God is both omnipresent and not omnipresent.
Refutation
As with the omniscience texts, 'walking' and 'coming down' language belongs to theophanic/anthropomorphic narrative convention, staging God's engagement with the human drama in spatial, embodied terms comprehensible to the narrative's human characters and audience — a standard device in both biblical and broader ANE literature — not a metaphysical claim that God is ordinarily confined elsewhere and must travel. Classical theology (Aquinas, *ST* I q.8) defines omnipresence carefully: God is present to all things 'by essence, presence, and power' as the continuously sustaining cause of their very being, not as a body occupying and filling volume the way physical objects are located. This is a difference in kind, not merely degree, from spatial location as ordinarily understood. The ascension/heavenly-session texts require Christological precision rather than a denial of omnipresence: the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) confesses that the incarnate Son possesses two complete natures, divine and human, united in one person without confusion or division. Localized, bodily language ('seated,' 'ascended') properly describes the human nature, which is genuinely, bodily located; the divine nature, per the historic doctrine (articulated explicitly in the Reformed tradition as the *extra Calvinisticum*, but rooted already in patristic Christology such as Athanasius's *On the Incarnation*), remains fully omnipresent even during and after the incarnation. This is not an ad hoc rescue invented to answer a modern objection; it is precise conciliar Christological grammar developed over centuries specifically to hold together the reality of the incarnation with the unchanged transcendence of the divine nature.
Positive case
This essence/localized-incarnate-presence distinction displays a level of theological sophistication absent from pagan polytheism, where deities are simply localized, competing, spatially-limited beings (a god of the mountain who is genuinely absent from the valley); it coherently secures both God's radical transcendence and His genuine, particular, historical immanence in the incarnation.
Steelmanned objection
Texts describe God 'walking in the garden' (Gen 3:8) and 'coming down' to inspect a city (Gen 11:5), implying He is not already fully present everywhere but must travel to a location; conversely, ascension and heavenly-session language ('seated at the right hand,' Acts 7:56) implies Jesus/God is spatially located in one place ('heaven') rather than everywhere at once — both sets of texts appear to presuppose a spatially limited, localized deity, in tension with the doctrine of omnipresence.
Incoherence of the alternative
A purely materialist ontology has no coherent category for 'presence by essence and causal power' at all, since on materialism everything that exists is by definition spatially locatable and nothing more. Applying a materialist definition of 'presence' (strict spatial location) to a theological claim that was never making that kind of claim is a category error — critiquing the doctrine by a standard the doctrine itself rejects, rather than engaging what it actually asserts.
Fallacy tags
category error
Sources cited
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.8 — on the mode of divine presence to creatures
- Athanasius, On the Incarnation — patristic Christology on the divine Son's continued transcendence during the incarnation
- Council of Chalcedon, Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) — two natures in one person, without confusion or division
Scripture referenced
Gen 3:8, Gen 11:5, Acts 7:56, Ps 139:7-10
Confidence
strong
Review status
no content-completeness issues flagged
Source locator
Positions → row 10
Related arguments