10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Omnipresence
First published Fri Jul 15, 2005; substantive revision Mon Apr 10, 2023

The psalmist asks God,

Where can I go from your spirit?

Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
(Psalms 139: 7–8, NRSV)

Philosophers and theologians have taken such texts to affirm that God is present everywhere. This passage
suggests, first, that God is really present at or located at various particular places. Second, it suggests that
there is no place where God is not present, that is, that God is present everywhere. This is the claim that God
is omnipresent. Divine omnipresence is thus one of the traditional divine attributes, although it has attracted
less philosophical attention than such attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, or being eternal.

Philosophers who have attempted to give an account of omnipresence have identified several interesting
philosophical questions that an adequate account of omnipresence must address: How can a being who is
supposed to be immaterial be present at or located in space? If God is located in a particular place, can
anything else be located there, too? If God is present everywhere, does it follow that he has parts in each of
the particular places in which he is located? Various philosophers have proposed accounts of omnipresence in
terms that are supposed to apply to an immaterial being. This essay will examine some of these proposals.

1. Some Issues involving Omnipresence and Historical Background

2. Power, Knowledge, and Essence
3. Two Recent Traditional Treatments
4. The World as God’s Body
5. Some Recent Alternative Proposals
6. Future Directions
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries

1. Some Issues involving Omnipresence and Historical Background

According to classical theism, God is omnipresent, that is, present everywhere. But classical theism also
holds that God is immaterial. How can something that is not, or does not have, a body be located in space?
Early discussions of divine presence typically began by distinguishing God’s presence in space from that of
material bodies. Augustine (354–430) writes,

Although in speaking of him we say that God is everywhere present, we must resist carnal ideas
and withdraw our mind from our bodily senses, and not imagine that God is distributed through
all things by a sort of extension of size, as earth or water or air or light are distributed (Letter
187, Ch. 2).

Elsewhere Augustine continues this theme and introduces a new element, namely, the suggestion that divine
presence might be understood by analogy with the presence of the soul:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 1/7
10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Some people] are not able to imagine any substance except what is corporeal, whether those
substances be grosser, like water and earth, or finer, like air and light, but still corporeal. None of
these can be wholly everywhere, since they are necessarily composed of numberless parts, some
here and some there; however large or however small the substance may be, it occupies an
amount of space, and it fills that space without being entire in any part of it. Consequently, it is a
characteristic of corporeal substances alone to be condensed and rarified, contracted and
expanded, divided into small bits and enlarged into a great mass. The nature of the soul is very
different from that of the body, and much more different is the nature of God who is the Creator
of both body and soul (Letter 137).

Augustine adds two further points: First, God “knows how to be wholly everywhere without being confined
to any place” (Letter 137). In contrast to material objects, which, having parts in various parts of the space
they occupy, are not wholly present at any of those regions, God is wholly present wherever he is. Second,
God is not contained in or confined by any of the places at which he exists. Augustine is thus explicit that
God is not present in the way corporeal substances are present, but his positive proposal for divine presence
is less well developed. He notes that God’s light, strength, and wisdom reach everywhere (Letter 187, Ch. 7),
and he holds that “God so permeates all things as to be not a quality of the world, but the very creative
substance of the world ruling the world without labor, sustaining it without effort.” Rather than going on to
explain these ideas, however, this passage simply ends with what became a familiar formula:

Nevertheless, he [God] is not distributed through space by size so that half of him should be in
half the world and half in the other half of it. He is wholly present in all of it in such wise as to
be wholly in heaven alone and wholly in the earth alone and wholly in heaven and earth
together; not confined in any place, but wholly in himself everywhere.

Anselm (1033–1109) also distinguishes God’s presence from the way in which material objects are contained
in space, and he, too, appeals to the concept of being wholly present. In his Monologion Anselm discusses
omnipresence in a series of chapters with paradoxical titles. In chapter 20 he states that “the Supreme Being
exists in every place and at all times.” But in the following chapter, he argues that God “exists in no place
and at no time.” Finally, he attempts to reconcile these “two conclusions—so contradictory according to their
utterance, so necessary according to their proof”, by distinguishing two senses of “being wholly in a place.”
In one sense those things are wholly in a place “whose magnitude place contains by circumscribing it, and
circumscribes by containing it.” In this sense, an ordinary material object is contained in a place. God,
however, is not thus contained in space, for it is “a mark of shameless impudence to say that place
circumscribes the magnitude of Supreme Truth.” Instead, God is in every place in the sense that he is present
at every place. According to Anselm, “the Supreme Being must be present as a whole in every different place
at once.” Like Augustine, then, Anselm denies that God is contained in space. Also, like Augustine, he seems
to leave unexplained this second relation of being “present as a whole” in every place.

In his (1988) Edward Wierenga attempts to supply the missing details. He notes that Anselm holds that souls
could be wholly present in more than one place, provided that they sensed in more than one place, and that
Anselm (in his Proslogion) adds that perception for God is a matter of having direct or immediate
knowledge. Combining these two ideas, Anselm could say that God is present everywhere in virtue of having
immediate knowledge of what is happening everywhere. Brian Leftow (1989) objects to the details of this
interpretation and proposes instead that, for Anselm, God is everywhere in virtue of his power. We will
explore the combination of knowledge and power below. It should be noted, however, as Christopher Conn
(2011) emphasizes, that Anselm himself discusses time in conjunction with space; perhaps an adequate
interpretation of Anselm would exploit this idea and develop an account, as Conn suggests, according to
which God “contains” all of space-time.

The two ideas of knowledge and power figure prominently in the account of omnipresence given by Thomas
Aquinas (1225–1274), which we will take up in the next section. Section 3 will consider two 20th century
proposals very much in the spirit of Aquinas’s. Some treatments of the problem of omnipresence seem to
have the consequence that God is related to the world as though it is his body. That will be the subject of
Section 4. In Section 5 we will consider several recent proposals that depart from the traditional formula.

2. Power, Knowledge, and Essence

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 2/7
10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

According to Thomas Aquinas, God’s presence is to be understood in terms of God’s power, knowledge and
essence. (In this view he followed a formula put forth by Peter Lombard (late 11th C.–1160) in his Sentences,
I, xxxvii, 1.) He writes, “God is in all things by his power, inasmuch as all things are subject to his power; he
is by his presence in all things, inasmuch as all things are bare and open to his eyes; he is in all things by his
essence, inasmuch as he is present to all as the cause of their being” (Summa Theologica I, 8, 3). Aquinas
attempts to motivate this claim with some illustrations:

But how he [God] is in other things created by him may be considered from human affairs. A
king, for example, is said to be in the whole kingdom by his power, although he is not
everywhere present. Again, a thing is said to be by its presence in other things which are subject
to its inspection; as things in a house are said to be present to anyone, who nevertheless may not
be in substance in every part of the house. Lastly, a thing is said to be substantially or essentially
in that place in which its substance is.

Perhaps there is a sense in which a king is present wherever his power extends. In any event, Aquinas seems
to think so. He distinguishes two kinds of being in place: by “contact of dimensive quantity, as bodies are,
[and] contact of power” (S.T. I, 8, 2, ad 1). In Summa contra Gentiles he writes that “an incorporeal thing is
related to its presence in something by its power, in the same way that a corporeal thing is related to its
presence in something by dimensive quantity,” and he adds that “if there were any body possessed of infinite
dimensive quantity, it would have to be everywhere. So if there were an incorporeal being possessed of
infinite power, it must be everywhere” (SCG III, 68, 3). So the first aspect of God’s presence in things is his
having power over them. The second aspect is having every thing present to him, having everything “bare
and open to his eyes” or being known to him. The third feature, that God is present in things by his essence,
is glossed as his being the cause of their being, (although Ross Inman (2021) argues that a fuller account
within the Christian tradition treats the role of essence here as deriving explanatorily from a prior attribute of
ubiquity).

This way of understanding God’s presence by reference to his power and his knowledge treats the predicate
‘is present’ as applied to God as analogical with its application to ordinary physical things. (For a fuller
explanation of analogical predication, see Medieval Theories of Analogy.) As applied to God, ‘is present’ is
neither univocal (used with the same meaning as in ordinary contexts) nor equivocal (used with an unrelated
meaning). Rather, its meaning can be explained by reference to its ordinary sense: God is present at a place
just in case there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is
going on in that object, and God is the cause of that object’s existence. Nicholas Everitt (2010, p. 86) objects
to this analogical approach, stating that “if this is how omnipresence is interpreted, one might well think that
it would be clearer to say straightforwardly that God is not omnipresent at all,” and he cites Joshua Hoffman
and Gary Rosenkrantz (2002, p. 41)) as agreeing with him. But Hoffman and Rosenkrantz in the cited
passage merely say that “there is no literal sense in which [God] could be omnipresent,” which leaves it open
that there is an analogical sense in which God is omnipresent. Hud Hudson (2009) also denies that God’s
presence is analogical, but that is because he thinks that there is a literal way in which God is present
everywhere. We will consider Hudson’s proposal in Section 5.

This account of omnipresence has the consequence that, strictly speaking, God is only present where some
physical thing is located. Perhaps, however, this is exactly what the medievals had intended. Anselm says, for
example, that “the supreme Nature is more appropriately said to be everywhere, in this sense, that it is in all
existing things, than in this sense, namely that it is merely in all places” (Monologion, 23).

3. Two Recent Traditional Treatments

More recent philosophers have agreed that God’s presence is to be understood analogically. Charles
Hartshorne (1897–2000), for example, claims that “the relation of God to the world must necessarily be
conceived, if at all, by analogy with relations given in human experience” (1941). Rather than taking the
relations to be knowledge of and power over things, however, Hartshorne assumes that God’s relation to the
world is analogous to that of a human mind’s relation to its body.

Hartshorne develops this idea by making distinctions between kinds of knowledge and kinds of power. Some
things that human beings know are known immediately, by “vivid and direct intuition”, while other things are
known only indirectly or through inference. Hartshorne holds that the former kind of knowledge is infallible,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 3/7
10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

and it is the kind of knowledge human beings have of their own thoughts and feelings. Since this kind of
knowledge is the highest form of knowledge, it is the kind God has, and he has it with respect to the entire
cosmos.

Similarly, some things human beings have power over they control directly; other things can be controlled
only indirectly. Human beings have direct control only over their own volitions and movements of their own
bodies. Again, since this is the highest kind of power, it is the kind of power God has—and he has it over
every part of the universe.

Thus far Hartshorne may be seen as developing the medieval view of divine presence. God is present
everywhere by having immediate knowledge and direct power throughout the universe (with the addition that
his presence extends to unoccupied regions of space). But Hartshorne endorses a surprising addition. He adds
that whatever part of the world a mind knows immediately and controls directly is, by definition, its body.
The world, therefore, is God’s body.

Richard Swinburne (1977) also begins his discussion of omnipresence by asking what it is for a person to
have a body. Although he insists that God is an immaterial spirit, he supposes this claim to be compatible
with a certain “limited embodiment.” Subsequently (2016) he withdraws this suggestion, saying that since
“God is not supposed to be tied down to acting or learning through … [the universe] or any chunk of matter
… it seems less misleading to say that he is not embodied.” Swinburne develops his account by appeal to the
notions of a “basic action” (an action one performs, for example, moving ones limbs in the typical case,
without having to perform another action in order to do it) and of “direct knowledge” (knowledge that is
neither inferential nor dependent on causal interaction). He then presents the claim that God is omnipresent
as the claim that God “can cause effects at every place directly (as an instrumentally basic action) and knows
what is happening at every place without the information coming to him through some causal chain—for
example, without needing light rays from a distant place to stimulate his eyes” (2016, p. 113). Swinburne’s
account is thus, as he notes, in the spirit of that of Aquinas.

4. The World as God’s Body

As we have seen, Hartshorne explicitly endorses as a consequence of the doctrine of divine omnipresence
that the world is God’s body, and Swinburne is initially willing to accept a “limited embodiment.” But some
philosophers have been loath to accept divine embodiment as a consequence of omnipresence. Charles
Taliaferro, for example, while endorsing this overall account of omnipresence, notes that the basic actions
human beings perform “can involve highly complex physical factors…[including] many neural events and
muscle movements, whereas with God there is no such physical complexity” (Taliaferro, 1994). Taliaferro
then adds that this immediacy in the case of God’s action is precisely a reason to say that “the world does not
function as God’s body the way material bodies function as our own.” Edward Wierenga adds a second
objection. He holds that as Hartshorne and Swinburne develop accounts of God’s power and knowledge, God
would have the same knowledge of and control over what happens in empty regions of space as he does with
respect to those regions occupied by material objects (Wierenga, 2010). In other words, Hartshorne’s and
Swinburne’s accounts of omnipresence, unlike that of Aquinas, do not interpret God’s presence as presence in
things. But it would be implausible to count a thing as part of God’s body on the basis of his knowledge of
and power over the region of space that thing occupies, when God’s knowledge and power would extend in
the same way to that region if it were unoccupied. So it seems as though one could accept a version of the
traditional account of divine omnipresence without having to conclude that the world is God’s body.

5. Some Recent Alternative Proposals

Although conceiving of omnipresence in terms of power, knowledge, and essence is the traditional approach,
with continued adherents, in recent years several philosophers have proposed quite different accounts of
omnipresence.

Robert Oakes (2006) suggests that space is “constituted by” God’s omnipresence. He holds that things
located in space and the world itself are therefore distinct from God. Oakes then draws on these claims to
argue that divine omnipresence is incompatible with pantheism.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 4/7
10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Some recent work appeals to esoteric concepts from metaphysics. Luco Johan van den Brom (1984; see also
1993) suggests that “God has a spatial dimension of his own which he does not share with the created
cosmos.” Brom’s idea is that just as a two-dimensional surface “transcends” a line on that surface but is
present at every point on the line, and similarly for a three-dimensional space and a two-dimensional plane in
that space, “God, by existing in a higher dimensional system, is also present in the places of all the objects in
the three-dimensional space of created cosmos without being contained by that three-dimensional space”
(1984, p. 654). Brom even conjectures that God possesses at least two extra dimensions, making it impossible
for our space to bisect his.

Other recent work draws on contemporary discussions on the metaphysics of material objects and their
relation to spacetime. Hud Hudson (2009) describes several possible “occupation” relations. One of these
relations is “entension”, where an object entends a region r just in case it is wholly and entirely located at r
and also wholly located at every proper subregion of r. An object is entirely located at a region r just in case
it is located at r and there is no region disjoint from r at which it is located. And an object is wholly located at
r just in case it is located at r and no proper part of it is not located at r. The typical way in which an object is
located at a region of space is by having various of its parts at different subregions of that region; that is,
typically material objects are “spread out” or distributed through a region they occupy (they “pertend”, to use
a technical term). In contrast, if an object entends a region, then it is located as a whole throughout that
region. Hudson then proposes a “literal occupation account of omnipresence as ubiquitous entension” (2009,
p. 209). Omnipresence is location at “the maximally inclusive region” plus being wholly located at every
subregion there is. Alexander R. Pruss (2013) also endorses a version of this account, with slightly different
details to allow explicitly for divine timelessness. In Hudson’s view, any object that occupies a region in
space is a material object. He is thus willing to accept as a consequence of his account of omnipresence as
ubiquitous entension that God is a material object. Ross Inman (2017), while sympathetic to the appeal to
ubiquitous entension, is unwilling to accept the conclusion that God is a material object. Accordingly he
shows that careful attention to medieval discussions of the distinction between material and immaterial
objects yields at least three ways of marking that distinction according to which God is not material.

Eleonore Stump (2010, see also 2008, 2011, 2013) defends adding additional conditions to the traditional
understanding of omnipresence in terms of knowledge and power. She writes, “I … think, however, that the
attempt to capture personal presence in terms of direct and unmediated cognitive and casual contact misses
something even in the minimal sense of personal presence” (2010, p. 111). She continues, “what has to be
added to the condition of direct and unmediated casual and cognitive contact … are two things––namely,
second-person experience and shared attention” (2010, p. 112). Second-person experience involves being
aware of and attending to someone else as a person when that other person is conscious and functioning as a
person. Shared attention requires that two persons be aware of each other and aware of their awareness,
whether of each other or a third object. Stump’s goal is to provide an understanding of the kind of union to be
desired in love. It may be, then, that her real topic is the nature of God’s offer of love to people. But she
explicitly applies her remarks about personal presence to omnipresence when she writes, “in order for God to
be omnipresent, that is, in order for God to be always and everywhere present, it also needs to be the case
that God is always and everywhere in a position to share attention with any creature able and willing to share
attention with God” (2010, p. 117). Perhaps, then, Stump can be seen not only as attempting to analyze
omnipresence but to identify what is required for it to be of religious or theological importance.

Georg Gasser (2019) also defends adding an additional condition involving agency to the traditional appeal
to knowledge and power. He considers a variety of proposed accounts of omnipresence, giving special
attention (and initial sympathy) to Hudson’s development of ubiquitous entension. But he concludes that this
proposal has a hard time explaining “the biblical tradition and personal religious experiences [according to
which] God acts differently at different places” (2019, 59). Perhaps he takes Stump’s second-person attention
and shared experience, which he references, to provide the requisite agency, or perhaps he intends such
actions as, for example, God’s speaking to Moses in the burning bush and also preventing the consumption of
the bush by fire. In any event, Gasser assumes that omnipresence includes, not only God’s presence through
his knowledge and power everywhere, but also “acting from time to time … ‘specially’ in miraculous ways”
(2019, p. 60).

6. Future Directions

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 5/7
10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In a recent paper, Sam Cowling and Wesley D. Cray note that “[t]he philosophical literature on omnipresence
is vast, though largely situated in the context of Western, monotheistic philosophy of religion” (2017, p. 223).
Their own proposal for expanding the field is to develop an account of omnipresence according to which
even numbers and pure sets are omnipresent. That will likely strike many as implausible, but their claim
about the limited scope of traditional work on the topic is accurate. In fact they could have mentioned, more
precisely, that the philosophers considered in this entry tend to restrict their attention primarily to Augustine,
Anselm, and Aquinas, with perhaps an aside to Peter Lombard. That suggests that one avenue for future
research is to consider the work of ancient philosophers as well as early modern and later philosophers. The
mention of monotheistic philosophy of religion calls attention to another often overlooked area, namely, the
work of Jewish and Islamic philosophers of religion. Finally, recent interest in global philosophy suggests yet
other areas into which work on omnipresence could extend.

Bibliography
Anselm, Monologion and Proslogion, in Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (eds.), Anselm of Canterbury: The
Major Works, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles, James F. Anderson (trans.), Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1975.
–––, Summa Theologica, in Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Anton Pegis (ed.), New York: Random
House, 1945.
Augustine, Letter 137 (to Volusian) and Letter 187 (to Dardanus) “On the Presence of God”, in W. Parsons
(trans.) Saint Augustine Letters, Vols. III and IV, The Fathers of the Church, New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1953.
Brom, Luco J. van den, 1984, “God’s Omnipresent Agency,” Religious Studies 20(4): 637–655.
–––, 1993, Divine Presence in the World: A Critical Analysis of the Notion of Divine Omnipresence, Kampen:
Kok.
Conn, Christopher, 2011, “Anselmian Spacetime: Omnipresence and the Created Order,” The Heythrop
Journal, 52: 26–270.
Cowling, Sam, and Wesley D. Cray, 2017, “How to Be Omnipresent,” American Philosophical Quarterly,
54(3): 223–234.
Everitt, Nicholas, 2010, “The Divine Attributes,” Philosophy Compass, 5(1): 78–90.
Gasser, Georg, 2019, “God’s Omnipresence in the World: On Possible Meanings of ‘en’ in Panentheism,”
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 85: 43–62.
Grabowski, Stanislaus, 1954, The All–Present God: A Study in St. Augustine, St. Louis: B. Herder.
Hartshorne, Charles, 1941, Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism, New York: Harper & Brothers.
Hoffman, Joshua, and Gary Rosencrantz, 2002, The Divine Attributes, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hudson, Hud, 2009, “Omnipresence,” in Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea (eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Philosophical Theology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 199–216.
Inman, Ross, 2017, “Omnipresence and the Location of the Immaterial,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of
Religion, 8: 168–206.
–––, 2021, “Retrieving Divine Immensity and Omnipresence,” in James Arcadi and James T. Turner (eds),
T&T Clark Handbook of Analytical Theology, London: T&T Clark, 127–139.
Jedwab, Joseph, 2016, “God’s Omnipresence: A Defence of the Classical View,” European Journal for
Philosophy of Religion, 8(2): 129–149.
Leftow, Brian, 1989, “Anselm on Omnipresence,” New Scholasticism, 63: 326–357.
Oakes, Robert, 2006, “Divine Omnipresence and Maximal Immanence: Supernaturalism versus Pantheism,”
American Philosophical Quarterly, 43(2): 171–179.
Peter Lombard, The Sentences, Books 1–4, Giulio Silano (trans.), Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, 2007–2010.
Pruss, Alexander R., 2013, “Omnipresence, Multilocation, the Real Presence and Time Travel,” Journal of
Analytic Theology, 1(1): 60–72.
Stump, Eleonore, 2008, “Presence and Omnipresence,” in Paul Weithman (ed.), Liberal Faith: Essays in
Honor of Philip Quinn, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 59–82.
–––, 2010, Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
–––, 2011, “Eternity, Simplicity, and Presence,” in Gregory T. Doolan (ed.), The Science of Being and Being:
Metaphysical Investigations, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, pp. 243–263; reprinted in
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 6/7
10/24/24, 10:16 PM Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Christian Tapp and Edmund Runggaldier (eds.), God, Eternity, and Time, Surrey, UK and Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2011.
–––, 2013, “Omnipresence, Indwelling, and the Second-Personal,” European Journal for Philosophy of
Religion, 5(4): 63–87.
Swinburne, Richard, 1977, The Coherence of Theism, Oxford: Oxford University Press; rev. ed. 1993.
–––, 2016, The Coherence of Theism, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taliaferro, Charles, 1994, Consciousness and the Mind of God, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wainwright, William, 2010, “Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence,” in Charles Taliaferro and
Chad V. Meister (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–65
Wierenga, Edward, 1988, “Anselm on Omnipresence,” New Scholasticism, 52: 30–41.
–––, 2010, “Omnipresence,” in Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn (eds.), A Companion to
the Philosophy of Religion, second edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 258–262.

Academic Tools
How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society.
Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project
(InPhO).
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Related Entries
Anselm of Canterbury [Anselm of Bec] | Aquinas, Thomas | Augustine of Hippo | eternity, in Christian
thought | Hartshorne, Charles | omnipotence | omniscience | pantheism

Copyright © 2023 by
Edward Wierenga <[email protected]>
Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
Please Read How You Can Help Support the Growth and Development of the Encyclopedia

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab,
Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/ 7/7