rationalskepticism.org

Mick wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

Teuton wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:
Is that so? Then I wonder how they'd reconcile the above with a belief in omnipresence without adopting a position of theistic idealism/monopsychism (something a million lightyears from Mick's borrowed philosophy and Catholic teaching, for example)?

God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere. So to say that God is omnipresent can only mean that he notices everything happening in space and is able to exert his divine power everywhere in space. So God's omnipresence is not to be interpreted literally. In this nonliteral sense, you could say e.g. that the Basic Law of Germany is omnipresent in Germany.

It's worth remembering here that Mick vouches for Anselm's ontological argument, that insists God is the greatest conceivable being (Mick later contradicts himself by suggesting that God is not a being, but never mind). If Mick's God cannot be literally omnipresent, then one could conceive of a greater being - a literally omnipresent God. This might not impress the theologians you mentioned, but it ought to impress Mick. He still thinks Anselm's argument demonstrates theism. At least he did when he last managed to ignore everyone in the forum tearing that ontological argument to shreds!

What i said was that properly speaking, god is not a being. We can use it in the analogous sense, or we can simply understand that the English language is not all too catering to talk about the divine.