La paradoja de la omnipresencia

One of the objections to the existence of God is to try to prove that his concept is incoherent, and one way to do this is through the paradoxes of his attributes. In this blog we are going to discuss the paradoxes about Omnipresence.

There are many ways to pose this paradox, but I will use three that I found on Ad Baculum ‘s blog, into which all the others could be reduced:

Taking as a premise that God exists, we can make a set with all those things and beings that exist and that have the characteristic of being omnipresent. This set would only contain God. On the other hand, we can make a set of all the things that are not omnipresent, in which would be me, my computer and so on until we have gathered everything that exists except God. However, omnipresence implies being everywhere, including in non-omnipresent things. In this way, God would be in the set of omnipresent things and in the set of non-omnipresent things, which is a paradox that implies the impossibility of being omnipresent.

If it is true that “when we say that God is everywhere, it is not that one part of God is in one place and another in another: God is all of Himself everywhere,” it implies that God is everything, therefore He is both good and evil. Let me explain. If God is all of Himself everywhere, that means that God is contained in an electron. If all of God is occupying all of the matter in the electron, this would imply that God is the electron. I do not think that theists would disagree. If we continue, the same would occur with each subatomic particle. Therefore, if all of the smallest parts into which matter can be divided, if each of those parts is God, I suppose that the sum of any number of those parts would equal God, then I would be God, you would be God and Hitler would be God. The paradox is that God would be the whole and each of the parts. And it turns out that many of those parts generate suffering and injustice, therefore God could not be omnibenevolent. Or if He is omnibenevolent, He could not be omnipresent.

If God is omnipresent, he cannot be absent from a place, therefore there is already something that he cannot do and he would not be omnipotent. [1]

So how does the theist refute this objection? Well, it all depends on how you think God exists in space. William Lane Craig says (and I agree with him):

I think God exists in time, but I don’t think he exists in space. So God is not in any particular place in the universe like in a church or a temple. Likewise, God is not “spread out” in space like some kind of invisible gas.

Therefore if God does not exist in space, then He is related to the world in a similar way as the soul is to the human body, connected in some way that can produce immediate effects.

My inclination is that God does not exist in space in a literal way, but is omnipresent in the sense that He is causally active and knowing at every point in space. So His omnipresence is a function of His causal activity, and with His omniscience He knows what is happening at every place in space; God transcends space, He is not in space.

This is not difficult to conceive, imagine a two-dimensional plane, and think that you do not exist in this two-dimensional plane, you transcend these two dimensions! Now extrapolate that to God, he does not exist in this three-dimensional plane, he transcends these three dimensions – not implying that he can exist in a four-dimensional plane, but that God does not exist within this three-dimensional plane and yet he exists. That it cannot be imagined does not mean that it is not conceivable; a million-sided figure is unimaginable, I cannot sketch a mental picture of such a figure, but of course it is conceivable that such a polygon exists. Similarly even though one cannot imagine God existing outside of space, I see no difficulty in that being conceivable. [2]

Now let’s analyze the paradox (1). First—granting that God is in space—the detractor seems to speak of sets and their function as something ontological; when he says phrases like “This set would only contain God” and “until we gather together everything that exists except God,” he seems to believe that he can actually place God in one or another set in a real way instead of just using sets as a heuristic device. When we speak of “there is/exists” a set, we are not using ontologically loaded language; that is, we do not mean that such sets exist concretely, much less physically as if we were saying “there is/exists” a monitor in front of me. Second, assuming that the detractor is a Platonist and believes that sets really do exist in reality, and if WLC’s position is correct (and I believe it is, or at least perfectly coherent), then God is not in any set because God does not exist in space.

Regarding (2), God is not found in evil (if by evil you mean evil entities such as demons or criminals) nor are subatomic particles found in it, since we saw that God transcends space.

As for (3), it’s not so much a paradox of omniscience as a paradox of omnipotence; it objects that if God is not in space, then there is something God cannot do. Two simple answers to this. First, let’s say that it is impossible for God to be in space; this does not present any problems for God nor does it degrade him in any way because clearly there are things he cannot do given his nature (he cannot be fooled, he cannot make mistakes, he cannot lie, etc.). Second, just because God is not spatially in the universe does not mean that he cannot physically manifest himself in it in some way; in fact, God did exactly that in the Old Testament accounts.

Finally, one might be tempted to say that such a definition of God’s omnipresence has no biblical support. I’m not so sure, notice how in Psalm 139 the author begins by praising God’s omniscience, and then goes on to praise God’s omnipresence. I dare say that the author acknowledges that because God knows everything, He can know every corner of the universe:

O LORD, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you understand my thoughts from afar. You have examined my going and my lying down, and all my ways are known to you. Even though there is no word on my tongue, behold, you, O LORD, know it altogether. You have compassed me behind and before, and laid your hand upon me. Knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high for me to comprehend. Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the farthest parts of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will cover me,” even the night will shine around me. Even the darkness does not hide me from you, and the night shines like the day. the darkness and the light are the same to you.

Grades

[1] http://adbaculum.blogspot.mx/2007/04/tres-paradojas-sobre-la-omnipresencia.html (last visited in November 2009.

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-the-singularity-omnipresence-and-morality

Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.