Omnipresence

Abstract

Recently analytic metaphysicians have been concerned with carefully examining the interaction between theories of location and theories of parthood. Mereological ‘Harmony’ or ‘Mirroring’ principles often necessitate that any entity occupying a complex location must have parts located there. On some understandings, these principles can come into conflict with the traditional view of an omnipresent yet mereologically simple God. This chapter lists the potential sources of conflict, showing how most occupation-based accounts of omnipresence (including the popular ‘ubiquitous entension’ view) must reject metaphysically important mirroring principles. I then outline a new occupation-based theory of omnipresence which avoids these conflicts. The central idea, motivated by considerations of divine transcendence and divine immensity, is that God is weakly located everywhere but lacks any exact location in spacetime.