Talk:Omnipresence

Citations

Hi, there seems to be a mass "citation needed" tags added to the page. However not all of the paragraphs (I guess all of them have one now) lacks citations. Below is a sample which cites the The Qur'an, which is definately an autharitive source for Islam.

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, while at the same time above and outside of all creation. He is said to be "in Heaven" (Qur'an 67:16) and "in the heavens and the earth" (Qur'an 66:3), but also said to be "nearer to him [man] than his jugular vein" (Qur'an 50:16); He constantly watches all that goes on in the world, and knows all things.

Wiki Bible?

There just has to be a Wiki Bible right? :)

Then again, allowing holy writ to be edited freely seems heretical to all except maybe my relgion and a few others. ALso, how the hell would you handle translations? :o

Islam

"Islam — While it started as a 7th Century break from Judaism[citation needed], which had an omnipresent outlook by that time, Allah loses his omnipresence in the mid-800s because of the positioning of its apologists in their philosophical dissertations in opposition to the Christian Trinity[citation needed]."

(I added citation needed tags.)

This item makes two claims, which are arguable:

1. Islam is "a break" (derived) from Judaism
2. Allah loses omnipresence

The first item is incorrect. Both Islam and Judaism (and also Christianity) are Abrahamic Religions; they are not derived from each other. (Actually according to Islamic sources, Judaism is derivation from "true religion", which is in fact Islam -- ok I know citation needed). Please look at the relevant articles for this debate.

The second claim is without any source (or discussion), however Allah article clearly states that Allah omnipresent. (This is the faith we muslims believe in).

If there are not proper citations, I'll edit the main article.

Update: I've removed the item on Islam. If there are any complaints please discuss them here.

Update: KI has reinserted the item, without any explanation or reference! Please do not do this, since it will lead to an edit war between us.

I concur with the first objection, "Islam is a break from Judaism". You're free to clarify. I'm not even sure it's important given this is an article on omnipresence, not Islam. As for the second issue, "Allah loses omnipresence", I can't really comment as I'm totally unfamiliar with Islam. However, given the importance of Islam, there should really be some sort of statement in the article on the view of Islam on omnipresence. Can you please try to add something that's NPOV into the article replacing the current statement on Islam? Thanks. Samw 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Update 04.04.06: I've modified the item again, but this time preserving the previous claim. I've also added a NPOV tag. I'm new to wikipedia; hope I did not make much mistakes.

I've removed the "NPOV" tag. What you wrote is fine with me. Like I said, I'm no expert on Islam, so whatever you write is probably a good start until someone else with more references or expertise comes along. If you think what's there is not neutral, by all means reword. Samw 23:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess the issue is resolved now. Sukru 13:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionarily superior?

This has to be changed. It shows a misunderstanding of evolution and superior or the infliction of POV.

You're welcome to rephrase. The underlying concept being expressed is fine. Samw 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rephrased. The concept that a religion's success in conversion dictates superority was NPOV, so I rephrased it to remove the connetation.

LDS View

"Their current residence, if not present locations, are on the planet Kolob in the Kolob star system, which is speculated to be at the middle of the Galaxy."

I don't know who made the "middle of the Galaxy speculation" but in any case, LDS belief is that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ live in the Celestial Kingdom.

"In early versions of Mormonism, it was said that the Holy Spirit also served as the 'Mind of Christ', a theory which has been expanded to explain the psychic connection between both humans, Heavenly Father, and Jesus."

Historical development

I'm not sure what is meant here, but I don't know why it's only in early versions. Can anyone verify this?

"A common misconception is that the ancient Israelites worshipped an omnipresent deity. The Torah states that, 'Heavenly Father sees all' (a novel concept at the time), but also portrays the deity in a bodily form, such as when the deity has supper with Abraham, or Jonah tries to flee from the deity. As late as the Book of Ezekiel (550 BCE), the Lord of Hosts comes from the Heavens in a Chariot of Fire."

I don't consider myself an expert on the Torah but I know that either you read the text wrong or you translated it wrong. Our G-d never sat down and had supper with Abraham. It was three angels. True, Jonah was trying to flee from G-d but he came to the realization that one couldn't do that. With regards to G-d coming down from heaven in a chariot of fire, that was actually a vision of the prophet Ezekiel and verses which descibe this vision aren't fully understood.

What you understand to be a misconception is itself a misconception. The "ancient Israelites" did worship an Omnipresent G-d and continue to do so today but I think our religion's idea of Omnipresence is slightly different. We belive that G-d is all-seeing and all-knowing. G-d is everywhere but can, at the same time, choose to reside somewhere.

The reason I am not editing the page myself is because I'm new at this and I don't quite know enough to write about the origin of mnipresence in Judaism. Adascm 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain Jonah's attempt to flee from God? Samw 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a grammar error as locations is not a word. The suffix ion comes from the Greek and means "process of." As all processes always contain more than a single step, all processes are already plural. 72.24.89.77 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ubiquitous

Why does ubiquitous redirect here? Ubiquitous requires a wiktionary link or a non-theological explanation within this article Pendragon39 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you the term ubiquitous a non-theological see french Wiki Ubiquitaire.Luciole2013 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it to Wiktionary. Samw (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

12 years after the above posts were written, ubiquitous still redirects here. How about we just remove the references to ubiquity in the text, and perhaps insert a hatnote explaining that this article is about the religious concept? Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

See the ongoing discussion WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#Ubiquitous. Jay 💬 09:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Christianity & omnipresence

However, the major difference between these monotheistic religions and other religious systems is that God is still transcendent to His creation and yet immanent in relating to creation. God is not immersed in the substance of creation, even though he is able to interact with it as he chooses.

Hesitation by Christians on the idea of 'omnipresence' is just theological pedantry.

Omnipresence is emphasized in many aspects of the religion. The whole of events in the world, everything that happens, are said to be guided by 'divine providence', to the point that following God is rewarded and those who turn from god are punished. To a lay person, this doesn't sound much different than the idea of karma. The presence of God in nature is always attributed to 'The Holy Ghost', which is also said to be present in everything and acting everywhere, even though its presence isn't always revealed to man:

"... the Holy Ghost, a Spirit that has never been seen, has never been incarnate, inscrutable, present everywhere, never manifest except by the operations of HIS power -- this is a reality like the motion of the earth, which we know by our reason but cannot detect by any sense; or it is like the circulation of the blood which we know as a fact, but never perceive all the day long. So the indwelling and the work of the Holy Ghost in the soul is a divine truth, so altogether inscrutable, so impalpable, so insensible, that we pass it by. Therefore, we do not so often adore the Author and Giver of all grace, the Holy Ghost, with a special worship." http://www.seatofwisdom.com/HolyGhost.html

In some schools of theology, the Holy Ghost has been seen as the equivalent to the Logos, the teological principle working behind nature. Thats why you see in some versions of the Bible "God's word" edited out and replaced by "the Logos". Alexandrianism, a school of Christianity influenced by neo-Platonic philosophers, took this to the extreme, and saw God and the Logos as virtually equivalent -- God was the unity that everyone was a part of, and to sin was to separate oneself psychically from God's unity. To lose faith, to sin, was to get of touch with nature through selfish egoism.

The only reason there's any argument at all about omnipresence is that theologians try to carve out some place for free will. They want to say God is everywhere, but not responsible for people's actions. This is the problem of theodicy

User:Brianshapiro

Omnipresence should include time, as well as space. The article does not seem to mention time. That is, God is present "now" (from His pov) at the beginning of the universe/multiverse, present today, and present "now" (from His pov) after our universe (or all multiverses) have died off. It is all the same time to Him. Student7 (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Student7 is correct. But this is a hopeless article anyway... And why is New Thought template at the top? History2007 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Inserted a trivial mention of no temporal limitation. Note Anselm's no time, no space remark! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/

Somehow the template got inserted because it mentions omnipresence, which, however, is classic and not unique to New Thought. Might be okay as a horizontal nav box but definitely out of place as a marginal one. Thanks for pointing that out. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How does the following 'explain' anything: 'Most Christian denominations — following theology standardized by the Nicene Creed — explain the concept of omnipresence in the form of the "Trinity", by having a single deity (God) made up of three omnipresent persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.' It seems to simply make the problem three times harder, without explaining anything. Cheesefondue (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Omnipresences

It is conjectured in Hollywood that when one encounters one's self in time travel one dies. In reality every time a soul undergoes growth and development it evolves into a new omnipresence a wholly unique individual. This means that the two entities are no longer a function of on another in terms of Math and Science and therefore do no work on one another so no physics. You just are now insane and converse with yourself outside of yourself. We all have omnipresences. New word. 72.24.89.77 (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)