.

I think of omnipresent as a attribute of God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are two problems related to omnipresent:

A) Timeless state is impossible in presence of time

B) Perfection state is impossible in presence of imperfection

Why are these two problems?

 

[Bahman]

Why are these two problems?

Since we are imperfect and experience time. God is perfect, in state of timeless and omnipresent. By omnipresent we mean that God should exist everywhere, in state of time as well as state of timeless and exist in presence of imperfection in the same time be perfect.

 

[polytropos]

Omnipresent by definition is the property of being present everywhere.

There are two problems related to omnipresent:

A) Timeless state is impossible in presence of time

B) Perfection state is impossible in presence of imperfection

Your thought.

Omnipresence is presence to all of space and time (as cause and ground of being). It is not presence in space and time. So one can’t infer that God is spatial or temporal.

In other words, space, time, all contingent existents cannot exist without God. In that sense, God is present to all of creation. But it doesn’t follow that God is in time or space himself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since we are imperfect and experience time. God is perfect, in state of timeless and omnipresent. By omnipresent we mean that God should exist everywhere, in state of time as well as state of timeless and exist in presence of imperfection in the same time be perfect.

Well, you are developing a line of thought Spinoza might agree with. About all I can say.

 

[polytropos]

By omnipresent we mean that God should exist everywhere, in state of time as well as state of timeless and exist in presence of imperfection in the same time be perfect.

It should also be noted that classically the creation-relation has not been understood as reflexive. Creatures bear relation to God (as created by him), but God does not bear a real relation to creatures. So God is present to creatures (ie. time, imperfection, space), but creatures are not therefore present to God. Creatures are everywhere in the presence of God, but God is not in the presence of time and imperfection himself.

 

[Bahman]

It should also be noted that classically the creation-relation has not been understood as reflexive. Creatures bear relation to God (as created by him), but God does not bear a real relation to creatures. So God is present to creatures (ie. time, imperfection, space), but creatures are not therefore present to God. Creatures are everywhere in the presence of God, but God is not in the presence of time and imperfection himself.

There is a issue with your interpretation so called boundary problem which states that there exists a boundary which is neither God nor creation hence we cannot be present to God because the boundary.

Moreover, this interpretation is against the Christian God which states that the relation with God is bidirectiona, …

 

[abook]

Here is a link to St. Thomas Aquinas on God’s omnipresence, hopefully this helps you. newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm

Another link to all the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. newadvent.org/summa/

 

[polytropos]

There is a issue with your interpretation so called boundary problem which states that there exists a boundary which is neither God nor creation hence we cannot be present to God because the boundary.

Well, for this boundary problem to be a real problem, we would need to hear why we should believe there is a boundary. If it simply “states” that there is, it has no teeth.

From what I can tell, it is unlikely that traditional philosophical theology entails this boundary problem. Everything that exists is either God or creation; whatever is not God, is created. So if the boundary is “neither God nor creation” then it does not exist.

Next, it is an overly spatial construal, even though God’s omnipresence is not derived from spatiality but from universal causality.

Lastly, it is God who is present to us. We aren’t present to God (at least–not spatially, nor in the sense that God is present to us–one might say we are present to God in another sense, ie. that he knows and loves us).

Moreover, this interpretation is against the Christian God which states that the relation with God is bidirectiona, …

I don’t think it does, unless one equivocate on “presence.” (It has at least three senses, which I’ve distinguished above.)

 

[Neildown]

Omnipresent by definition is the property of being present everywhere.

There are two problems related to omnipresent:

A) Timeless state is impossible in presence of time

B) Perfection state is impossible in presence of imperfection

Your thought.

A) Unless you’re a being that exists outside the confines of our known dimensional fabric, including both space and time “as we know it.” In theory, you could be everywhere and yet be nowhere in the eyes of limited human perception. Considering the mentioned dimensional fabric would have to be created by God, we might even assume that physical reality is God’s way of bypassing point B.

B) Entirely dependent upon context.