Does God live inside our observable universe?

[SkyWriting]

Still, how is he omnipresent if he remains outside creation?

God sent his Holy Spirit to be with us.

25 All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you.
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled; do not be afraid

 

[juvenissun]

Does God live inside our observable universe?

Not only that, God lives inside YOU.

 

[geiroffenberg]

God sent his Holy Spirit to be with us.

25 All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you.
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled; do not be afraid

So he is not outside creation, but here with us?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So he is not outside creation, but here with us?

Yes. Not a part of creation but with us.
Same idea in saying Jesus is God. Declaring that truth was never meant to be understood as claiming for 33 odd years or so God was no where to be found except within the confines of a human body.

 

[geiroffenberg]

Yes. Not a part of creation but with us.
Same idea in saying Jesus is God. Declaring that truth was never meant to be understood as claiming for 33 odd years or so God was no where to be found except within the confines of a human body.

I understand the idea, but i dont see how it can be reconciled with omnipresence, if anything is not part of him, then he is not omnipresent.

 

[GBRK]

Does God live inside our observable universe?

I do not believe that any of us can comprehend just who or what God is. Being human we can only relate to things based upon our own understanding and comprehension but I believe God is beyond human comprehension or understanding. Our Universe is a physical thing whereas God is Spirit and dwells in a Spiritual realm, something we, mankind/humanity, nor science cannot comprehend, understand, or define. So given that I believe the answer to your question is yes God does dwell within the Universe but not in the way you might think. God is not constrained to human understanding or our physical realm and it is ours to accept that which we cannot see or understand and that's what faith is about.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I understand the idea, but i dont see how it can be reconciled with omnipresence, if anything is not part of him, then he is not omnipresent.

I think we understand other things, also not fully or clearly understood, as absolutely being present because of their observable effects, and we understand it as being evident everywhere even without it being said to be a part of everything. Gravity comes to mind, especially since we cannot "see" it, but probably other examples. Could be wrong, but do not think there is a theory about gravity that has everything a "part" of it or somewhere in the universe where it is not.
Keeping the Spiritual, for that matter anything spiritual (angels, souls), keeping it out of the physical also allows no physical restrictions or boundary within the physical for those things to either be or not be. IOW a spirit has all the room it needs everywhere in a physical space (thru walls, appear, disappear, be here then there..etc. ). Free to move and exists in that space without limit. We don't even claim anything (spiritual or otherwise) said to go through a wall has become a part of the wall in the process.

So am unclear why extending the thought to include an Infinite Spirit is not possible without making everything thing a "part" of Him. Especially when doing so can do damage to so many other aspects we hold to be truths as Christians.
Consider this, a belief that He made everything from nothing is acknowledging that everything that is, is only by His Power. All things possible, He can remove that Power and a thing ceases to be. Yet still, an existing thing is not a part of that Power, otherwise we have the rather absurd notion He can annihilate a part of Himself or even all of Himself.

 

[geiroffenberg]

Could be wrong, but do not think there is a theory about gravity that has everything a "part" of it or somewhere in the universe where it is not.
Keeping the Spiritual, for that matter anything spiritual (angels, souls), keeping it out of the physical also allows no physical restrictions or boundary within the physical for those things to either be or not be. IOW a spirit has all the room it needs everywhere in a physical space (thru walls, appear, disappear, be here then there..etc. ). Free to move and exists in that space without limit. We don't even claim anything (spiritual or otherwise) said to go through a wall has become a part of the wall in the process.

but still, anythin we use as example other than god do not claim to be omnipresent, so going trough walls, finding places where it is not etc, makes sense maybe to anything but god, so there is no example we could use to explain omnipresence, he is the only one with this attribute. So if we talk about god able to go trough walls, well where di he come from and where did he go? he is omnipresent, so it makes no sense. Nothing can exist outside of god, becuase that would mean he is not omnipresent. There can be no place god is not, that would mean he is not omnipresent. Anything that exist, it follows (not by eastern philosophy but by biblical doctrine) must exist in god, and nothinhg outside him.
This would be the point paul makes when he says "in him we live breath and have our existance". There is noone and nothing this couldnt be said about, or paul just was telling stories, lol. So if existance, by biblical provlaimation, is in god, then we can not talk about anything that god is not part of, everything exist in him.

I have many verses like this! I know nothing about hinduism, ive read bible, ive never read anything hindu or buddist scriptures, as far as i know, i certainly didnt get any of these ideas from any such scriptures, its all from thje bible.

So am unclear why extending the thought to include an Infinite Spirit is not possible without making everything thing a "part" of Him. Especially when doing so can do damage to so many other aspects we hold to be truths as Christians.

well, everything must be inside him, since having anything existing outside of him denies he is omnipresent. In other words, if there is a existance outside of god, then he can not be the god he is proclaimed to be in the bible! If he is existance, then nothing can exist without him, and everything created must be made up of himself (the word).

I dont personally see any damage done by having a world view where "god is one" and where he is "omnipresent" and where he is "in all and trough all" and where the gospel proclaims "that god shall be all in all " - omnipresent in every sense of that word. Humans will still divide the world in good and bad and have their dualistic ways, but that doesnt negate gods eternal proclamation "hear oh israel god is one" (ehcad)

Consider this, a belief that He made everything from nothing is acknowledging that everything that is, is only by His Power. All things possible, He can remove that Power and a thing ceases to be. Yet still, an existing thing is not a part of that Power, otherwise we have the rather absurd notion He can annihilate a part of Himself or even all of Himself.

He can do whatever he wants lol. he is god.
But the argument seems to fall in its own reasoning anyway, because if we argue against a idea that says everything we call the material world is just a form of the spirit of god molded by his word, then its not a question about annihilating himself, but just about losing the form, or changing the form. Nothing is lost, it was jsut a form, the substance remains the same.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

but still, anythin we use as example other than god do not claim to be omnipresent, so going trough walls, finding places where it is not etc, makes sense maybe to anything but god, so there is no example we could use to explain omnipresence, he is the only one with this attribute. So if we talk about god able to go trough walls, well where di he come from and where did he go? he is omnipresent, so it makes no sense. Nothing can exist outside of god, becuase that would mean he is not omnipresent. There can be no place god is not, that would mean he is not omnipresent. Anything that exist, it follows (not by eastern philosophy but by biblical doctrine) must exist in god, and nothinhg outside him.
This would be the point paul makes when he says "in him we live breath and have our existance". There is noone and nothing this couldnt be said about, or paul just was telling stories, lol. So if existance, by biblical provlaimation, is in god, then we can not talk about anything that god is not part of, everything exist in him.

I have many verses like this! I know nothing about hinduism, ive read bible, ive never read anything hindu or buddist scriptures, as far as i know, i certainly didnt get any of these ideas from any such scriptures, its all from thje bible.



well, everything must be inside him, since having anything existing outside of him denies he is omnipresent. In other words, if there is a existance outside of god, then he can not be the god he is proclaimed to be in the bible! If he is existance, then nothing can exist without him, and everything created must be made up of himself (the word).

I dont personally see any damage done by having a world view where "god is one" and where he is "omnipresent" and where he is "in all and trough all" and where the gospel proclaims "that god shall be all in all " - omnipresent in every sense of that word. Humans will still divide the world in good and bad and have their dualistic ways, but that doesnt negate gods eternal proclamation "hear oh israel god is one" (ehcad)




He can do whatever he wants lol. he is god.
But the argument seems to fall in its own reasoning anyway, because if we argue against a idea that says everything we call the material world is just a form of the spirit of god molded by his word, then its not a question about annihilating himself, but just about losing the form, or changing the form. Nothing is lost, it was jsut a form, the substance remains the same.

Was never talking about God going thru walls. Walls talking about the logical inconsistency of claiming something cannot be said to be "present" inside a wall without also being said to actually be part of the wall. We do not say that about a bullet either impeded in the wall or passing through it, so why attempt to insist something we cannot see anyway, like gravity or a spirit, must be a "part" of something just because we say at the moment it is really in fact there, in the wall in this case. It is just an reduction of the claim being about an Infinite, Omnipresent Spirit, not being able to be said to be really "present" unless everything is a part of Him. It only makes perhaps some sense if someone claims, as another poster did, that in creating everything from nothing, He actually made everything from "pieces" of Himself, which is just an opposite way of looking at the same thing expressed by "all in all" if that is understood to mean everything is a part of a common whole.

IOW If we don't say lesser things obviously not omnipresent or infinite, can in fact be "in" something and be understood in saying that that we do not mean they are a part of what we are saying they are "in" why does it become the opposite if we just give what we are talking about Omnipresence. If we can imagine an angel passing through a wall without suggesting it is necessary to consider the wall then a part of the angel, why would we need to insist that is no longer true if the angel is just bigger?
Put another way, as we go from a finite spirit, an angel, to an Infinite Omnipresent Spirit, at what point does the concept of a spirit's presence demand we change our view of what "in" would mean and why?
If it is not true on a micro scale with lessor spirit beings, why insist it must be true on the macro with God?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

He can do whatever he wants lol. he is god.
But the argument seems to fall in its own reasoning anyway, because if we argue against a idea that says everything we call the material world is just a form of the spirit of god molded by his word, then its not a question about annihilating himself, but just about losing the form, or changing the form. Nothing is lost, it was just a form, the substance remains the same.

God's desire unable to be halted does not mean He would ever desire what is not possible. I don't think it is particularly funny at all when atheist suggest such impossibilities and Christians are unable to see past the fallacy of the argument that God cannot be Omnipotent because He cannot do this or that. Make a rock too big to be lifted or a round square. That is not what is meant by "all things are possible", not that He can or would do anything we could imagine. I do find it funny for someone to think they really scored a point doing that in a debate.

Besides the impossibility I suggested assumes God made everything out of nothing, and so His Power is all that holds everything in existence. The rebuttal above requires Him to be material and so created everything from that material - from Himself. So then anything becomes just a form of "part" of His substance that He could then remake at will. Changing the whole playing field to refute an expression made about another field does not address what was expressed. It only addresses what the new playing field imagines to be real.

The whole point of distinguishing between a body and it having a material form as a creature is to distinguish that material existence and an immaterial existence. A purely spiritual existence is one without physical form or body. Angels are spirits and is also God a Spirit, which means no form and no material body. There is no mixing of immaterial with material, one reason many difficulties in the past eons can be seen going through the various ideas about how our souls (spirit - immaterial) are "united" with our bodies (material). Those fights are only possible because it was accepted that a spirit has no physical form and is immaterial.

So if the view being taken is that spirits have material substance, then I can understand why someone would then ask if such a "being" consisting of material was said to be infinitely everywhere, how could we then not say everything is just a part of that "being". Which has been rather my point all along - and down the path eastern mystics took.

 

[geiroffenberg]

why attempt to insist something we cannot see anyway, like gravity or a spirit, must be a "part" of something just because we say at the moment it is really in fact there

Well, we are not talking about something, but about a omnipresent god. He is not jsut "there" at certain locations, he is at all locations. Omni presence is not teh same as all knowing or all seeing, in other words you can be present in a situation and know wahts going on, but not present at all locations. That is all seeing. Omnipresence means there is no place he is not.Literally. So to talk about him being part of creation or not, is not really the problem for me. The nature of omnipresence si that everything must exist inside, nothing outside. So what i object to or find hard to believe, is that he "is in no way a part of creation". Thats not possible if he is omnipresent. Omnipresence means absolute. You can be in something without being aprt of it, yes. But as soon as you claim omnipresence literally, then you can not NOT be part of everything. If there is a part of an atom god is no part of, he would not be omnipresent. To simply be present "inside" matter, or whatever, is still not true omnipresence. Omnipresence menas everyting is part of that which is omnipresent. There can be nothing, in any dimension, that is outside. IF a spirit is rpesent in matter, but NOT present in the 3 dimenstional space that matter exist in, then he is not omnipresent.

 

[geiroffenberg]

I don't think it is particularly funny at all when atheist suggest such impossibilities and Christians are unable to see past the fallacy of the argument that God cannot be Omnipotent because He cannot do this or that.

They are just playing with simple rules of logic, thats not a real argument. What we are talking about here transends rules of basic reason designed to explain creation. We are talking about what is the real definition of omnipresence. I only expressed lauther (with no regards to disrespect) because the reasoning behind your argument deosnt take into concideration the fact that makes up a literal definition of omnipresence! Your argument would be that god would have to annihilate himself, which doesnt make sense since he did not make everything out of nothing, he made it out of the word, himself (which you alo said) so if he "formed" the world by his word, he simply has to reform it or stop forming it, not annihilate it or himself! It is as it is said about when a man dies, in the book of ecclestiastes, that the spirit returns to god. The man may not have the "form" of a physical person anymore, but the spirit that formed it never was annihilated, it jsut went back to a formless state, and as there is only "one spirit" in man, since the breat/spirit was breathed into adam and is what made him living, it can not be a spirit seperated from god. And now we have moved out of the physical realm and sees how god is omnipersent in a spiritual nonp physical realm as well, being IN man in the way he is the substance that makes up mans spirit. So god must be the substance that made up this spirit as this is what it says and that it says it returns to god and then this spirit must also be what formed the man aka the physical being. Therefor it is natural to understand the bible that its definitions of omnipresence is LITERAL, God IS existance, and what makes up exinstance itself, he is the eternal "i am" that nothing could exist outside of, and is the only one that can say "i am" and is the only one that can say "i am one", not two or divided. The one that is omnipersent, and who formed what we perceive as material creation is only one, so there can not be other "substances" out there competing with his omnipresence. I find this to be the most literal and most agreeable undetrstanding of the bible

The rebuttal above requires Him to be material and so created everything from that material - from Himself

Not if matter is subject to our perseption and not literally what gods creation consist of. I never see matter with my eyes, i only see energy in different frequencies, and then three types of optical cells reacts to it, and i make colors. There are no colors or sounds out there, its a projection of myself! So how real is matter then. "God forming matter" by the subtance of whatever he is, doesnt make him into amtter. We only perceive matter as it is because of the way we function, the universe is spiritual not material as the word that formed it also "is spirit and not flesh.".

This is the conclusion we must make if we believe in omnipresence, there can not be matter seperate from him in reality, becasue that negates omnipresence.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, we are not talking about something, but about a omnipresent god. He is not jsut "there" at certain locations, he is at all locations. Omni presence is not teh same as all knowing or all seeing, in other words you can be present in a situation and know wahts going on, but not present at all locations. That is all seeing. Omnipresence means there is no place he is not.Literally. So to talk about him being part of creation or not, is not really the problem for me. The nature of omnipresence si that everything must exist inside, nothing outside. So what i object to or find hard to believe, is that he "is in no way a part of creation". Thats not possible if he is omnipresent. Omnipresence means absolute. You can be in something without being aprt of it, yes. But as soon as you claim omnipresence literally, then you can not NOT be part of everything. If there is a part of an atom god is no part of, he would not be omnipresent. To simply be present "inside" matter, or whatever, is still not true omnipresence. Omnipresence menas everyting is part of that which is omnipresent. There can be nothing, in any dimension, that is outside. IF a spirit is rpesent in matter, but NOT present in the 3 dimenstional space that matter exist in, then he is not omnipresent.

I obviously cannot make the leap being made here.
God is a Spirit. If any spirit can be said to be "present" with me right now, I do not see a need to suggest that presence requires that things around me or myself are a part of that spirit, even if the spirit is in me. That is why a "possession" is called a possession. They possess a person, the person does not become a part of the spirit. There is no sense in that expression that means the person is a part of that spirit possessing them.
Same with the indwelling of the Spirit. To me it would be like saying because I breath or because my body is mostly water, that I can claim I am a "part" of air simply because air is everywhere around me. Or that I am a "part" of that pond over there simply because water is everywhere around me and in me. It makes no sense to make that implication. Raising the scale of a spirit that Who is Infinite, meaning everywhere, does not change the fact everything that is, that same Spirit made from nothing. Nothing does not mean He made it from Himself, at least not when one understands spirit means immaterial. There can be no understanding of the material being a "part" of something immaterial. This is one reason the idea of a human having been made the unity of the immaterial (and immortal) with the material is difficult to accurately express what that means exactly, resulting in many erroneous expressions of that unity.

If that is so difficult on the micro scale for people way smarter than anyone in CF forums to express, how does it apparently become easy to imagine everything being a part of the immaterial simply because that specific Person is said to be everywhere?
Again we don't consider the "ghost" in the wall to mean that the wall is a part of that ghost. We simply mean the "presence" of that spirit happens at the moment to be in that wall - location. "Everywhere" is about location - not a statement about what any particular location is made of. Neither would imaging some ghost to be everywhere have to mean we think everything everywhere is part of that ghost.

 

[TestifyToTruth]

Is it not the reverse: The observable Universe exists inside of God.

 

[PanDeVida]

Does God live inside our observable universe?

YES!!! However, you don't have to look to the Stars Above, you can observe Him and not only observe Him, but part take of Him Body and Blood Soul and Divinity, at your Local Catholic Church, in the Most Holy Eucharist. Read the Early Church Fathers, you will find this to be true. This fact has never ended /changed in the Catholic Church, it continues to this very day. However, it is no longer true for the Protestant churches since the reformation or I should say the deformation.

Have you not read: Matthew 28: 20 ...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Have you not read: John 6:40And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

AJ, John 6:40 above states that the WILL of Father wants everyone to SEE the Son and believe in Him. So AJ, where today can we SEE the Son and Believe in Him??? You can see Him and believe in Him in the Eucharist. AMEN AMEN

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Is it not the reverse: The observable Universe exists inside of God.

Short answer yes and you would be correct in so far as that single statement goes I guess.

God must be bigger than the Universe He made. So we can picture the universe being inside something very large, God. Clearly the idea God is everywhere present in the Universe is easier to imagine picturing one thing inside another. But people in this thread did not stop there, which is why I mentioned a ghost in a wall, something we could also picture.

If the "ghost" was said to be large enough to encompass the whole house, yes, we could think of it as the house is now literally "in or "inside" the ghost. We could also say there is no where in the house where that ghost is not currently present. Anywhere we went in that house, that ghost is there. The ghost could act/operate anywhere inside that house. Nothing we do inside that house would be hidden from that ghost...etc.

However, we really don't mean when we say or picture those thoughts, at least most of us don't, that the house is now actually a part of the ghost, or that the house is made of a part of the ghost now or worse everything in the house and the house itself "is" the ghost. Given that is true that most of us do not have that idea of "presence" being a problem with picturing a "little" spirit, it baffles me a little that just making the spirit really really big the idea of being present everywhere becomes somehow difficult. It is not as if we cannot imagine/picture it on the small scale, so why does just making the scale bigger change everything?
I don't get that part. All we did was make the spirit infinitely bigger and the house really big. So why can't we then picture "presence" without trying to make the universe part of God or made from part of God or even worse God is the universe.

 

[mindlight]

Does God live inside our observable universe?

Only 3-5% of the universe gives off an electromagnetic signature according to the latest theories. Dark matter/ energy make up the rest. So what we can see is only a fraction of the space - time material universe. Add in a consideration of the Third Heaven which God created which is not material or at least interpenetrates the material realm and we have a creation which is mainly invisible to us. Omnipresence means God is present throughout this creation but he also transcends it. Thus before Creation he existed and there are dimensions beyond creation today in which he is present.

So basically - YES!

 

[geiroffenberg]

I obviously cannot make the leap being made here.
God is a Spirit. If any spirit can be said to be "present" with me right now, I do not see a need to suggest that presence requires that things around me or myself are a part of that spirit, even if the spirit is in me. That is why a "possession" is called a possession. They possess a person, the person does not become a part of the spirit. There is no sense in that expression that means the person is a part of that spirit possessing them.

But this has nothing to do with spirits or presence. God is spirit yes, but whatever he is, omniprecene is an absolute term. There can noe be any "outside of him, and there can not by anthing existing without him, In him we live move and have our very being. A spirit can be present, but not omnipresent. So the example does rather disprove it than prove anything, since god is the only one with this remarkable attribute of omnipresence. I he is ON something, but since that something is made of another material, then he isnt part of that, just "in" it, much like water in a glass, the water just contains the glass, but the material of the glass itself has no water in it....that would make the water NO imnipresnt, as it should be. But if the water was omnipresnt, the glass itself could have no part in it that would not be water. Its an impossibility for anything excapt god. We define him as spirit, but to claim we know what spirit is and to claim we know that spirit can only be omnipresent in the sense it is just "in" something, is to enter areas of knowledge that can no be proven by scripture or by logic or by anything else than gods word, for those who trust it. I claim to have heaps of scriptural evidence for it, and so i would deny my own trust in the bible if i should at this point take up your view, and until im convinced i of course can not do that.

 

[geiroffenberg]

If that is so difficult on the micro scale for people way smarter than anyone in CF forums to express, how does it apparently become easy to imagine everything being a part of the immaterial simply because that specific Person is said to be everywhere?

Let me first udnerscore, that this is mainly not about what im able to imagine or udnerstand. I do not claim to udnerstand god or even omnipresence, but i do find it described in a way all trough the bible that i can either trust or deny bsed upon my lack of understanding. Of course i will choose to trust the bible, that if he is infinte and omnipresnt, then there is nothing he can not be the very substance of, because in any case, no matter how small piece of existance that is, that he is not part of, means he is not infinite and omnipresent.
But to say he is limited in is present, he is in but not part of, that neglects the terms inifnity and omnipresence, so so far there is no way i can wrap my accepetance of it around it, no matter how hinudistic or pantheistic it is claimed to be. It is to me how god describes himself. Not being in creation, but being the substance, by the word, that makes up creatino, or else he would not be infinite. There would be existance outside him, and that is impossible. I like how you brought up the word infinte, because it is a word that clearifies omnipresence better.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But this has nothing to do with spirits or presence. God is spirit yes, but whatever he is, omniprecene is an absolute term. There can noe be any "outside of him, and there can not by anthing existing without him, In him we live move and have our very being. A spirit can be present, but not omnipresent. So the example does rather disprove it than prove anything, since god is the only one with this remarkable attribute of omnipresence. I he is ON something, but since that something is made of another material, then he isnt part of that, just "in" it, much like water in a glass, the water just contains the glass, but the material of the glass itself has no water in it....that would make the water NO imnipresnt, as it should be. But if the water was omnipresnt, the glass itself could have no part in it that would not be water. Its an impossibility for anything excapt god. We define him as spirit, but to claim we know what spirit is and to claim we know that spirit can only be omnipresent in the sense it is just "in" something, is to enter areas of knowledge that can no be proven by scripture or by logic or by anything else than gods word, for those who trust it. I claim to have heaps of scriptural evidence for it, and so i would deny my own trust in the bible if i should at this point take up your view, and until im convinced i of course can not do that.

Sure it does, omni-presence is just that, speaking of where we can say a Spirit is and where it is not - in this case no where.
So correct, being everywhere, we cannot even imagine a place where such a Spirit would be not present. Even if we imagined in the act of Creation He provided us in the form of a myth to believed by all mankind included His making multiple universes, we likewise could not exclude His presence there "outside" this universe.
Correct again. All other spirits, having been made by the same Spirit that made everything else, would be both smaller than Him, which is more properly speaking limited - where He is said to be limitless. Having limit we can then say those created spirits are limited or contained within the boundaries of this universe - assuming He made no others that they could be allowed to "go to".
The example does prove we can imagine a created spirit being present without having to confuse that idea by adding that "presence" implies something about the material aspects of where that spirit is said to be "present" -simultaneously everywhere in that house.

I agree if one cannot imagine a ghost the size of a house and therefore capable of having it said of it's "presence" (perhaps even demonstrable in many manners and ways) that is everywhere within the limits of that house without insisting at the same time the house be a part of the ghost itself then the analogy would not help with imagining what God's being present everywhere means. That most people would get that from this limited analogy would apply to a much larger Spirit cannot be denied simply because one person cannot see it with Casper.
Presence is presence, whether I limit that "presence" to a wall, a box, to a house, the whole universe or even say the presence is without boundary. We can still imagine "presence" as not necessarily including an understanding about what any particular "place" is made of. This is an understanding that people are adding to the meaning is my point. So yeah, I guess someone could imagine Casper being big enough t be said to be presence in the everywhere in a house is saying by that ALSO that the house is actually a part of Casper. But it is not required to this be understood when someone simply says Casper is present there or here. They would have to explain by present they include actually that "there" or "here" is a part of Casper as that is not evident from simply saying "presence".

The ONLY way to insist Casper being present must mean that where he is has to be now a part of him would be claiming that two materials are thereby said to be commingled, which requires we believe Casper is not a spirit since we are saying he has "material" to be commingled with something else material. Which has been part of my point all along.

So is your basic objection here the idea of anything said to a "person" could be immaterial?