The "place" of God ?

[hackysack]

The point that I was making is that everything that exists either exists in itself or it exists in another thing. So of course that would mean that if God exists in himself, then he doesn't need a place in which to exist. If a geometric point is a thing that has any actual existence then it either exists within a place or it is everything that exists. Same would go for God, and since it would be absurd to assert that God existed within another, then God must be everything that exists.

I'm not sure I follow your usage of the word 'in'. Do you mean it in a spatial sense---like I currently exist in the room in which I'm sitting here typing, which itself is in the building, and that building is in the Solar system, etc.? Or, do you mean it in a metaphysical sense? Or both? Or some other way still?

[hackysack]

Does God exist every "place", or is God himself every "place" that exists, for if God exists every "place" then something called "place" must necessarily have been existent prior to God in order that he exist within it, but if God himself is every "place" then everything must necessarily exist in God. But if everything that is exists in God, then everything that is is one with God. Notice that Universe could be inserted in the place of God above and you have the same result.

I'm totally thinking out loud here:

If the geometric point can logically exist, then what would preclude something existing "outside" the Universe by existing "outside" even the geometric point? Does a logically allowed geometric point logically prevent a thing from existing apart from the Universe?

If the geometric point is logically coherent, then can't something exist within the geometric point? Or, instead, must the geometric point logically be empty?

[JimL]

I'm not sure I follow your usage of the word 'in'. Do you mean it in a spatial sense---like I currently exist in the room in which I'm sitting here typing, which itself is in the building, and that building is in the Solar system, etc.? Or, do you mean it in a metaphysical sense? Or both? Or some other way still?

By "in" I mean a thing that exists as part of a whole. If you take your singularity for instance, everything in existence today, existed, though in a different form, as a part of that singularity 14 billion years ago. The tree, the earth, sun, moon, and basically evrything, are not things in themselves, they are changing forms, and therefore part and parcel, of one and the same whole. So, if the universe of our experience, and all that it consists of, exists also within a greater cosmos, if it exists "in" another then it too is a part of that other. God is defined as infinite, think of infinite nothingness, there is no place beyond or outside of this infinite nothingness, so if we think again of this infinite nothingness in terms of an infinite God, then anything that exists obviously exists within that infinite and is therefore part of that whole and not a thing that exists in itself, or apart from, or outside of, that infinite.

[seer]

God is defined as infinite, think of infinite nothingness, there is no place beyond or outside of this infinite nothingness, so if we think again of this infinite nothingness in terms of an infinite God, then anything that exists obviously exists within that infinite and is therefore part of that whole and not a thing that exists in itself, or apart from, or outside of, that infinite.

Perhaps James. I can cut off a finger, that finger is made of my substance but it is no longer a part of me. I am personality. And that personality is not defused throughout my whole being. If a finger is cut off I don't lose my personality - a part of my intelligence does not go with the finger. Perhaps God can generate energy out of Himself that is no longer part of Himself - like a generator producing electricity that no longer connected to the generator.

[JimL]

Perhaps James. I can cut off a finger, that finger is made of my substance but it is no longer a part of me. I am personality. And that personality is not defused throughout my whole being. If a finger is cut off I don't lose my personality - a part of my intelligence does not go with the finger. Perhaps God can generate energy out of Himself that is no longer part of Himself - like a generator producing electricity that no longer connected to the generator.

And if an infinite entity can generate energy then that energy has no place else to exist but within the infinite, ergo it is not a thing in itself, but a part of a whole.

[seer]

And if an infinite entity can generate energy then that energy has no place else to exist but within the infinite, ergo it is not a thing in itself, but a part of a whole.

But if we separated intelligence from substance, like my finger from my personality, then even within the whole there can be distinction - difference. And when it comes to God I'm not sure what you mean by infinite - God is timeless, He existed for eternity past - it doesn't mean that He couldn't create a "place" outside of Himself.

[JimL]

But if we separated intelligence from substance, like my finger from my personality, then even within the whole there can be distinction - difference. And when it comes to God I'm not sure what you mean by infinite - God is timeless, He existed for eternity past - it doesn't mean that He couldn't create a "place" outside of Himself.

I can understand your finger being seperated from your body, but explain what you mean by severing intelligence or personality from the body? And I never said that there could be no distinction within the whole, but they are distinctions without a difference, so to speak. Your eye is distinct from your toe yet they are merely differing forms of one and the same substance. And as for infinity, if God could create a place outside of himself, then he wouldn't be infinite in the first place.

[seer]

I can understand your finger being seperated from your body, but explain what you mean by severing intelligence or personality from the body? And I never said that there could be no distinction within the whole, but they are distinctions without a difference, so to speak. Your eye is distinct from your toe yet they are merely differing forms of one and the same substance. And as for infinity, if God could create a place outside of himself, then he wouldn't be infinite in the first place.

Jim, what do we mean by saying that God is infinite? That is the question. Does it mean that He existed for eternity past. Infinitely long lived. Or do we mean that God is infinitely big - so to speak. God could have an infinite past without being infinitely big. He could be "local." And that is what scripture seems to suggest. Even though they are probably metaphorical the bible does speak of the throne of God, the third heaven, His dwelling place, etc... Even though He has control over all of creation that control could be exercise from a local point.

[JimL]

Jim, what do we mean by saying that God is infinite? That is the question. Does it mean that He existed for eternity past. Infinitely long lived. Or do we mean that God is infinitely big - so to speak. God could have an infinite past without being infinitely big. He could be "local." And that is what scripture seems to suggest. Even though they are probably metaphorical the bible does speak of the throne of God, the third heaven, His dwelling place, etc... Even though He has control over all of creation that control could be exercise from a local point.

If a God could create a place that exists outside of himself then he could not be defined as omnipresent. To be omnipresent is to exist everywhere and to exist everywhere is to be infinite.

[seer]

If a God could create a place that exists outside of himself then he could not be defined as omnipresent. To be omnipresent is to exist everywhere and to exist everywhere is to be infinite.

Again Jim, it is a matter of definitions. If God could view of all reality at once and extend His power to any part of that reality when He wants - He would be present in that sense. Nothing escapes His view or power.

[hackysack]

If a God could create a place that exists outside of himself then he could not be defined as omnipresent. To be omnipresent is to exist everywhere and to exist everywhere is to be infinite.

Do you believe in Einstein's Singularity? Or, what about the classic geometric point? Do you think either of those is logically possible? (I, for one, find them logically possible.)

But, assuming the classic geometric point is logically possible and, what's more, assuming it actually exists, then it seems to me that it alone would be omnipresent. What do you think?

But, let's just say, for sake of building a coherent logical picture, that the classic geometric point is logically possible, without considering whether it actually exists. If it is logically possible, then, it seems to me, so is the omnipresence of a God whose omnipresence nevertheless does not crowd you out of your seat. Do you see what I mean?

[JimL]

Again Jim, it is a matter of definitions. If God could view of all reality at once and extend His power to any part of that reality when He wants - He would be present in that sense. Nothing escapes His view or power.

I'm wondering what you mean by "view" as in "if God could view" or, as in "nothing escapes his view? Do you imagine a God with eye's in which all of reality at all times rests upon his pupil?

[JimL]

Do you believe in Einstein's Singularity? Or, what about the classic geometric point? Do you think either of those is logically possible? (I, for one, find them logically possible.)

But, assuming the classic geometric point is logically possible and, what's more, assuming it actually exists, then it seems to me that it alone would be omnipresent. What do you think?

I think that a geometical point would indeed be omnipresent, if a geometrical point were all of existence, but then God himself, if he existed, would need be that geometrical point. And if the universe of our experience is the evolution of that geometric point then we could define the universe by the same term, omnipresent. Of course, that would only be true if the geometrical point, or the universe of our experience, were all of existence.

But, let's just say, for sake of building a coherent logical picture, that the classic geometric point is logically possible, without considering whether it actually exists. If it is logically possible, then, it seems to me, so is the omnipresence of a God whose omnipresence nevertheless does not crowd you out of your seat. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I think that I see what you mean, you, like myself, are somewhat of a pantheist. All things are a part of the omnipresent whole, or if you would rather, of God.

[hackysack]

I think that a geometrcal point would indeed be omnipresent, if a geometrical point were all of existence...

I'm not sure if I was clear enough in what I'm implying by a geometric point and the singularity (together hereafter referred to as GP/S). If a GP/S is logically possible (logically coherent), then it can seem that any extension of space (say, a 2D line of a mile long, a cubic space of five feet, etc.) is full of an infinite number of GP/S's, but that nevertheless all of those GP/S's together do not actually constitute any of the things that make up any of the to-us-sensible objects that occupy that space. To my mind, this has several logically nested implications, including:

1) if a GP/S not only is logically possible, but if it actually exists, then omnipresence is a property only of two things: the GP/S, and anything that has access to spacetime through the GP/S;

2) an infinite number of GP/S's can logically occupy a single GP/S;

3) from the point of view of the GP/S, and of any entity that has direct access to it--unlike from our own point of view---space and time present no barriers to travel-and-occupancy (there is, for the GP/S, and for any such entity, at least in effect, no such thing as Here vs. There, nor Past vs. Now vs. Future).

So, as I hope you can now see, I'm not implying pantheism at all. To my way of thinking, the picture, say, of a bowl of ten different fruits is not a picture of the omnipresence of any truly singularly identifiable thing, but, at best, of a merely nominal 'omnipresence' of ten truly different things any one of which is actually a compound of things no less than is the bowl-of-fruits as a whole. Such a picture does not paint for me an actual omnipresence, but merely compels my mind toward an abstraction of omnipresence the actual object of which is not actually identified in the picture.

My problem with that picture is as to what omnipresence really means, because such a picture does not paint for me the kind of omnipresence that I had initially envisioned: a transcendent kind of omnipresence. The nominal kind would necessarily leave no space left for anything except that one kind of thing which is supposed to be omnipresent. But, if the GP/S is not simply a logical fiction, but actually exists, then it is transcendent in a way that not only gives precedent to a true transcendence of some concrete entity, but it also means our own physically sensible perceptions are inadequate to the job of acquiring any most essential kind of knowledge.

[JimL]

I'm not sure if I was clear enough in what I'm implying by a geometric point and the singularity (together hereafter referred to as GP/S). If a GP/S is logically possible (logically coherent), then it can seem that any extension of space (say, a 2D line of a mile long, a cubic space of five feet, etc.) is full of an infinite number of GP/S's, but that nevertheless all of those GP/S's together do not actually constitute any of the things that make up any of the to-us-sensible objects that occupy that space. To my mind, this has several logically nested implications, including:

I have only a laymans understanding of a singularity, so before attempting to answer you I would ask that you explain to me the above. Why is it that you conclude that any extension of space could contain an infinite number of singularity's? This may sound dumb, but is not a singularity itself an extension of space, because if it isn't then how can it be anything at all? If the universe began as a singularity, then that singularity was a something, a something that we call a singularity, and, being that it is a something, it must extend space to some degree, no? Not being up to snuff on the sigularity theory, I'm sure that I am missing something. Perhaps if you could clue me in I could give you a more thoughtful response to your question.

1) if a GP/S not only is logically possible, but if it actually exists, then omnipresence is a property only of two things: the GP/S, and anything that has access to spacetime through the GP/S;

Again if a singularity is defined as an existing thing which is omnipresent, then first off, it seems to me, that as an existing thing, it must extend space, and second, if there is something outside of the singularity, which has access to it, to the singularity, then it, the singularity, can't be defined as omnipresent.

2) an infinite number of GP/S's can logically occupy a single GP/S;

Doesn't sound logical to me, but again if you could explain why this is so? If a sigularity is something and therefore extends space, then it doesn't seem logical to me that an infinity of sigularity's could occupy the same space and be anything other than that same singularity.

3) from the point of view of the GP/S, and of any entity that has direct access to it--unlike from our own point of view---space and time present no barriers to travel-and-occupancy (there is, for the GP/S, and for any such entity, at least in effect, no such thing as Here vs. There, nor Past vs. Now vs. Future).

Again, you'll need to define exactly what a singularity is. Is it something, or is it no thing?

So, as I hope you can now see, I'm not implying pantheism at all. To my way of thinking, the picture, say, of a bowl of ten different fruits is not a picture of the omnipresence of any truly singularly identifiable thing, but, at best, of a merely nominal 'omnipresence' of ten truly different things any one of which is actually a compound of things no less than is the bowl-of-fruits as a whole. Such a picture does not paint for me an actual omnipresence, but merely compels my mind toward an abstraction of omnipresence the actual object of which is not actually identified in the picture.

Well, it may be that the seeming compound nature of the picture of fruit is an illusion, it may be that the universe, like the singularity out of which it evolved is one, and indivisable. Would you say that there are distinctions within a singularity or would all the distinctions that we see within the universe disapear if it collapsed to its singular beginning. Would a singularity itself paint a picture of omnipresence for you, and if so, is not the universe just a big singularity?

My problem with that picture is as to what omnipresence really means, because such a picture does not paint for me the kind of omnipresence that I had initially envisioned: a transcendent kind of omnipresence. The nominal kind would necessarily leave no space left for anything except that one kind of thing which is supposed to be omnipresent. But, if the GP/S is not simply a logical fiction, but actually exists, then it is transcendent in a way that not only gives precedent to a true transcendence of some concrete entity, but it also means our own physically sensible perceptions are inadequate to the job of acquiring any most essential kind of knowledge.

Now all you need to do is prove your premise of a transcendant kind of omnipresence.