The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[SteveII]

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.

Wouldn't we, by definition, be unable to comprehend a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God? Why isn't it reasonable to assume that our level of comprehension is the highest we are capable given that we are exactly opposite to the list of these attributes. What would you expect to be different?

[The Grand Nudger]

The let yourselves be unable to comprehend it ffs.  Are you having trouble comprehending -that-?

I don't want to hear any waffling nonsense about what is or isn't reasonable. Don't tell people that something is incomprehensible, while pretending to describe it.

[bennyboy]

I think it's most likely that I myself am God, that I have always existed, and that for shits and giggles, I have divided my body and awareness into an infinite number of small entities and philosophical principles, just because. . . fuck it, I'm God and it takes a lot to keep me entertained.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Wouldn't we, by definition, be unable to comprehend a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God? Why isn't it reasonable to assume that our level of comprehension is the highest we are capable given that we are exactly opposite to the list of these attributes. What would you expect to be different?

There is also the negative way. Although God in His fullness is inconceivable, we can know what He is not.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and when you're done ticking off the list of all the things that god isn't...go ahead and notify me of what remains, but not until then, preferably, so I can form an applicable opinion.

Show your work.

[T.J.]

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.

Wouldn't we, by definition, be unable to comprehend a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God? Why isn't it reasonable to assume that our level of comprehension is the highest we are capable given that we are exactly opposite to the list of these attributes. What would you expect to be different?

Why can't an all knowing, all powerful god be able to create a universe where its mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility and we'd be able to perfectly understand it so we wouldn't even be having this discussion?

[T.J.]

I think I'm starting to understand where these arguments are coming from. It's not so much grounded in Western Philosophy as Eastern Philosophy. I just had this gem thrown at me:

"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is void of all the defilement-stores, which are discrete and
knowing as not liberated.
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not void of the Buddha dharmas which are nondiscrete,
inconceivable, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, and knowing as liberated.

What?

[Alex K]

I think I'm starting to understand where these arguments are coming from. It's not so much grounded in Western Philosophy as Eastern Philosophy. I just had this gem thrown at me:

"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is void of all the defilement-stores, which are discrete and
knowing as not liberated.
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not void of the Buddha dharmas which are nondiscrete,
inconceivable, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, and knowing as liberated.

What?

All I can say is that we have two defilement stores near the train station. They seemed pretty liberated to me though. Dharma, I don't know...

[ignoramus]

I think I'm starting to understand where these arguments are coming from. It's not so much grounded in Western Philosophy as Eastern Philosophy. I just had this gem thrown at me:

"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is void of all the defilement-stores, which are discrete and
knowing as not liberated.
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not void of the Buddha dharmas which are nondiscrete,
inconceivable, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, and knowing as liberated.

What?

I understood it perfectly.
He said that he's a little constipated and has a migraine but he's having a massage soon so no-one panic!

[SteveII]

Wouldn't we, by definition, be unable to comprehend a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God? Why isn't it reasonable to assume that our level of comprehension is the highest we are capable given that we are exactly opposite to the list of these attributes. What would you expect to be different?

Why can't an all knowing, all powerful god be able to create a universe where its mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility and we'd be able to perfectly understand it so we wouldn't even be having this discussion?

I really don't know what you mean by "mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility".

But as to why the existence of God is not more obvious, I think that since 80-90% of the world believes in some sort of religion speaks to how obvious or not obvious that might be. Additionally, free will is a factor. Our chief purpose is to freely choose to know God so how obvious can God make it before that is affected? Of course you seem to be presupposing that the claims of the NT are completely false, so now you are arguing in a circle: 

1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.