God is Dead and Einstein has Killed them

There are considerable logical conundrums when considering the classically divine attribute of omnipresence with the consequences of modern physics and I will discuss a few in these writings. I will start by defining what is meant by omnipresence and go on to discuss issues with omnipresence when considering the warping nature of spacetime. I will end by suggesting our description of an omnipresent being could remain intact by imagining God as a higher dimensional being and suggesting areas for further consideration.

Omnipresence, as specified by historic thinkers such as Anselm, is the divine quality that allows God to be wholly and ever present both in location and time (Wierenga, 2020). This appears to be incompatible with the modern physical evidence in support of Einstein's widely accepted theory of Relativity. Philosophers and theologians have never before had to contend with modern theories of physics, instead they debated God’s essence in an assumed understanding of the nature of reality but if the conversation is to continue, religious thinkers must apply their minds to these problems.

Until the early 1900’s, the quality of Time was assumed to be equal and absolute at all locations in space. That is to say, Time was afforded non-changing and un-altering characteristics. For example, when we imagine Time in everyday life, we might draw a timeline (figure 1) with the Present in the middle and the Past and Future either side. We would also imagine that everyone else in the world is travelling through time at the same pace as us so that when everyone pointed to where they were on the timeline, everyone would point to Now and all the Now’s would line up perfectly when we moved the timelines next to each other. However, Special Relativity (SR) tells us the notion of absolute time, as just described, is false and rather Time is a relative quality whose rate of passage depends on the perspective of the time-measurer. In SR we must realise Time as the fourth dimension, this can be thought of as a series of boxes progressing linearly. Figure 2 shows a regular cuboid box whose dimensions extend into our everyday three dimensions: length, width, and depth. Figure 2.1 shows how we might add Time to our imaginings.

This new image of Time as the fourth dimension shows us that space and time are really more closely connected than originally assumed. Space and time, traditionally viewed as separate entities in creation, are now combined into the same fabric and have direct effect on each other. This new fabric is called spacetime. In order for an event’s location to be fully described in spacetime, it must be described using four coordinates. It is not sufficient to provide a spacial

position but a location in time must also be ascribed. These four coordinates are simply, (t,x,y,z)*, where x, y and z describe position in 3D space and t describes position in time. So far, this is not an issue for God’s omnipresence, we could still easily imagine them stretching across all spacetime events with no strain. Issue arises however, when we encounter the idea that spacetime becomes stretched and warped by massive objects causing time to flow at different rates. This issue is amplified further when we learn that the rate of passage of time is also affected by the velocity of objects. Fast moving clocks run slower when observed from relativity stationary reference frames.

This is problematic for our idea of God as being omnipresent when we consider their consciousness and unity. The Christian God of the Bible is necessarily whole and unified into a single, almighty mono-arbiter, but when we consider this relative time which flows at different rates for different observers, how can God exist in whole and not in parts? If God is omnipresent, meaning present at every event in spacetime, then they must exist in every reference frame, but the unequal passage of time at different locations leaves us with a residual feeling of an unequal, un-unified God (Wall, 2015). It seems parts of their consciousness would be moving through time much slower than others and therefore have access to different knowledge than other parts and in a sense become different gods. Quickly God’s consciousness is fractured into a pantheon (Wall, 2015). It is difficult to accept that God would suspend the laws of physics and communicate with other parts of their consciousness in order to remain whole. Even God cannot affect past events, or events separated by great distances from within the fabric of spacetime itself because the direction of things traveling through time is fixed by the laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics), as is the top speed that anything can travel (Relativity) meaning God could not communicate with other parts of themselves at great distances because they are restricted by this finite speed limit (Wall, 2015).

One may then be tempted to ascribe God an atemporal attitude, perhaps they are able to observe the whole spacetime continuum from a higher dimension (Gratus, 2012). This, at first, seems more appealing, there are even physical models which would allow this (O'Dowd, 2020 discusses the Block Universe model); by making slight modifications to figure 2.1 we can reassert God from without the 4D universe we live in. This however removes God’s presence from spacetime and we must adapt our meaning of presence. It could be argued that God is still present in the sense that they are encompassing us from this fifth dimension, but they are not present in the four-dimensional universe and therefore not present in time or at any location. Further debate is required as to whether this definition constitutes presence in any meaningful sense, for example whether God could physically influence spacetime without creating different universes with different future timelines (Gratus, 2012).

In this essay I have discussed some issues with combining divine omnipresence with SR by outlining the qualities of spacetime and exploring how omnipresence in every reference frame would lead to a pantheon of gods. I have attempted to reconcile this issue by hypothesising that God may exist as a unified being in a higher dimension. I have ended by suggesting that this ‘higher dimensional’ God presents a new definition of presence which requires further discussion.

*This notation has deliberately adjusted the correct attribution of ct to time coordinate for ease of interpretation by the reader. The meaning remains unchanged for these purposes.

Bibliography

Wierenga, E. 2020. Omnipresence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online]. [Accessed 27 December 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/.

O'Dowd, M. 2020. Is The Future Predetermined By Quantum Mechanics?. Youtube.com. [Online]. [Accessed 21 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JCRDaa3ehk.

Wall, A. 2015. God and Time II: Special Relativity » Undivided Looking. Wall.org. [Online]. [Accessed 29 December 2020]. Available from: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/god-and-time-ii-special-relativity/.

Gratus, J. 2012. Dr Jonathan Gratus - Time, Relativity and God. Youtube.com. [Online]. [Accessed 27 December 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBY-PtXVAY.