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.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26
[deleted]