Can God be beyond the universe?
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:58 pm
Interesting problem.
PhilX
PhilX
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Yes, it is interesting -- one reason for this is that the solution may vary, depending on how the terms are defined. For example:
Some Silly Old Cow wrote:We have it all wrong. The Earth and Moon are our demigods and the Sun is God, but it's also a demigod subject to the greater deity - supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*. Our galaxy's centre which fulfils all criteria for God:
- it created us and our "universe" (galaxies are like universes at human time scales anyway)
- it is ineffable and mysterious
- it is in another realm - the insides of black holes are locked off from the rest of the universe, each effectively being a universe of its own
- it could smite us down at any time with a gamma ray burst
- we have a bit of it within everything. Quarks are the closest thing in baryonic matter to singularities such as is within black holes (quasi-singularities? we don't [yet] know)
The nature of our true deity, though, is such that It is unlikely to care much that some homininds on the Orion Spur of the Orion arm believe in a self-reflecting deity.
This reminds me of Spinoza defining βGodβ as βnatureβ, even (or especially) the parts we donβt now understand.Greta wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 12:18 am A bit daggy to quote oneself, I know, but a posting I just made in another thread here fits the thread theme too well
Some Silly Old Cow wrote:We have it all wrong. The Earth and Moon are our demigods and the Sun is God, but it's also a demigod subject to the greater deity - supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*. Our galaxy's centre which fulfils all criteria for God:
- it created us and our "universe" (galaxies are like universes at human time scales anyway)
- it is ineffable and mysterious
- it is in another realm - the insides of black holes are locked off from the rest of the universe, each effectively being a universe of its own
- it could smite us down at any time with a gamma ray burst
- we have a bit of it within everything. Quarks are the closest thing in baryonic matter to singularities such as is within black holes (quasi-singularities? we don't [yet] know)
The nature of our true deity, though, is such that It is unlikely to care much that some homininds on the Orion Spur of the Orion arm believe in a self-reflecting deity.
Mike Strand wrote: βMon Jul 09, 2018 12:04 am If the universe is everything that exists, then God, if extant, would belong to the universe by definition.
I agree with you, surrepitious 57! Our statements imply the same overall idea. I was being cautious, when I wrote If the universe is everything that exists ..., in case anyone out there might, for some reason, define the universe differently. I was also careful to state God also as a premise (... then, God, if extant ...). Your statement is just as good, if not better, as a piece of writing, and the reader needs to realize that the premises are implicit. My wording is perhaps more like a statement in mathematics.surreptitious57 wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 8:50 am The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS and so the notion of something beyond it makes no sense
Even God can not inhabit a point in spacetime that does not actually exist for it is just impossible
surreptitious57 wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 12:09 pm Sometimes the physical observable Universe and the metaphysical state that God supposedly inhabits are treated as entirely separate domains
But that is a category error because if the Universe is ALL THERE IS then that logically would include the metaphysical as well if it really exists
Christians and Muslims think that Heaven is a separate state beyond the Universe and that God exists outside of space and time. However both
of these beliefs are false regardless of whether or not God actually exists because they display no understanding of physics. If there is no space and time then there is nothing that can exist within it because it is non existent by definition
Once again, I agree with surreptitious57, here, under the definition of universe as everything that exists.Mike Strand wrote: βMon Jul 09, 2018 12:04 am If the universe is everything that exists, then God, if extant, would belong to the universe by definition.
There are plenty of other definitions. It requires a different definition of 'universe' to talk about a multiverse, or other universes.Mike Strand wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 11:25 am The universe as other than everything that exists (all there is)?? -- In my earlier post, I tried out the definition of the universe as being restricted to human-knowable nature. Such a notion is favored by folks who want to entertain a notion of the "supernatural".
(1) A defintion is not an assertion of reality. There are 3 things, and different definitions of 'set X' include anywhere from 0 to 3 of those things. There is no reality about which of the 3 things are actually in the 'correct set X'.Mike Strand wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 2:07 pm Here we get into two of the difficulties to which definitions and assumptions can lead: (1) Does a given definition or assumption reflect "reality", and (2) is the definition a common understanding of the word being defined?
Yes.When a person makes a case, we need to insist that the person defines his terms and clarifies his assumptions, whether or not we like the definitions or agree with his assumptions.
Then, our job is to see if the resulting conclusions follow the rules of logic. If they do, then we check whether the conclusions can be tested, or are obviously false, which would lead us to criticize the person's definitions or assumptions.
Two different definitions. The latter precludes other worlds inaccessible due to spatial separation, temporal seporation, or quantum decoherence. The former includes all these things, none of which can be the object of human observation. Science also uses a more broad definition than just our big bang. Other 'bangs' exist under chaotic inflation theory, so there is yet another definition of 'universe'.A common definition for "universe", or pervasive understanding of what it means, at least in physics, is whatever arose due to the Big Bang, and which is the object of human observation and study.
I like the term. It seems arrogant to assume that all can be worked out from our limited subjective viewpoint, just as cosmology probably is going to be never understood by a race forever confined to a dust cloud preventing views of other stars. There are likely parts of nature that are unknowable, but still natural. The big bang is our cloud. You can see it, but you can't see beyond it.Now we're faced with two conflicting assumptions: That Homo sapiens is capable of understanding the universe, at least some day, or is not capable of such understanding, at least of some of the universe. If a person assumes that human beings are incapable of understanding at least part of the universe, then there exists (from the Big Bang) a realm that might be called "exo-natural", to avoid the religious connotation of "supernatural".
Well, God sort of fits in that. God as a creator puts the god in a direct relationship with our spacetime: a created object. So what is nature then? The rules of God and his objects, or the rules of one of the objects? That definition must be clarified to distinguish a supernatural god from an exo-natural god. I don't think there is a correct definition of 'natural' then. Usually it means the physics of our spacetime, but not always.For example, if the "exo-natural" exists, suppose we can witness at least some aspects of it (e.g., events in nature triggered somehow by forces or objects in the exo-natural). Some such events may be amazing, beautiful, "inexplicable", and the like, to us, and some of us may conclude that they are, therefore, "miracles" -- or better, caused by exo-natural phenomena. Such phenomena, however, are those which human beings cannot understand, by definition. This means that this conclusion of an exo-natural cause can't be tested directly, because it can't be shown that such an event will never get a correct natural explanation.
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!Noax wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 3:27 pm Finally, one might wish to discuss the universe despite one's disbelief that it exists in any objective way, similar to how one might wish to discuss prime numbers despite lack of acceptance of their platonic existence. One can talk about the moon being part of the universe without committing to its objective existence.
So 'all there is' is a valid definition, but not the only valid one. Yes, the definition must be made clear before asking the question as PhilX has done. I notice no clarification, implying not much thought being put into the OP.
Inform controversy in this case: If the universe can contain things Homo sapiens cannot detect, discover and understand (the "exo-natural"), then immediately this subjective, human definition of "to exist" can be questioned. This merely restates some of Noax's observations. To paraphrase Noax, it appears hubristic for human thinkers to believe that Homo sapiens is able to know and understand everything about reality, at least eventually.Mike Strand wrote: βTue Jul 10, 2018 5:35 pm 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.
Hey, PhilX, do you like the responses to this question, or have they gone hopelessly awry?