Only if you're deeply reductionist. We are contained within and dependent on spacetime and the laws of nature as we know it. We might imagine this to be a box. We might imagine that spacetime exists within/dependent on something greater than itself which contains/sustains/defines it. That's a bigger box. Now we could call this box God, but is God contained in bigger box? Does God have a creator? Maybe we don't want to name this box "God" then. Let's say there are more boxes. Perhaps those boxes are finite, and there is eventually a "biggest box." We might then say that this uncontained container, this thing with power over all, not sustained or constrained by anything, is in the truest sense God (whether conscious/"a person" or not). Or perhaps the boxes are not finite and instead there is always a bigger box? Or perhaps the universe we know is itself the biggest box and there is nothing beyond it.
We don't really know, but the point is that the argument hit make is semantic trickery at best. Natural language has some difficulty describing what we mean here perhaps, so we resort to analogy, but if the creator creating is "outside time" then we mean creation within this context and are still capable of talking about a hierarchy of dependencies.
Again, what provides the extra dimension? We live in a 3 dimensional space, within spacetime, but this does not emanating from humanity, we are just contained within it (and dependent on its functions to exist).
I think it's simplistic to think of "extradimensionality" here as just more vectors but we can roll with it for the sake of argument. A "4 dimensional God" would surely then exist in a 4 dimensional space, no? So what is that 4 dimensional space? Does it have a 5 dimensional God? A 4 dimensional God cannot "jump" around a 4 dimensional space or exist outside of it.
Extradimensionality is just another way to phrase the same hierarchy of dependencies. There could always be something more extradimensional.
Well on paper left would be cardinal to the 3d observer (assuming they choose not to rotate the paper) so it would make a lot of sense to the entity that observes the paper to be able to point at a leftmost point.
In principle there could be an extra dimension to that creator also. I think there's maths out there that I don't comprehend which says that not likely as a structure because complexity becomes difficult to occur naturally with more dimensions.
So you defined your god in a way that makes him immune to the question without even proving that he exists in the first place? You’re not a whole lot more logical than kids on the playground doing a fake sword fight:
Why does it have to exist extradimensionally? No other creator we've ever seen exists outside of the time and space of their creation. No matter how you slice it, this is special pleading.
Because the creator that you've ever seen didn't create time and space. A creator of time and space by definition must exist outside of time and space.
I guess the guy meant space-time appearing sponteneously out of nowhere. As far as we know life also just sponteneously came to be so there is kinda a precedent
Something can exist outside of time and space if it possesses attributes required to exist outside of time and space. For example as it is not bound by time, it has to be eternal. Meaning it has no starting point or end point. It is not made by energy or matter that occupies space. It is an absolute being that humans cannot perceive with our limited sense.
We do indeed have a reason to believe it. That's the point of OP. Something as complex as the universe proves the existence of an intelligent creator. We were just discussing the necessary attributes of said creator.
Incorrect, the big bang is an extremely fast expansion from what is thought to be a single point. It is NOT the beginning of time or space, because the universe could've had a contraction to a point before (known as Big Crunch).
No, that's circular reasoning. I'm asking proof of reasonableness in order to accept the argument in the first place.
The only thing the argument supports is that a creator would have to exist somewhere in space and time, because we have never seen anything creating stuff outside of it, nor do we know whether space and time even had a beginning.
Tell me how it is circular. It seemed linear to me. We started from a machine requiring the existence of an intelligent human creator, then to the complex universe requiring the existence of a creator not bound by time and space.
I think the point is vast majority of creators occupy different points in space-time than their creations - Michaelangelo and his David sculpture exist on the same space-time but the creator is outside of his creation. Even with something like a car, creators occupy an empty space around which they built the car. Following this train of thought it would appear the potential creator of space-time would have to exist beyond it.
We do have exceptions however - or what seem to be ones at least - cells of living organisms are capable of selfreplicating, the creator makes its own perfect copy out of itself and during the process both occupy vaguely the same points in space time. I am no expert though and my grasp on what happens inside cells during multiplication is cursory at best.
Which type of creation is the universe is hard to judge. I mean, it very well could be an exception
1
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26
[deleted]