Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Theologians say that God is everywhere, which is to say omnipresent or ubiquitous. But why do that say this, and what does the claim mean? Is God literally located, and in all places? Or do we only talk as if God is located everywhere, while in fact God isn’t located anywhere? Is God metaphorically everywhere but literally nowhere? Or should we distinguish, as Dr. Jedwab argues, a “strict” from a “loose” sense in which God is everywhere, so that God is loosely everywhere, but not strictly everywhere? And how is God related to space? Is space, as a few famous Christian philosophers have argued, a divine attribute, the “divine immensity”? Or is space a part of God’s creation?
In this wide-ranging philosophical discussion, we get into the above issues, and also related issues about souls. If souls, as many believe, are located, why can’t God be (“strictly”) located? And we also address the idea, familiar both from some Christian and some Hindu theologies, that the cosmos is (or is somewhat like) God’s body.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Links for this episode:
- Dr. Jedwab’s home page
- posts @ trinities by Dr. Jedwab
- “omnipresence” by Dr. Ed Wierenga at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- podcast 102 – Dr. Brian Leftow on Perfect Being Theology
- Incarnation @ the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Samuel Clarke on God and space in “Samuel Clarke” by Yenter and Vailati at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- extended simples in “Location and Mereology” Cody Gilmore at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- “divine simplicity” by Bill Vallicella at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- “dualism” by Howard Robinson at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- “the pairing problem” in “Mental Causation” by Robb and Heil at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Bailey, Rasmussen, and Van Horn, “No Pairing Problem“
- “René Descartes” by Gary Hatfield at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Jaegwon Kim
- Ernest Sosa
- “Henry More” by John Henry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- “John Locke” by William Uzgalis at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- John Foster (1941-2009) and his “A Defence of Dualism“
- The above image of God’s glory in the temple is by Richard Lyall.
- This episode’s thinking music is “So Far So Close” by Jahzzar.
Dale,
Is there any chance that you may be able to get an interview setup with Crispin Fletcher-Louis so that he can discuss his new book “Jesus Monotheism: Volume 1”? Apparently this is the first of four volumes (wow!).
~Sean
OK , a few questions:
Where do Human souls come from? Are they created at the moment of conception- do our souls create our offspring souls, or are they simply injected into our body by a creative act of God? We believe that mind (Gods mind) can create matter, but does matter create mind or are minds simply correlated with matter?
Do our souls have to be located in our body? Maybe our souls are located somewhere completely outside our body- maybe Heaven or Hell. Maybe our brain is just a receiver , and we only appear to be in our bodies.
Does Jesus currently have a spatial location? Jesus ascended with his body. Albeit a glorified body, but i would assume any body, even a glorified body has spatial extension.Would that mean Jesus would have to exist in space, or is it possible to have spatial extension but not exist in space.
Hi Raymond,
The ancient Hebrews understood that the “soul” is the part of an human being that is made from “the dust of the ground” (body). When it receives “the breath (spirit) of life” from God himself, it becomes “a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). There is no indication that the biblical writers considered the ‘soul” anything immaterial, or that the “soul” is alive prior to the time that the ‘breath” enters the nostrils at birth.
The biblical writers also simply spoke of heaven as a place where God resided with the “spirits” who rule the world with Him (1 Kings 22:19-21). This is where Jesus Christ ascended in his resurrected body (John 14:2-3; Acts 1:9-11). There is no indication that the ancient Hebrews conceived of anything outside of the material “heavens and earth.” There is no indication that they believed in “other dimensions” (just as there is no scientific evidence that “other dimensions” exist today).
With regard to “consciousness”, there are some scientists (not theologians) who speculate that the human soul may be a biological “receiver” that is capable of processing and manifesting information via electrical impulses that actually originate outside of the human body. This is based upon recent studies which suggest that “consciousness” can exist even when the brain is “dead.”
“With regard to ‘consciousness’, there are some scientists (not
theologians) who speculate that the human soul may be a biological ‘receiver’ that is capable of processing and manifesting information via
electrical impulses that actually originate outside of the human body.
This is based upon recent studies which suggest that ‘consciousness’
can exist even when the brain is ‘dead.'”
Are you referring to crackpot scientists on the fringe or are you suggesting that this bizarre view is common/mainstream? References, please.
~Sean
Sean,
No, not at all. This phenomenon would have to do with plasma physics (which is one of the disciplines of rational science).
Thanks for the response Rivers,
I have toyed with the idea that if the soul was not located in the body, but simply appeared as though it was, sorta like the move “Matrix” – this account could be used as a possible solution to a few problems:
The problem of locating the soul with in the body – the soul is not there.
The interaction problem could possibly be moved to a different area – somewhere outside the body (kinda like how God interacts with the World)
You could give an truly materialistic account of consciouness – qualia and the like would be located outside the body- wherever the soul is.
The problem of evil and suffering- “don’t worry about it “- because in an literal sense your not really there having those experiences, and yet it appears as though you are.(kinda of like a dream).
“No, not at all. This phenomenon would have to do with plasma physics (which is one of the disciplines of rational science).”
Can you provide any references? I find the notion preposterous, personally. Back when I was researching the mind/body problem, I found that duelists and materialists alike recognized that the brain is crucial to human consciousness. I was attracted to John Searle’s approach back then, though I tend to be tentative when certainty is not within reach in light of our current understandings.
~Sean
Sean,
http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/
I like the metaphor of a book which contains he word “banana” you can examine the ink, the paper and all the atoms that make them up and you will never know that the ink on the paper has anything to do with the idea of a banana an idea related to a group of objects in the world. I think that examining consciousness (subjectivity and agency) scientifically will get you nowhere, but that doesn’t necessarily mean assuming Dualism. Just like how one doesn’t need to posit a second substanc le held within the paper and ink to know it has another description than a scientific one, you don’t need that for the mind as well.
I understand that the metaphor is inadequate, since meaning is necessarily subjective, the point is we should think the choices are scientific materialism (a completely nonsensical position) or dualism. We don’t need to assume that a mechanistic description of reality necessitate that reality is reducible to mechanism.
But don’t push me too hard on this, I don’t have a solution to the problem, not by a long shot :P.
Comments are closed.