Can God be beyond the universe?

[osgart]

If this universe is all there is, then its materiality must be endless. I can easily imagine that existence must be infinite in all directions, for i can not imagine total nothingness beyond its borders. So the idea of something lesser existing beyond all universes seems far fetched because life as we know it is energy. Something greater than the universe seems almost likely. God must have limitations, as nothing is perfect for life. God is bound to the laws of existence, and so are we.

[trokanmariel]

outside the universe = universe outside

universe outside = outside non-universe

outside non-universe = observing non-universe

observing non-universe = universe observing

[Greylorn Ell]

This OP is typical of incompetent philosophers and their gaggle of wanna-be's. The remarkable thing about this thread is the large number of pinheads who responded as if the OP asked an intelligent, or answerable question.

Define what you mean by "God," and do so precisely. In other words, describe this entity in terms of its properties. Then ask the question.

Greylorn

[bahman]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

I don't understand how God could create something less than perfect if He is absolutely good. The universe is not perfect.

[devans99]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

I don't understand how God could create something less than perfect if He is absolutely good. The universe is not perfect.

Creation of perfect universe is impossible. For example the universe is not perfect if there are other people (clashes of interest) or if you are on your own (lonely) so a perfect universe is impossible.

Creation of an 'optimal' universe is possible but what optimal is depends on God's powers. If you put aside conventional religion's claims and assume God has realistic, non-magical powers then maybe the universe we have is actually optimal.

[seeds]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

I don't understand how God could create something less than perfect if He is absolutely good. The universe is not perfect.

What the heck does “absolutely good” even mean?

Furthermore, if you consider the possibility that the central purpose of the universe is to manipulate the essence of life in such a way that allows it (causes it) to awaken into a completely new individualization of personal consciousness - (i.e., a new “I-am-ness” or “soul” that is in possession of the hidden potential of eternal life in a higher context of reality)...



...then the universe (or at least our little area of it) seems to be perfectly crafted to achieve that goal.

And if you are looking for some kind of transcendent (Platonic) form of perfection (as is implied in religious doctrines), then clearly, that was never meant to apply to our existence on earth.
_______

[seeds]

Creation of perfect universe is impossible. For example the universe is not perfect if there are other people (clashes of interest) or if you are on your own (lonely) so a perfect universe is impossible.

Creation of an 'optimal' universe is possible but what optimal is depends on God's powers. If you put aside conventional religion's claims and assume God has realistic, non-magical powers then maybe the universe we have is actually optimal.

Yes, devans99, the universe we have is indeed “actually optimal” (see my prior reply to bahman).

Humans simply need to dial down their utterly impossible to live up to assessment of God’s attributes (e.g., omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, absolute goodness, etc., etc.).
_______

[bahman]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

I don't understand how God could create something less than perfect if He is absolutely good. The universe is not perfect.

Creation of perfect universe is impossible. For example the universe is not perfect if there are other people (clashes of interest) or if you are on your own (lonely) so a perfect universe is impossible.

Why not? God is perfect so His act must be perfect too.

Creation of an 'optimal' universe is possible but what optimal is depends on God's powers. If you put aside conventional religion's claims and assume God has realistic, non-magical powers then maybe the universe we have is actually optimal.

What does optimal mean in this context?

[bahman]

Interesting problem.

PhilX

I don't understand how God could create something less than perfect if He is absolutely good. The universe is not perfect.

What the heck does “absolutely good” even mean?

Furthermore, if you consider the possibility that the central purpose of the universe is to manipulate the essence of life in such a way that allows it (causes it) to awaken into a completely new individualization of personal consciousness - (i.e., a new “I-am-ness” or “soul” that is in possession of the hidden potential of eternal life in a higher context of reality)...



...then the universe (or at least our little area of it) seems to be perfectly crafted to achieve that goal.

And if you are looking for some kind of transcendent (Platonic) form of perfection (as is implied in religious doctrines), then clearly, that was never meant to apply to our existence on earth.
_______

Absolutely good means without any evil, badness, etc.

[devans99]

I don't understand how God could create something less than perfect if He is absolutely good. The universe is not perfect.

Creation of perfect universe is impossible. For example the universe is not perfect if there are other people (clashes of interest) or if you are on your own (lonely) so a perfect universe is impossible.

Why not? God is perfect so His act must be perfect too.

Creation of an 'optimal' universe is possible but what optimal is depends on God's powers. If you put aside conventional religion's claims and assume God has realistic, non-magical powers then maybe the universe we have is actually optimal.

What does optimal mean in this context?

God as a perfect being is a view from traditional religions which I do not buy. If God exists he is not perfect. He has finite powers and finite intelligence. So creation of an optimal universe would be the best universe that God could create for life with his limited powers and intelligence.

I think an optimal universe for life has the following characteristics:

- Formation of complex molecules is possible, particularly carbon
- Ready source of power for life (the stars)
- An environment for life to form and develop (the planets)
- As large as possible to support as much life as possible

So what we have in our universe is close to optimal as could be expected considering the limitations God was working under.

[seeds]

What the heck does “absolutely good” even mean?

Absolutely good means without any evil, badness, etc.

That which is absolutely good for the lion’s survival (claws, fangs, stealth), is bad/evil for the zebra.

That which was bad/evil for the dinosaurs (an asteroid hit on the planet), was absolutely good for the development of mammals (humans).

That which is bad/evil for humans (a devastating flood, for example), is absolutely good for replenishing the ground water and soil nutrients.

The list goes on and on.

So what exactly would the universe (as in life on earth) look like under your simplistic interpretation of what absolutely good means?
_______

[devans99]

What the heck does “absolutely good” even mean?

Absolutely good means without any evil, badness, etc.

That which is absolutely good for the lion’s survival (claws, fangs, stealth), is bad/evil for the zebra.

That which was bad/evil for the dinosaurs (an asteroid hit on the planet), was absolutely good for the development of mammals (humans).

That which is bad/evil for humans (a devastating flood, for example), is absolutely good for replenishing the ground water and soil nutrients.

The list goes on and on.

So what exactly would the universe (as in life on earth) look like under your simplistic interpretation of what absolutely good means?
_______

I think there are absolute and universal standards of good and evil. To address your examples:

1. Lions are evil; all carnivores are evil including humans.
2. Asteroid strikes are evil. Intelligent dinosaurs would have evolved instead which would have been better than humans.
3. Excessive rain fall is evil, moderate rainfall is good.

In general, anything that causes pain is evil and anything that causes pleasure is good. This is applied to a group rather than individuals (so the lion eating the Zebra is evil because the Zebra's pain outweighs the Lion's pleasure).

When you apply this approach to the planet as a whole, all animals would be vegetarians. Humans would care for each other and the animals. We would build technology to harness and control nature so as to eliminate the evil aspects for ourselves and the animals.

[seeds]

What the heck does “absolutely good” even mean?

Absolutely good means without any evil, badness, etc.

That which is absolutely good for the lion’s survival (claws, fangs, stealth), is bad/evil for the zebra.

That which was bad/evil for the dinosaurs (an asteroid hit on the planet), was absolutely good for the development of mammals (humans).

That which is bad/evil for humans (a devastating flood, for example), is absolutely good for replenishing the ground water and soil nutrients.

The list goes on and on.

So what exactly would the universe (as in life on earth) look like under your simplistic interpretation of what absolutely good means?
_______

I think there are absolute and universal standards of good and evil. To address your examples:
1. Lions are evil; all carnivores are evil including humans.

It may be evil from the prey’s perspective, but not from the carnivore’s perspective.

(Btw, calling lions and carnivores “evil” is a misnomer. But we’ll go with it anyway.)

2. Asteroid strikes are evil. Intelligent dinosaurs would have evolved instead which would have been better than humans.

Okay, so an asteroid not striking the earth would have been absolutely good for the dinosaurs, but on the other hand it would have been bad/evil for mammals (humans). You need to stop ignoring the fact that there are contrasting perspectives implicit in your examples.

And furthermore, why in the world would you assume that dinosaurs would have evolved into something “better” than humans? ? ?

In general, anything that causes pain is evil and anything that causes pleasure is good.

A sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Is that good?

The investors in the stocks of Lockheed Martin derive pleasure from the dividends they receive from the manufacturing and selling of military drones that aid in the slaughter of innocent civilians. Is that good?

A nation of greedy and aggressive humans derive pleasure from the spoils they collect (oil and other resources) after vanquishing other nations. Is that good?

(There are too many examples to enumerate.)

This is applied to a group rather than individuals (so the lion eating the Zebra is evil because the Zebra's pain outweighs the Lion's pleasure).

It’s not the lion’s pleasure being considered here, it is the lion’s survival – a survival based on evolution not equipping it with the necessary digestive system to be a herbivore.

Therefore, by extrapolation, you must ultimately blame Mother Nature (evolution) or God (the designer) for what you are designating as being the evil aspects of the universe.

Are you thus prepared to say that God is evil?

When you apply this approach to the planet as a whole, all animals would be vegetarians. Humans would care for each other and the animals. We would build technology to harness and control nature so as to eliminate the evil aspects for ourselves and the animals.

Ah yes, the illusive dream of an earthly utopia (with John Lennon’s song “IMAGINE” softly playing in the background).

What you are describing reminds me of one of those scenes on the cover of a Watchtower/Awake magazine (published by the Jehovah's Witnesses) where vacuous, Stepford Wifey-ish humans are busily gathering fruits and berries in an idyllic setting, while a child, a lion, and a lamb are frolicking together in the foreground of the image.

I personally believe that the universe would be sadly diminished in its excitement and vibrancy if majestic lions and tigers and wolves were somehow stripped of their fierceness.

I have blathered-on long enough for now.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Double-posting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is perfect so His act must be perfect too.

I can understand from your perspective why God must be absolutely perfect and ultimately superior to all.

The point is, if you do not claim your God to be absolutely perfect, then some other theists will do that. Thus a God which is claimed to be perfect and all powerful by other theists can subdue your God and make it inferior to the extent that a more superior God can command your inferior God to kiss its ass or eat sh1t.
This is what happened with Islam claiming their God to be the most superior and thus dominate over all other inferior gods including the corrupted God of Christianity and Judaism.

Thus to avoid being inferior to another God, theologians [Christians especially] came up with the ontological God, i.e. "a God than which no greater can exists." Such an ultimate ontological God will leave no possible room for another to claim a higher God.
Note St. Anselm and Descartes came up with such a possible God which is followed by Islamic theologians.

BUT the problem is, the imperative ultimate ontological God is merely pseudo rational and cannot be empirically possible to be real.
Thus God [ultimately] is an impossibility.

If one believe in an empirically possible god which will be inferior to another God, so be it, but to insist it is real empirically, then bring empirical evidence to justify its existence. Until then such an empirical possibility is a mere speculation of no substance, is inferior to the ontological God and be dominated by a more superior God.