A theistic spectacle is played between transcendence and immanence of God vis a vis world. In this gameplay, omnipresence of God is considered non-negotiable attribute of the Creator. For all we know, He is relational deity, which implies His immanent placement “inside” of the world. At the same time, immanence of omnipresent God reveals some specific difficulties which arise from ontological incommensurability of God and world. Due to those difficulties, from antiquity onward, non-realistic tradition of conceiving ubiquitas (omnipresence) of God was formed. In this essay, I try to describe specific merits and difficulties of non-realistic tradition and its counterpart, realistic tradition of omnipresence. After browsing non-realistic proposition from Augustine onward, I express my dissatisfaction for that solution, due to some ontological, psychological and theodiceal considerations. At the background of those thoughts I consider contemporary corporalistic expression of omnipresence, articulated predominantly in Process Theology of Whitehead and Harthshorne. I found that solution controversial, due to revisionist implications of that concept. In light of that, I promulgate some contemporary considerations within analytical philosophy of religion. I work on R. Swinburne “limited embodiment” concept of immanence and H. Hudson concept of “entension”. Swinburne’s concept is on my interpretation a kind of sophisticated non-realistic theology of omnipresence. I supplement his analysis by E. Stump’s concept of “joint-attention” which relieves some psychological and theodiceal worries. I believe that that theory is coherent and Christians are free to reflect on it. Simultaneously, I consider some criticisms of Hudson’s theory which is purely realistic in his intention. I propose some salutary remarks of R. D. Imnam, and conclude, that as for now, this theory is also coherent and perspectival for Christian thinkers.