God is Where God Acts: Reconceiving Divine Omnipresence

Arcadi, James M.

doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9377-0

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The puzzle most discussed is the 'immateriality puzzle', which identifies that if being 'located' entails occupying a particular region of space, then it seems either God cannot be located anywhere or that omnipresence results in God being material in some sense. 6 Neither horn of this dilemma is acceptable for Christians, as the first would simply be a denial of God's omnipresence, while the later would contradict divine immateriality. Other issues arise from this in relation to God's simplicity, atemporality, immutability, and other claims about God's nature.…”

Section: Desiderata For Omnipresencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This arises from recognition of God as being more present at certain places than others (the Temple, the Eucharist, etc.). 7 As Duvall and Hays point out: 'There is something spectacularly special about that particular bush in Exodus 3 because God is present in a very intense way in that particular flaming bush.' 8 James Gordon identifies that: 'For Israel, there was no place in the created realm in which one could flee from God's presence, yet the temple represented a special instance of God's dwelling'.…”

Section: Desiderata For Omnipresencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Paradoxical Account of Divine Omnipresence

Price

2023

The Heythrop Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay examines the doctrine of divine omnipresence. I begin by presenting three desiderata for an adequate account of omnipresence. Four accounts are analyzed in light of these desiderata, two in the tradition and two in contemporary philosophical theology. I argue that none succeed in providing an adequate account of divine omnipresence. As an alternative, I offer a paradoxical account of omnipresence, arguing that one can be rational in affirming that what appears to be a doctrine afflicted by apparent contradiction is in fact merely a paradox. I explain what makes affirmations of paradoxical doctrines rational, why omnipresence should be understood as a paradox, and discuss a similar account of omnipresence in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. I. INTRODUCTION 1The doctrine of divine omnipresence is affirmed by virtually all theistic religious traditions. Classical theists, neo-classical theists, open theists, panentheists, pantheists, and almost every other model of God share this belief in common. Yet the omnipresence of God is an intuitively strange concept. In the typical list of divine attributes, it is one of the most frequently excluded. When it is included, it receives relatively less attention than the other divine attributes.The common way of articulating omnipresence is to say that God is present everywhere. As we will see, a more nuanced definition of omnipresence is necessary. For when we normally speak of some object, x, being present at a location, y, we understand x being located in or at y in a physical sense. X is present at y in virtue of occupying the space that makes up y. In other words, to be present at y is to occupy some region of space, and in order to do that, x must be physical. However, it is a point of dogmatics in most theistic traditions that God is immaterial. Perhaps more than any other divine attribute, omnipresence invokes the most apparent tensions with other divine attributes. 2 In this paper, I will outline three desiderata for a distinctly Christian understanding of omnipresence 3 and argue that none of the major views offered in the tradition or contemporary theology adequately accounts for these desiderata. Rather than motivating a rejection of omnipresence, I propose that theologians should embrace a paradoxical account of omnipresence and that they are rational in doing so. This is not to say that a coherent account, one which does not need to make recourse to paradox, could not be found. Rather, I argue that one can rationally affirm that omnipresence is a paradox in the absence of such an account. I then respond to an objection made against this appeal to paradox. II. BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR DIVINE OMNIPRESENCEBefore moving into theological and philosophical considerations regarding omnipresence, a brief word concerning the biblical motivations for this divine attribute will be helpful. The idea

show abstract

Section: Desiderata For Omnipresencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Desiderata For Omnipresencementioning

confidence: 99%

A Paradoxical Account of Divine Omnipresence

Price

2023

The Heythrop Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current literature on omnipresence is divided on all manner of issues (cf. Arcadi 2017). There is even debate as to whether or not omnipresence actually entails God being spaceless or outside of space.…”

Section: Salvaging the Theism-tracking Thesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Open Theism Is Natural and Classical Theism Is Not

Launonen

Mullins

2021

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive science of religion (CSR) indicates that belief in supernatural agents, or “gods”, is underpinned by maturationally natural cognitive biases and systems (Natural Religion). It is unclear, however, whether theism is natural. Does the god concept that our cognitive biases and systems give rise to approximate theism? In other words, is Natural Religion “theism-tracking”? As Christian theologians have different views of what God is like, we argue that the answer depends partly on one’s model of God. We discuss two models: classical theism and open theism. We argue that classical theism is far from being natural. The classical divine attributes are very hard to comprehend. Moreover, people naturally conceptualize God as a special sort of person, but the classical God strongly deviates from our cognitive expectations about persons. Open theism is much more natural. However, recent findings in CSR challenge the suggestion that Natural Religion tracks open theism. The possibility that we are “born idolaters” rather than “born believers” might undermine the Christian doctrine of general revelation and attempts to make CSR compatible with theology.

show abstract

“…The vast bulk of contemporary work on divine omnipresence in analytic philosophy and theology aims to explicate and defend a variant of DO. The likes of Richard Swinburne ( 1993 ), Charles Taliaferro ( 1994 ), Joshua Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz ( 2002 ), William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland ( 2003 ), Edward Wierenga ( 2010), William Wainwright ( 2010), Joseph Jedwab ( 2016, James Arcadi (2017) and George Gasser ( 2019 ) all unpack Rs in terms of God's standing in immediate (basic) causal relations and/ or his immediate knowledge of the goings on at every place. 16 Be that as it may, there are a handful of contemporary philosophers and theologians who favor a variant of an FO model of omnipresence, including Luco J.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%