Can God be beyond the universe?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

Hey, PhilX, do you like the responses to this question, or have they gone hopelessly awry?

As long as they stay on topic, I like them.

I tend to leave out a lot in my OPs to encourage discussion. I'm around to help clarify. No OP can anticipate everything that's in the user's mind. But it's good when they can encourage on-topic discussion.

PhilX

[Mike Strand]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

Hey, PhilX, do you like the responses to this question, or have they gone hopelessly awry?

As long as they stay on topic, I like them.

I tend to leave out a lot in my OPs to encourage discussion. I'm around to help clarify. No OP can anticipate everything that's in the user's mind. But it's good when they can encourage on-topic discussion.

PhilX

Thanks, PhilX -- good example to follow ...

[seeds]

Interesting problem.

Yes, it is interesting -- one reason for this is that the solution may vary, depending on how the terms are defined. For example:

If "God" is the supernatural Being, the creator of the universe, and so on, suggested by religion, there is an inherent contradiction if one claims God is part of the universe, unless God somehow created God.

If the universe is everything that exists, then God, if extant, would belong to the universe by definition....

Hi Mike, I’ve been enjoying your well-written and thoughtful posts.

If we delve into the “Panentheistic” approach to God, then we can understand how God can not only be beyond the universe, but also a part of the universe itself (i.e., transcendent and immanent at the same time).

If any of that sounds interesting to you, then check out (and maybe add to) the “Panentheism” thread, here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22608
_______

[Mike Strand]

Hi Mike, I’ve been enjoying your well-written and thoughtful posts.

If we delve into the “Panentheistic” approach to God, then we can understand how God can not only be beyond the universe, but also a part of the universe itself (i.e., transcendent and immanent at the same time).

If any of that sounds interesting to you, then check out (and maybe add to) the “Panentheism” thread, here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22608
_______

Thank you, seeds, for your compliment. And I appreciate your referring me to panentheism. I hope to understand it better some day.

For now, my first take on it is that pantheism views our familiar universe as containing phenomena and forces (the panentheistic "God") which underlie and permeate nature (the product of the Big Bang) but extend beyond nature, and which may well be beyond human comprehension. This may lead to altering or refining my definition of the "exo-natural": It is not distinct from the human-knowable part of the universe (nature) but rather contains and suffuses it, and also has aspects that go beyond nature.

[Noax]

Defining "to exist" is a philosophical area in which I, personally, fear to tread, wise or not. So Socrates's penchant for definition enters the picture yet again!

If I stick my neck out for the time being, let me pose this definition: "To exist" is to be detectable by human beings, or able to be investigated by human beings, or with which a human being may interact, according to the human senses or their extensions (e.g. telescope, blood hound, particle accelerator, and such).
Maybe this definition of "to exist" is a subjective, human definition, but it can inform human discussions.

A relational definition, which I like, but that is me. This one confines the relation to humans, making humans special. That is something I always find functional (as you point out), but dangerous, leading to conclusions like "God created humans so that he might exist?", or questions like how did life evolve into humans if Earth didn't exist until the humans did?
More subtle games: The moon doesn't exist now because no human can detect it. All we detect is light coming from some past state of the thing and from that we infer that it hasn't likely exited-stage-left since that past state. OK, that induction is a valid method of being aware of something, so the moon safely exists, but then so do places too distant to ever sense with any possible device. They exist only by being a consequence of whatever model we think best describes the natural world. That model says the moon is likely to be there now despite our complete inability to detect that. God exists by being a consequence of the model some people think best explains, well..., existence.

The usual generic definition is 'to stand out', which is what the word means. It means it is distinct from something that is nonexistent. I find that pretty meaningless in any objective sense, so hence my relational approach. Things exist relative to me, or to a rock, or to an integer, or whatever. Different things exist depending on what it stands in relation to. I don't exist to the number 13, but it exists in an abstract way to me. Ice exists to a rock that is broken by it. Distant places do not exist to me. Feel free to disassemble my idea of existence.
I need a different definition of 'the universe' because if it is based on a relation, then 'the universe to X' is not the same as 'the universe to Y', so there is no objective 'the universe'. I can say 'what exists in relation to the big bang singularity', but Earth does not stand out from that perspective, so it doesn't exist in that sense.

As for your last two sentences, Noax, regarding PhilX's question that defines the thread: At least it got me going, in terms of thinking about Socrates's advice. So I also extend my thanks to PhilX.

I think that is as he intended. He likes to start discussions, which is good if nobody else is doing it, but he doesn't often defend any particular stance on his own topics.

Yes, we've gone off topic, but without definitions, we've gone the only place we could: Concerning defining things so we know what is the question being asked. As of this point, there is no question. I have a set of things (me, you, a cup, 13, pain, planet Zog 30BLY north, and a god). I draw an arbitrary circle encompassing some subset of those. Is the god one inside or outside that arbitrary circle? The answer is meaningless without some kind of definition as to how the arbitrary <is included in 'the universe'> circle is drawn.

[Erk]

If (as Einstein suggested) the universe is FINITE yet INFINITE then there is one fundamental principle left for God to be that is greater than the universe and the universe would necessarily be within it. The principle is ABSOLUTE.

[trokanmariel]

God = not the universe

not the universe = anti-universe

anti-universe = violence to universe

violence to universe = universe to peace

universe to peace = magic to violence

God is a magic that is trying to become violent

[Dontaskme]

No OP can anticipate everything that's in the user's mind. But it's good when they can encourage on-topic discussion.

God is a concept known.

I'm around to help clarify.

Okay great, please clarify why you think a ''known concept'' is an Interesting problem?

Problem for who?

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

viewtopic.php?p=367614#p367614
In the above post re illusions, I listed there are various types of illusions, i.e.

• 1. Ordinary
  2. Empirical illusions of the senses
  3. Logical illusions
  4. Transcendental illusions.

According to Kant, there are only 3 types of transcendental illusions, i.e. God, the Soul and THE Universe as a whole.

If God is an illusion [arising from human brain processes], it cannot be within nor beyond THE Universe which is also another illusion if viewed transcendentally.

Just as a mirage is driven by processes within the brain via the senses in the limbic and other parts of the brain, God, the transcendental illusion is also produced by the brain via certain processes in the thinking parts of the brain.
God is an illusion when theists insist God is real or most real empirically when its specific framework and systems is transcendental, i.e. a conflation between empirical and transcendental.

The idea [btw not concept] of God emerged in human consciousness due to some psychological issues.
If we can understand an resolve these psychological issues then the idea of God [active and interactive] will vanish from one's consciousness and there will be no more theistic-based evil acts and violence.
This philosophical and psychological approach is not an impossibility since this already done and practiced within the Eastern religions and philosophies for more than 2,500 years ago, e.g. non-theistic Buddhism which ethos is compassion, pacifist and non-violence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

If the universe, as manifested through time as the "all", exists in a potential future state of possible universes with these universes as "the all" existing as "God" then God, through possibility, exists because of the universe through time...with time existing as a continual state of movement.

In simpler terms...time exists because of potential movement which in itself is unactualized yet is the means through which the actual exists.

[Eodnhoj7]

viewtopic.php?p=367614#p367614
In the above post re illusions, I listed there are various types of illusions, i.e.

• 1. Ordinary
  2. Empirical illusions of the senses
  3. Logical illusions
  4. Transcendental illusions.

According to Kant, there are only 3 types of transcendental illusions, i.e. God, the Soul and THE Universe as a whole.

If God is an illusion [arising from human brain processes], it cannot be within nor beyond THE Universe which is also another illusion if viewed transcendentally.

Just as a mirage is driven by processes within the brain via the senses in the limbic and other parts of the brain, God, the transcendental illusion is also produced by the brain via certain processes in the thinking parts of the brain.
God is an illusion when theists insist God is real or most real empirically when its specific framework and systems is transcendental, i.e. a conflation between empirical and transcendental.

The idea [btw not concept] of God emerged in human consciousness due to some psychological issues.
If we can understand an resolve these psychological issues then the idea of God [active and interactive] will vanish from one's consciousness and there will be no more theistic-based evil acts and violence.
This philosophical and psychological approach is not an impossibility since this already done and practiced within the Eastern religions and philosophies for more than 2,500 years ago, e.g. non-theistic Buddhism which ethos is compassion, pacifist and non-violence.

Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.

A unicorn has full empirical characteristic therefore is an empirical possibility and not an illusion. It is a matter of providing the necessary evidence [from Earth or outer space] to justify its existence empirically.

An example of an empirical illusion is a stick appearing as bent when placed between water and air but the reality there is no bent stick at all.
Because the illusion is an empirical one, it is not an idea but rather it is a concept.

Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space ..
idea = do not contain and devoid of any empirical elements, e.g. God, soul.

Whether it is an empirical illusion or illusory idea, both are represented by real neural connectivity and activities in the brain.
Therefore it is critical we understand the neural mechanics that enable concepts and ideas to emerge.

Note the empirical illusions in terms of synaethesia, i.e. cross wiring of senses where one can taste music. So it is matter of rewiring the brain to correct the illusion which I am optimistic in the future.

I believed the illusion of God which has pros and cons are also supported by certain neural processes in the brain which can be rewired [fool proof methods] to eliminate the terrible cons manifesting from theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils as a divine duty.

[Dontaskme]

The idea [btw not concept] of God emerged in human consciousness due to some psychological issues.

There is no 'human' inside of consciousness. Human is an idea of consciousness?

What is an idea? ..I have no idea.

Try descibing an ''idea'' without using concepts? ..of course an idea is going to be a concept.


Your musings are irrelevant about what you believe / think you know...because what is known...cannot know anything.

Consciousness does not have psychological issues....psychological issues are known concepts, aka ideas...totally not real.

Consciousness is not human..human is a known concept of consciousness. Only consciousness is concious of itself as a concept, else it is no thing.

.

[Dontaskme]

Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space

A concept has no empirical element. It's an idea which is invisible.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.

A unicorn has full empirical characteristic therefore is an empirical possibility and not an illusion. It is a matter of providing the necessary evidence [from Earth or outer space] to justify its existence empirically.

Then over time God is empirically possible through "The All".

An example of an empirical illusion is a stick appearing as bent when placed between water and air but the reality there is no bent stick at all.
Because the illusion is an empirical one, it is not an idea but rather it is a concept.

Actually the stick as "bent", being observed through the bending of light, observes all empirical illusions reflect the observation of light as a constant with the light bending through the air and water. What we observe is light, not the stick.



Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space ..

The problem with empiricism is that it is an idea. We observe through the senses but we do not observe the senses. I cannot see smelling or seeing "seeing", except through reason...leading to an inherently abstract element.
idea = do not contain and devoid of any empirical elements, e.g. God, soul.

All ideas exist through empirical means in the respect they exist through symbols, these symbols are composed of foundation geometric structures (such as lines or points whether through a form or even letter) and this nature of the line and point as boundaries have dual empirical means.


Whether it is an empirical illusion or illusory idea, both are represented by real neural connectivity and activities in the brain.
Therefore it is critical we understand the neural mechanics that enable concepts and ideas to emerge.

Show me the neurological mechanics that mandate this premise.

Note the empirical illusions in terms of synaethesia, i.e. cross wiring of senses where one can taste music. So it is matter of rewiring the brain to correct the illusion which I am optimistic in the future.

Actually synaethesia, if it empirically exists, cannot be labeled as a "disease" or "faulty" considering these are abstractions of deficiencies.

I believed the illusion of God which has pros and cons are also supported by certain neural processes in the brain which can be rewired [fool proof methods] to eliminate the terrible cons manifesting from theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils as a divine duty.

There can be no illusions in a strict empirical world as what exists exists as is. Illusion necessitates and absence of truth, but truth is an abstract concept.