The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[Whateverist]

There is a naive but tempting intuition that since some things which happen are the result of my intention that perhaps everything that happens is the result of some form of intention. Therefore God. I wonder where that falls in Piaget's scale of development?

[Whateverist]

"Byproduct" ??

Are we implying the universe is a turd ??

I've always felt that galaxies might be the turds of a creator who has no idea of the worlds He provides for us to live on.  To Him we are just parasites floating in the great toilet bowl of life.

[KevinM1]

Byproduct implies an inefficient process, which is something I have a hard time accepting a perfect being would engage in.

Of course, there's also the question: why would a perfect being need a process to do anything at all?

[T.J.]

Okay, I'm going to try to explain this as best I can as it's a new argument I've seen cropped up and I kind of like it if only for the fact it involved thinking outside the box for a change.

Basically, while talking about the 'Perfect God' conundrum, one proposed the idea that God didn't purposely create the known universe, but its existence simply allows it to be created and exist by being, and since it does not need or want it has no reason to end existence due to its omnibenevolent nature.

In short? God accidentally the universe!

Now the problem lies in the fact this is still working on the basis of God being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, and since I literally just got out of a conversation where it was explained to me how contradictory/impossible objects cannot exist, if it's then suggested that the universe exists due to God's existence, then the universe cannot exist because this god cannot exist, and the mere fact that our universe does exist proves that said god does not exist.

So... checkmate?

Anyone ever seen this argument proposed before? I don't know if it was ever brought up here or not.

I've never seen this argument before. But, it seems to me that if the universe is a byproduct (as suggested by your title), then one would need to know the product that was being created that lead to the byproduct. And, maybe, who the creator was of the original product might also need to be known.

I don't think the word "byproduct" in your title would be the correct word for what is proposed.


Maybe the rest of the post needs to be clarified for me, because the idea of 'Perfect God' is merely a reflection of the measurement of mankind as imperfect and an imagined ideal condition of mankind imposed on a godform.

Maybe not, but that was the word used in the argument so it's what I shared.

Yeah, okay, saying 'Perfect God conundrum' was confusing. That was the name of the thread, but the actual question being asked was why an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god would create the universe which led to the usual 'we cannot comprehend' that is always used so people don't have to think about it, and then the argument I highlighted in my OP cropped up.

[KevinM1]

Yeah, the "mysterious ways/we cannot comprehend" crap is always just a cop out for when theists have no real answer and are feeling uncomfortable about it. Might as well just say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" and be done with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Believers have an awful lot to say about a god they call mysterious and incomprehensible when it suits them.

[robvalue]

Wow! No, I've never heard of this argument before.

It's so strange, I'm not even sure what side it's arguing for.

[Alex K]

Believers have an awful lot to say about a god they call mysterious and incomprehensible when it suits them.

Hehe

[robvalue]

God, noun: Comprehensible while convenient

[lisah]

I've never seen this argument before. But, it seems to me that if the universe is a byproduct (as suggested by your title), then one would need to know the product that was being created that lead to the byproduct. And, maybe, who the creator was of the original product might also need to be known.

I don't think the word "byproduct" in your title would be the correct word for what is proposed.


Maybe the rest of the post needs to be clarified for me, because the idea of 'Perfect God' is merely a reflection of the measurement of mankind as imperfect and an imagined ideal condition of mankind imposed on a godform.

Maybe not, but that was the word used in the argument so it's what I shared.

Yeah, okay, saying 'Perfect God conundrum' was confusing. That was the name of the thread, but the actual question being asked was why an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god would create the universe which led to the usual 'we cannot comprehend' that is always used so people don't have to think about it, and then the argument I highlighted in my OP cropped up.

I see.

It seems to me that the argument still avoids the question why by eliminating the need for a why. If I understand correctly.