It's the most common understanding, and Cambridge dictionary, for example, defines it as everything that exists.

It's the most common understanding, and Cambridge dictionary, for example, defines it as everything that exists. — S

Looked it up:

everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space — Cambridge Dictionary

OK, guess you better talk to a real atheist, or at least somebody who actually gives a crap about stuff outside time and space, cuz you’re not giving me anything to work with here. Such blanket, catch-all ideas like outside time, beyond time, not subject to time......beyond the Universe......just ain’t got no substance. Easy to say, easy to believe, pretty damn hard to explain.

To each, and all that.

Oh, whoops, I didn't mean to overlook the "in space" part. But that doesn't matter because it's nonsense to say that God exists outside of space, unless perhaps you just mean a concept, but that would trivialise God and miss the point.

Of course you’ve been given things to work with. Simply characterising them the way you do is a cop-out.

Oh, whoops, I didn't mean to overlook the "in space" part. But that doesn't matter because it's nonsense to say that God exists outside of space, unless perhaps you just mean a concept, but that would trivialise God. — S

Either the universe accounts for its own existence - by some inexplicable magic - or an entity beyond it does, which necessarily has the attributes of being timeless and immaterial. They are not arbitrary predications, and simply calling it nonsense does not make it so.

Either the universe accounts for its own existence - by some inexplicable magic - or an entity beyond it does, which necessarily has the attributes of being timeless and immaterial. They are not arbitrary designations, and simply calling it nonsense does not make it so. — AJJ

The only "things" I know of which could possibly qualify as having those attributes are concepts. If you're going to suggest that God is not a concept, and that God is a special exception, then you have a burden to justify that.

No, my friend, I have not been given anything except that which appears to me as nothing but blanket, catch-all generalizations. And I don’t cop out because of them; I simply don’t know how to respond. The concepts as you present them are completely foreign to me, and, I think you are mistaken in your characterization of atheism the doctrine.

Edit: I see you’ve qualified the “Universe accounts for its own existence”, by adding “by some inexplicable magic”. I don’t know if atheists in general call it inexplicable magic, but I do know theoretical astrophysicists certainly do not. Solving 4 of Einstein’s 10 field equations for GR gives rise to the possibility of quantum singularity at t0, from which the origin of the Universe as we know is given. Maybe.

But God is God precisely because he is not a part of anything. — AJJ

Now you're being all Aspieish about "part." That's not the idea. If there is an x--whatever imaginable x is--I label it as "the universe"

which necessarily has the attributes of being timeless and immaterial. — AJJ

If there are timeless and immaterial things, per how I use language, the universe has timeless and immaterial things.

If there are timeless and immaterial things, per how I use language, the universe has timeless and immaterial things. — Terrapin Station

And, on the face of it, that makes sense. If there were no universe, would there be timeless and immaterial things? I think that most people would think that there would be nothing.

The only "things" I know of which could possibly qualify as having those attributes are concepts. If you're going to suggest that God is not a concept, and that God is a special exception, then you have a burden to justify that. — S

God is a logical alternative to atheism’s universe-by-magic. If the universe is not the source of itself, then its source is beyond it, and so necessarily timeless and immaterial. The argument for God is an argument for, and a justification for believing in, a spaceless, timelss Creator.

sorry

God is a logical alternative to atheism’s universe-by-magic. If the universe is not the source of itself, then its source is beyond it, and so necessarily timeless and immaterial. The argument for God is an argument for, and a justification for believing in, a spaceless, timelss Creator. — AJJ

That's a dodge. If you expect people to reasonably believe that this supposed alternative possibility is plausible, then you must justify what appears to be special pleading.

Now you're being all Aspieish about "part." That's not the idea. If there is an x--whatever imaginable x is--I label it as "the universe" — Terrapin Station

Settle down. So if x is a pencil, you label the pencil “the universe”? Perhaps you’ve mistyped.

If there are timeless and immaterial things, per how I use language, the universe has timeless and immaterial things. — Terrapin Station

God can’t be “had” by the universe for the same reason I gave in my last post; he would be subject to it, and therefore not God. And we’ve established that your definition is peculiar using two dictionaries.

That's a dodge. — S

Saying it’s a dodge does not make it a dodge.

Saying it’s a dodge does not make it a dodge. — AJJ

Correct, it being a dodge makes it a dodge.

If you expect people to reasonably believe that this supposed alternative possibility is plausible, then you must justify what appears to be special pleading. You have yet to do so. What's arguably timeless, immaterial, and outside of space are concepts. If God is not a concept, then justify what appears to be special pleading.

(Sigh)

Saying it’s magical thinking doesn’t make it magical thinking.

Settle down. So if x is a pencil, you label the pencil “the universe”? Perhaps you’ve mistyped — AJJ

It's part of it if you think there's more than that thing in it. If you think there's only that thing in it, then it's the universe. I'm not being persnickety about that. I'm not being persnickety about grammar. I don't care about that. Everything that exists in any manner, whatever its nature, is the universe in my usage of the term.

God can’t be “had” by the universe for the same reason I gave in my last post; he would be subject to it, — AJJ

All I care about at the moment is that you understand how I personally use the term "universe"--it should be like a kindergarten-level thing to explain, but it's amazingly difficult to get it across to you. At any rate, so I'm not interested in making any sort of ontological claim at the moment at all. So, if you have a god and you also have things (or just one thing--whatever your ontology is) that the god isn't subject to, which is what you're suggesting above, then per the way I'm using language, there's a part of the universe that god isn't subject to, but there's also the part of the universe that's god. (or maybe a subpart of god that's the other stuff that he's not subject to--again, whatever your ontology is)

It's fine if my definition is peculiar. I never claimed otherwise. I'd be fine if I'm the only person in the world who is using it. I couldn't care less. Nevertheless, that's the way I use the term. It's not difficult to understand that that's the way I use the term.

Indeed. Most things about the universe and the stuff that makes it up have explanations, or we think that there's an unknown explanation, or we think that it's a brute fact.

Magical thinking, according to the interwebs, is the belief that one's own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. It is common in very young children. A four-year-old child, for example, might believe that after wishing for a pony, one will appear at his or her house.

These two ways of thinking are not the same. It's misleading to call the former magical thinking.

What's more, magical thinking seems much more like believing that there's a timeless, immaterial, creator of the universe who is conscious and beyond space.

What's arguably timeless, immaterial, and outside of space are concepts. If God is not a concept, then justify what appears to be special pleading. — S

My justification is that to avoid atheism’s universe-by-magic, you must posit a source beyond the universe, which, being beyond the universe, is necessarily spacless and timeless, not arbitrarily so, because it is beyond the universe, of which space and time are a part. To have creative power it must also be conscious, because as I think you’ll agree, concepts have no creative powers per se. The name we give to this entity is God.

(Sigh)

Saying it’s magical thinking doesn’t make it magical thinking. — Mww

No, but believing that the universe accounts for its own existence is, in my humble opinion, magical thinking.

My justification is that to avoid atheism’s universe-by-magic, you must posit a source beyond the universe, which, being beyond the universe, is necessarily spacless and timeless, not arbitrarily so, because it is beyond the universe, of which space and time are a part. To have creative power it must also be conscious, because as I think you’ll agree, concepts have no creative powers per se. The name we give to this entity is God. — AJJ

That's not a justification, because atheism doesn't posit a universe-by-magic, and your supposed alternative possibility to atheism is implausible and an instance of special pleading. A concept can't create the universe. A concept can't take actions. And a concept is all I have reason to believe might have these attributes you mention.

Solving 4 of Einstein’s 10 field equations for GR gives rise to the possibility of quantum singularity at t0... — Mww

What is this magic of which you speak? :lol:

I’m not misunderstanding the way you’re using the word. Your definition is problematic because it makes it impossible to speak properly about God, who is beyond and the source of the universe as commonly defined. He’s not beyond, but part of, but not subject to the universe, however you define it, because that’s just heap of contradictions.

Your definition is problematic because it makes it impossible to speak properly about God, — AJJ

My usage of the term wouldn't change anything whatsoever about anyone's ontology. It just changes whether we're saying that something belongs to the universe or not. God would simply be beyond the source of the rest of the universe.

Solving 4 of Einstein’s 10 field equations for GR gives rise to the possibility of quantum singularity at t0, from which the origin of the Universe as we know is given. Maybe. — Mww

Is such a thing as a singularity a scientific fact? Does it rise to the level of scientific theory, which I assume you know has a specific meaning, think theory of gravity?

Consider this, if you please: the Universe can account for its own existence, but cannot be supposed as the cause of its own existence. The former carries the mandatory presupposition the Universe already exists, from which the account for it would logically be contained in it. The latter, on the other hand, falsifies the almost mandatory principle of cause and effect, which as far as our human intelligence is concerned, is categorically self-defeating.

Accepting these conditions (or some equivalents) permits your causal hypotheticals, but as soon as you objectify them, by bringing them out into the world, you have to justify them with something stronger than overly generalized assertions, in just the same way non-theists justify theirs.

That's not a justification, because atheism doesn't posit a universe-by-magic, and your supposed alternative possibility to atheism is implausible and an instance of special pleading. — S

To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleading.

A concept can't create the universe. A concept can't take actions. And a concept is all I have reason to believe might have these attributes you mention. — S

I know, that’s why the source of the universe can’t be simply be a concept, as I said. Again, you’ll have to explain why what I’ve posited is special pleading.