Omnipresence in Christian Perspective

[Kismet]

Something which I have thought about for years but never been able to articulate until now is the fact of God's omnipresence. Now, in the religion to which I subscribe the all-pervasive nature of God is a given. There is the idea of "akasha" or the subtle energy which surrounds all things. The name of Vishnu itself means all-pervading and so it is that God, by definition, exists everywhere.

Now, that is the Hindu view, the take that God is at least in all things and sustains all things as a string keeps pearls on a necklace. Yet how does the Christian view of omnipresence dramatically differ? It is true that in Vedanta God or Brahman is completely spiritual, yet has a manifest form (Saguna Brahman) which is seen as immanent (material energy). I do not believe the Christian concept would so far as to say the world and God are synonymous (though some scholastics in the Middle Ages like John Scotus Eriugena did come close) and Spinoza quite notably mentioned his idea of the one Substance, which was not altogether foreign to philosophy at the time.

In what chief respects does the Christian view on divine omnipresence differ from my own Hindu view, or from any other view for that matter?

[RBerman]

You have it pretty much figured out. Christianity recognizes a category distinction between the Creator and the creation, but God is intimately involved in his creation at the same time, in all places and times. God is "everywhere" in the sense that he is aware of what's going on everywhere, and he can simultaneously act everywhere. God is also conceived of as being "in" certain places in a special sense as well. So God had a "presence" in the Hebrew Tabernacle, and in the angelic realm of Heaven. And also God uniquely was made flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, without surrendering his omnipresence.

[Kismet]

God is "everywhere" in the sense that he is aware of what's going on everywhere, and he can simultaneously act everywhere. God is also conceived of as being "in" certain places in a special sense as well. So God had a "presence" in the Hebrew Tabernacle, and in the angelic realm of Heaven. And also God uniquely was made flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, without surrendering his omnipresence.

So can it be said that God actually exists in all times and places, or is it only that God has an "awareness of" all times and places and can "step in" or "act" in those times and places; as in, for instance, communing with an individual as through a telephone line? You seem to suggest that God's "being" or "presence" is distributed unevenly, that he is, as you say, more evident in Heaven or in the Tabernacle. My question is, how does this specifically differ from the panentheistic view in which God is like the space in-between objects. That in which we "live and move and have our being."

[RBerman]

Well, now we're into heady metaphysical territory. What does it mean for a disembodied pirit to "actually exist" in a particular location? It doesn't occupy space. It can act and know. You hypothesize a "space in-between objects" about which I am agnostic.

[Kismet]

Well, now we're into heady metaphysical territory. What does it mean for a disembodied spirit to "actually exist" in a particular location? It doesn't occupy space. It can act and know. You hypothesize a "space in-between objects" about which I am agnostic.

The way I understand omnipresence, God has to be everywhere or else it is not true omnipresence. God has to be even in your computer, in your toothbrush, in your stereo and your glass of beer. This is not to mean God is at all limited to those things just like he is not limited to the Tabernacle or any such one place. What it does mean is that God sustains things by, yes, being present throughout space and time and "holding things together" in a way.

It is true that God is "outside" time and space insofar as he transcends such categories, that is the transcendent essence of God which is beyond exact definition, but this is not to mean he doesn't in-dwell them. Else, what could God being "present" in the world even mean unless, perhaps, it is like a kind of wifi connection.

I think I might have located the crux of our disagreement.

[shunyadragon]

The way I understand omnipresence, God has to be everywhere or else it is not true omnipresence. God has to be even in your computer, in your toothbrush, in your stereo and your glass of beer. This is not to mean God is at all limited to those things just like he is not limited to the Tabernacle or any such one place. What it does mean is that God sustains things by, yes, being present throughout space and time and "holding things together" in a way.

It is true that God is "outside" time and space insofar as he transcends such categories, that is the transcendent essence of God which is beyond exact definition, but this is not to mean he doesn't in-dwell them. Else, what could God being "present" in the world even mean unless, perhaps, it is like a kind of wifi connection.

I think I might have located the crux of our disagreement.

In the Baha'i view God is transendently universal, and cannot be defined as 'outside time' or defined in any manner as the theology of any one religion. God is essentially unknowable. In the diversity of all cultures and religions throughout history the attributes of God become progressively known through Revelation. These attributes are apparent in all the world religions, but their doctrines for defining God in an ancient cultural context form a veil or curtain between them and God through which the light shows dimly.

[RBerman]

The way I understand omnipresence, God has to be everywhere or else it is not true omnipresence. God has to be even in your computer, in your toothbrush, in your stereo and your glass of beer. This is not to mean God is at all limited to those things just like he is not limited to the Tabernacle or any such one place. What it does mean is that God sustains things by, yes, being present throughout space and time and "holding things together" in a way.

I don't have a problem in saying that God is "in my toothbrush" in the sense that he is intimately aware of and sovereign over it. You're on to something when you say that God transcends our categories. As such, the materialist definition of what it means for something to be "in" something would not seem to apply. The Christian's main concern in this discussion is to affirm the creature/Creator distinction, so that God can be "in all things" without being all things.

[Kismet]

I don't have a problem in saying that God is "in my toothbrush" in the sense that he is intimately aware of and sovereign over it.

Well, that is where we disagree. I think it is more than sovereignty or intimate awareness-of. God IS where my toothbrush is. He is the toothbrush's existence, without which the toothbrush would cease to be. This was a prevalent view in the middle ages, - that God and existence are synonymous.

You're on to something when you say that God transcends our categories.

This is not to say we cannot say anything about the immanent or intelligible aspects of God which we can at least make educated guesses about from things like inference and scriptural authority. In terms of the Godhead he is completely numinous and unknowable from any human point of view, but there is another side to God which is capable of expostulation. As you said, this "spirit" can "act and know" whereas there is little coherence or logical sense in applying those sorts of terms to a pure, numinous spirit. It is not something we can easily imagine, at least.

As such, the materialist definition of what it means for something to be "in" something would not seem to apply. The Christian's main concern in this discussion is to affirm the creature/Creator distinction, so that God can be "in all things" without being all things.

I don't see why not. Once again we return to the ontology of God which, in my view, is also a phenomenology. God is utterly transcendent, yet somehow this does not preclude ascribing to God characteristics which are seen in creatures. So, acting, knowing, presence, physical existence as in the form of Jesus Christ for Christians, is not something impossible. Early Christianity itself viewed the air as an aspect of God, something akin to the Hindu "prana" or "akasha." Hence you have Jesus wielding power over the air, the Holy Ghost as in some ways being synonymous with breath, and the "breath of life" being equated with "soul," the angels of the four winds, etc.

[RBerman]

Well, that is where we disagree. I think it is more than sovereignty or intimate awareness-of. God IS where my toothbrush is. He is the toothbrush's existence, without which the toothbrush would cease to be. This was a prevalent view in the middle ages, - that God and existence are synonymous.

That's a category error. "Without God, the toothbrush would cease to be" is not the same thing as, "God and existence are synonymous." X can cause Y without X "being cause" or X being Y.

I don't see why not. Once again we return to the ontology of God which, in my view, is also a phenomenology. God is utterly transcendent, yet somehow this does not preclude ascribing to God characteristics which are seen in creatures. So, acting, knowing, presence, physical existence as in the form of Jesus Christ for Christians, is not something impossible. Early Christianity itself viewed the air as an aspect of God, something akin to the Hindu "prana" or "akasha." Hence you have Jesus wielding power over the air, the Holy Ghost as in some ways being synonymous with breath, and the "breath of life" being equated with "soul," the angels of the four winds, etc.

I don't trust your interpretation of what Early Christianity taught. It's true that pneuma means "breath" or "spirit." Jesus wielded power over everything, including water, disease, and death. Control is different than being, though. Jesus can control disease without being disease, etc.

[Kismet]

That's a category error. "Without God, the toothbrush would cease to be" is not the same thing as, "God and existence are synonymous." X can cause Y without X "being cause" or X being Y.

Actually, God IS Being for the scholastics. It isn't simply that God is the cause behind all forms (though he is that as well of course). God is that without which nothing can be.

This isn't to say that God is a toothbrush on this view. That is, in philosophical terms, to conflate essence (whatness) with existence (thatness). So X is NOT Y.

Once again, though, I am only comparing my view with the general Christian view, and I believe that all phenomenal things are indeed parts of God and not mere discrete essences.

I don't trust your interpretation of what Early Christianity taught. It's true that pneuma means "breath" or "spirit." Jesus wielded power over everything, including water, disease, and death. Control is different than being, though. Jesus can control disease without being disease, etc.

Well, that is what I have learned though if you have a differing view I would love to hear it. :)

[RBerman]

Actually, God IS Being for the scholastics. It isn't simply that God is the cause behind all forms (though he is that as well of course). God is that without which nothing can be. This isn't to say that God is a toothbrush on this view. That is, in philosophical terms, to conflate essence (whatness) with existence (thatness). So X is NOT Y. Once again, though, I am only comparing my view with the general Christian view, and I believe that all phenomenal things are indeed parts of God and not mere discrete essences.

I don't conceive of God as having "parts." God can be essential for the ongoing existence of all things without them being "part of God."

Well, that is what I have learned though if you have a differing view I would love to hear it. :)

Can you cite a specific text that you believe teaches what you say, for purposes of discussion?

[Kismet]

I don't conceive of God as having "parts." God can be essential for the ongoing existence of all things without them being "part of God."

Well, God doesn't have to have parts under the Christian view. Neither the Vedantic view, though I'm sure it depends.. I myself don't see why God having parts should be such a philosophical no-no. But that's just me.

I am questioning now what is the scholastic idea of God. If God is "pure act" as Aquinas states then all things "are" by virtue of God acting in them as their efficient cause. At least, that is my take presently. So if you say that the being of a chair is the being of God you are not saying that the what (chair) is God. Rather you are saying something along the lines of the chair depending on God to exist. A sort of ontological dependency. So, essence and existence are separate categories and only in God is his existence and essence identical. At least, that is how it seems to me. This is because he is existence itself.

Now, going back to the idea of omnipresence, doesn't this state of affairs, (that God is in everything by virtue of existence) mean that he is here and now, literally? It seems to me it does. God is not a thing, a toothbrush, an object. But he is their existence, he is the sustainer of all these things by virtue of his infinite being. So all things participate in his Thatness.

And since existence is one, this too would preclude him having parts.

Correct me if I am wrong. I may well be, this is just how it seems to my reason.

Can you cite a specific text that you believe teaches what you say, for purposes of discussion?

Not at the moment though I will look around.

[RBerman]

I am questioning now what is the scholastic idea of God. If God is "pure act" as Aquinas states then all things "are" by virtue of God acting in them as their efficient cause. At least, that is my take presently. So if you say that the being of a chair is the being of God you are not saying that the what (chair) is God. Rather you are saying something along the lines of the chair depending on God to exist. A sort of ontological dependency. So, essence and existence are separate categories and only in God is his existence and essence identical. At least, that is how it seems to me. This is because he is existence itself.

I still think you're confusing categories when you say "the being of the chair is the being of God" means "the chair depends on God to exist." Just say the latter without the former. I see a similar problem with "God is existence itself." God exists, and God is the author and sustainer of all that exists, but God is not the concept of existence.

Now, going back to the idea of omnipresence, doesn't this state of affairs, (that God is in everything by virtue of existence) mean that he is here and now, literally? It seems to me it does. God is not a thing, a toothbrush, an object. But he is their existence, he is the sustainer of all these things by virtue of his infinite being. So all things participate in his Thatness. And since existence is one, this too would preclude him having parts.

I don't know what "existence is one" means. Yes, God is here, and everywhere else. God is not "their existence," though he is the source and sustainer of their existence. As to whether God is "a thing," that depends on how broadly you want to define "thing." If a noun is a person, place, or thing, then God is a person, not a thing. But sometimes people use "thing" to mean "noun." And God is identified by a proper noun, so by that definition, God is a thing.

[Kismet]

I still think you're confusing categories when you say "the being of the chair is the being of God" means "the chair depends on God to exist." Just say the latter without the former. I see a similar problem with "God is existence itself." God exists, and God is the author and sustainer of all that exists, but God is not the concept of existence.

Very well. But Aquinas would disagree with you. Heh.

I don't know what "existence is one" means. Yes, God is here, and everywhere else. God is not "their existence," though he is the source and sustainer of their existence. As to whether God is "a thing," that depends on how broadly you want to define "thing." If a noun is a person, place, or thing, then God is a person, not a thing. But sometimes people use "thing" to mean "noun." And God is identified by a proper noun, so by that definition, God is a thing.

By existence being one, I mean to say there is only one substance which can encompass existence. What other actuating principle is there? God is one, and God is being. Anyway, I feel that I've pretty much settled on as good an answer as I hope to get. Thanks for your time.

[RBerman]

Very well. But Aquinas would disagree with you. Heh.

It would not be the first time.

By existence being one, I mean to say there is only one substance which can encompass existence. What other actuating principle is there? God is one, and God is being. Anyway, I feel that I've pretty much settled on as good an answer as I hope to get. Thanks for your time.

You are welcome. "God is being" is still a category error, though.