Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
absence of physical evidence is necessary for omnipresence
-
absence of physical evidence is necessary for omnipresence
In the battle of theism vs. atheism it is often argued that God cannot exist because there is no
physical evidence of His existence besides those experienced by a select few. However, I will
attempt to argue that not having physical evidence for God, instead of disproving His existence,
serves as an explanation for His omnipresence not being at a physical level. In my experience,
it has been evident that God is present in ways and at many ungodly hours that no other
physical being could ever be present for me. To wit, no person can ever be present for us 24
hours out of the day if not just to perform the necessary life function of sleep. If a physical
person were to accompany us every day of our entire lives, I imagine that one might feel that
this presence would be very overbearing and stressful to us. However, in the way that God is
omnipresent, He can be everywhere without us ever even noticing Him. Here is my way of
expressing this through modus tollens:
1. If God is physically omnipresent, then there would be an overbearing, universal
presence on humans at all times.
2. There is no overbearing, universal presence on humans at all times.
3. God is not physically omnipresent.
To further elaborate, what this logical argument does is reframe the argument that lack of
physical evidence counts against theism, in fact, serves the theist who views God as omnipotent
as the preferred alternative to a physically omni-present and overbearing God. In the context of
Christianity, this argument seems to check out with Jesus’s reasoning for the urgency of His
death: that the Spirit be able to descend upon us and that God be universally accessible to all
who would have Him in ways that Jesus–as a singular physical being–could not.
-
7 Replies
-
“In my experience, it has been evident that God is present”
Perhaps you would be willing to share the ways that it has been evident? I have not had that experience, so I am curious how it was for you.
In relation to your argument, I think the problem is that you are mixing two concepts, physical omnipresence and omnipresence. I agree with you, if God was physically omnipresent, then it would complicate things. Although as I write this, I got to thinking about the air that is physically present around us all of the time. It isn’t overbearing to us, and it isn’t an inconvenience to us at all. We would all notice its absence (we would die), but its physical existence around us is largely ignored by us. Do you suspect that God couldn’t do something similar?
The second part is that, even assuming God isn’t physically omnipresent, that doesn’t mean that God cannot physically manifest in local areas, nor does it mean that he can’t be detectable by physical beings. If God was undetectable by us, then it would be impossible that God was evident to you.
The real question that is at hand is “Does God manifest in reality in any repeatable and consistently detectable way or not?” If yes, then we can investigate God through science. If no, then it is impossible for us to know anything about God because any information we have would be unverifiable.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Johan.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by
-
Why exactly physical omnipresence would be overbearing while non-physical is not?
-
I would assume it would be because we wouldn’t be able to perceive the non-physical, so it would be akin to the radio waves that exist around us that don’t affect us.
-
But that negates the argument… As you have observed, there are physical things that are imperceptible for us, so if God was physically omnipresent just like radio waves, his presence would not be overbearing. On the other hand, if the argument concerned not God’s physicality, but perceptibility, then the OP author denies that himself, as he claims God is ‘evident’ (i.e. perceptible). Thus the argument does not work either way.
-
-
I’d repeat Johan’s point, what can you say of your God-experience? That alone is more interesting than the argument the fact God isn’t seen might prove that He exists. I’d echo his point also that radio waves are an example of an invisible reality which is pervasive.
I find it a little humorous that Jesus might need to get physically “out of the way” of the Holy Spirit, so It could begin Its work! I don’t think the Trinity works that way at all. But I have mused elsewhere that the Holy Spirit might reveal Itself clearly to some persons.
The Christians claim to have the indwelling Holy Spirit. That’s how they interpret “the Comforter” Jesus said He would send. But they have not been expecting anyone would be able to observe this happening in them, for instance from unlikely behavior changes.
If anyone could see this kind of thing, the Holy Spirit “torquing” the souls, as it were, they’d have direct evidence from their eyes not only that God exists, but that His powers pass right through walls and buildings as if they are not there. But they might not share it.
The claims that God is speaking to humans directly through prayer fail simple tests, such as unity within the churches. Though each claims to hear God’s voice the conclusions are different, sometimes ferociously so. This other type of revelation though is undeniable.
There are some echoes of this in the Bible, for instance at Pentecost the vision is recorded of the Holy Spirit entering the apostles as if with “tongues of fire.” So I’m still curious about your God-experience, is it of the former, inward type, or the latter, outward type?
-
Since 100 BC
-
The argument misses this, that “the greatness and beauty of the created things” would not include the human people, if they cannot see from the greatness and beauty of the created things the Creator standing behind it! He made the great and beautiful things but humanity cannot be accounted great if it is expected great ones would be able to see this.
Nonetheless knowledge that God exists does not equate to knowledge of God. In the East, and in the Western mystical traditions (like the Carmelites or Franciscans), increasing knowledge of God is considered a path, with explosive implications as one is lifted to higher and higher levels of awareness and consciousness (nirvana or sat-chit-ananda).
If science is one day mature enough to prove there is a Maker, still the people are unchanged. They’d have a new meaningless factoid or piece of trivia for their minds. Any game of pretending belief were enough for salvation is ruined, as everyone “knows” about God through His discernible deeds. Curiously then the Intelligent Design people are striving for an end to Christianity, and God is “stuck” saving all who admit He exists.
-
Log in to reply.