Paradox question: Does god have ever been to a place where he doesn't exist?

Question

Either way, would it still make him omnipresent?

Answer 1

in my mind, he's not there

Answer 2

If god is not required to be omnipresent, then, as Hairypotto points out, it's not a paradox. I've been to Belgium but I'm not there now, so Belgium is a place where I've been but where I don't (currently) exist.

If god's omnipresent then there's no place where he doesn't exist, though he can have been to many places where he doesn't exist, provided those places no longer exist now. But I really have to scratch my head to see where the paradox is supposed to be - is it something to do with a non-existant place supposedly being a 'place' where he has to exist to be omnipresent?

Or is it really your own desperate need to reassure yourself that, in your own words from your profile plus some of your previous postings, 'gods, souls and hells' are still 'absurd', even though the 'evidence' that allegedly guides you has seemingly forced you into a deist (or 'agnostic/deist') position instead of an atheist one, leading to the somewhat unexpected spectacle of a self-described agnostic/deist rather than an atheist ridiculing Flying Spaghetti Monsters (I'm occasionally guilty of the same sin myself, as it can be self-indulgent fun, but my inconsistency, hypocrisy, and projectionist behaviour are all a bit beside the point)?

Incidentally, if a deist 'deity' created our world, then he/it presumably created much or all of the 'evidence' and 'seemingly misleading apparent evidence' in that world, so by placing as much faith in 'evidence' as you seem to do, are you not risking your deist deity intentionally and/or unintentionally making a sucker of you? Or is this 'impossible' according to your unstated understanding of 'deism'? My admittedly rather limited (and unresearched, and not particularly interested) understanding of the term 'deism' is that, at least originally, it was an 18th century Enlightenment notion in which 'god' kickstarts Isaac Newton's world and then, for some usually unexplained reason, has no further interest in subsequent proceedings. It arguably helped create the 'god' bits in the US Declaration of Independence, and Robespierre's Cult of The Supreme Being ('Culte de L'Etre Supreme') at the height of the Terror ('La Terreur') phase of the French Revolution, a Cult which may or may not have helped contribute to the near-genocide carried out by the Revolution against French Catholic rebels and non-rebels in the Vendee region at about that time (and/or shortly thereafter, when Robespierre had been guillotined but some of his ideas were presumably still hanging around).

But I have no idea what your notion of deism is, nor your reasons for thinking it less 'absurd' than other non-atheistic systems of thought. It would obviously be rather difficult for it to be as absurd as the most absurd interpretations of, say, Christianity and Islam, but an argument is not answered unless it is answered at its strongest, whereas your alleged paradoxes at least appear to be attempts to answer it at its weakest, a frequently counter-productive technique (though an easy and sometimes amusing way of preaching to the already converted) sometimes referred to as attacking a Straw Man, and often seen as prima facie evidence of somebody trying to defend a hopelessly weak case.

Answer 3

not a paradox at all. I've never been to Tulsa and you, I'll assume, have never been to Katmandu but if we went there we will have been there. If we exist, we would have existed there during and after but not before.

Here's a pair of docs question.....
If Dr Who met Dr House would Dr House start talking with a British accent or would Dr Who start talking with an American accent?

Answer 4

That isn't exactly a paradox.
It is just a contradiction in the form of a question. "Does existence exist where there is no existence?"

Answer 5

That's not a paradox at all. If you exist, you exist. If you don't, you don't. *You* exist, right? So there is no "place" in which you don't exist. Regardless of whether or not you have been there, you still exist.

Answer 6

Having once been there, the place would no longer be a place where he doesn't exist.

Answer 7

You've got to be "kidding" - with a question like that !!! Where's the rationale in your query ???

Answer 8

God is everywhere. But it is more difficult for him to operate in a place where he is not invited.

Answer 9

You are thinking way too much about this.

Answer 10

That is called an oxymoron.

Answer 11

I don't think me have ever been to a place.

But that's grammar for ya.