2

From a classical theistic perspective, God both transcends time and space, yet is also present everywhere. But how can God be both outside time and space and yet be present everywhere?

3
  • 1
    typically immanence and omnipresence are spelled out so as to avoid contradiction, such examples should be fairly easily found in the literature
    – Papuseme
    Aug 4 at 4:39
  • The number 2 also transcends both time and space yet is present and accessible at all times and places. What is troubling about this? Aug 4 at 7:13
  • No. On this view, God is not only present everywhere in time and space, but also extends beyond time and space, see Panentheism. Just as electrons are present everywhere on Earth, but can also be found in outer space, so they transcend Earth.
    – Conifold
    Aug 4 at 8:49

4 Answers 4

1

Here the contradiction depends on one's idea about God. I think treating it as dual you won’t get a clear answer to your question because anything that is dual must be separated from the rest and so it can't be everywhere.

See, there is difference in the two terms ‘larger than space’ and ‘transcends space’. We, laymen, can’t even imagine the experience of ‘transcending space’. And the experience of 'transcending space and time' is almost unimaginable. So the main thing about your question is that only the realised ‘can imagine’ the ‘thing’ which transcends time and space. If you got at least a vague idea about this, you needn’t be doubtful if it is present everywhere.

0

There is no contradiction. He can exist outside of spacetime and influence the chance distributions by means of hidden variables, which is one interpretation of quantum mechanics.

For example, He might create a meaningfull in a repeated measurement of the electron spin direction. The pattern can be for example 10101010.... Which isn't to be expected on the 50-50 chance. Of course this can be pure coincidence but it will be hard to neglect if the pattern shows up consistently.

Now the brain is a very subtle organ. And it is imaginable that communication finds place by means of it. The gods tapping into the soul directly. It's easier to imagine than to turn a wooden stick into a snake.

0

Transcendence means God is not confined to time and space, like we are. Omnipresence means god is everywhere. So god is not only present throughout all of time and space, but also present in that which transcends these environments.

0

If we take the maxim 'from nothing comes nothing' and also suppose that in the beginning there was only God. Then one can deduce that everything is a part of God or in God. Something like this might have driven some thinkers towards pantheism. Certainly Spinoza was accused of it though he disavowed that.

However, as Socrates answered to Zeno's question about the divinity of things in the Platonic dialogue, Parmenides, he admitted it is rather hard to concieve of things like dirt being divine.

Of course we need not accept the opening maxim and instead qualify it and say that only God can create from nothing. Then of course divinity is not in matter.

The question of God's omnipresence was pursued by Al-Ghazali, a 11C Asharite theologian, to refute the rationalism of the Mutazilites and the Falsafas who drew upon the philosophical heritage of the Greeks. He asserted the omnipresence of God in the very nature of cause and effect. This is his doctrine of occasionalism as put in his The Incoherence of the Philosophers. He asserted that it took the assertion of Gods will in every occasion or moment when something could occur but only does occur because of Gods intervention. This is far from the notion of the 'God of the gaps' where 'gaps' in scientific knowledge is taken as evidence of Gods existence. It is exactly the opposite, He is there where nature occurs, happens or is. His presence is then felt everywhere. Al-Ghazali simply turned the scepticism of the rationalists on its head and applied scepticism to their own thought. He was able to do this because as a young man who was keen to explore every philosophical byway, he pursued scepticism for a while until he turned away from it realising that taken as dogma it fundamentally led nowhere. But this is ehy he was able to out-sceptic the sceptics.

Thus, there is no contradiction here: Gods omnipresence in guaranteeing the efficiency of the world, its cause and effect, and hence its quiddity is simply another manifestation of His transcendence.

This scepticism of cause & effect was taken up much later by Hume and then Kant.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .