Redefining existence to exclude God

[CatholicSoxFan]

I’ve heard many atheists define the universe as “all that exists” rather than “all material existence” (all matter, energy and space), which is the standard definition that you’ll find in one form or another in dictionaries, and I’ve seen a lot of them insist based on the above definition that if God exists outside of the universe, He does not exist. Of course, their definition presupposes the truth of materialism, so the whole argument is a circle. Thus may seem obvious, but I’ve seen many theists get tripped up on these kinds of semantics that prove absolutely nothing.

 

[robert_chacon]

Thats exactly it, atheism is a belief system that assumes that reality is ONLY that which they can tough, see or measure. That in itself is a faith that cannot be proven! And as such we should never concede that point in an argument about the existence of God. Reality based only in matter is a very limited reality that cannot be proven and for which there is much evidence to refute it.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Using this definition of existence is also incoherent, as this YouTube apologist points out.

 

[polytropos]

I’ve heard many atheists define the universe as “all that exists” rather than “all material existence” (all matter, energy and space), which is the standard definition that you’ll find in one form or another in dictionaries, and I’ve seen a lot of them insist based on the above definition that if God exists outside of the universe, He does not exist. Of course, their definition presupposes the truth of materialism, so the whole argument is a circle. Thus may seem obvious, but I’ve seen many theists get tripped up on these kinds of semantics that prove absolutely nothing.

This reasoning would either be question begging or based on an equivocation.

If one says that the universe is all that exists, then the theist can still say that universe is being used in a way that is not limited to “all material existence,” since God exists and is not material. If the atheist replies that the universe is all that exists and is material, then he is begging the question unless he has offered a separate argument nothing existing except that which is material.

 

[balto]

I’ve heard many atheists define the universe as “all that exists” rather than “all material existence” (all matter, energy and space), which is the standard definition that you’ll find in one form or another in dictionaries, and I’ve seen a lot of them insist based on the above definition that if God exists outside of the universe, He does not exist. Of course, their definition presupposes the truth of materialism, so the whole argument is a circle. Thus may seem obvious, but I’ve seen many theists get tripped up on these kinds of semantics that prove absolutely nothing.

Well I think the main thing to do in an argument such as this is get a clear definition of what the objector means when they are talking about the universe. If universe means what you said (everything that exists), then what causes the universe? It obviously needs a cause because without all the parts of the universe existing the universe would not exist, so the universe is not uncaused.

Note also that it is no good to simply claim that everything that makes up the universe is uncaused. There can only be one uncaused Cause. If A and B are both proposed to be uncaused, then presumably there exists some condition by which A and B differ. If such a condition exists however it causes A and B to exist, so the existence of A and B depend on the condition by which they differ existing. You eventually end up with a metaphysically simple first cause that transcends the universe because the universe and everything in it is not identifiable with the first cause. Unless of course we end up playing a game of equivocation on what the words “universe” and “God” mean as opposed to using what each traditionally has meant.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve heard many atheists define the universe as “all that exists” rather than “all material existence” (all matter, energy and space), which is the standard definition that you’ll find in one form or another in dictionaries, and I’ve seen a lot of them insist based on the above definition that if God exists outside of the universe, He does not exist.

This sounds like a matter of semantics. “Universe” can mean different things. In some context it means all that exists. In others it refers to sections of space that are “reachable” (I don’t want to spend to much time explaining reachable here, but text on the implications about the expansion of space-time discuss this further). Under the latter definition the “Universe” is just one set of things that exists and the name given to the collection of all the universes is “multiverse.”

It’s also worth noting that the definition of the word “Universe” may have swapped within the declarations that were being presented to you. It appears that those to which you are speaking are trying to assert that the declarations “God is outside the universe” to be in contradiction to “All that exists is in the set that we call the ‘universe’”. To be a contradiction the word “universe” would need to mean the same thing in both propositions, and it doesn’t.