False Argument #7: Omnipresence Incompatible With The God Of Scripture

A traditional definition of God includes the characteristic of omnipresence, or the ability to be in all points in the universe at once, while simultaneously existing independent of the universe. The standard argument has always been, "How can one being be both completely separate from, yet thoroughly immersed in, the universe?" These two traits are apparently contradictory and seemingly cannot coexist coherently within one being.

The subatomic particles that result when atoms and atomic nuclei get fissioned display a peculiar characteristic known as "nonlocality," and the strange ability to be at once corpuscle and wave. The original EPR experiment (Einstein, Boris Podolski, Nathan Rosen) shows conclusively that particles which at one time shared the same system of coordinates remain instantly and enduringly correlated. (*the atomic condition, not the general use of the word) This nonlocality is completely irreverent of space-time, and it exists whether the time that separates the particles is measured in fractions of a second or billions of years of time, and it exists whether the particles are separated by millimeters or light-years of space. Students of world religions may notice the striking similarities to the Vedic concept of the Akashic Records. Since science now generally claims the universe was once a singularity, does it not stand to reason that every particle in our universe might have once shared the same system of coordinates, and as such may remain enduringly correlated in a way that is accessible to God?

The nonlocality ascribed to quantum phenomena may or may not extend beyond our universe or be characteristic of God, and it can by no means be considered proof of any scripture because science cannot verify a religious claim. But does it not stand to reason that if God created the universe, that God might remain correlated to the particles created, i.e., might not God exhibit principles strikingly similar to nonlocality? Are not the terms omnipresence and nonlocality at least loosely interchangeable?

In my opinion, the argument that omnipresence is incompatible with the God of the Bible is not a very strong argument, if a remotely similar concept can already be found in nature.