The universe does not have an “outside.” By definition, the universe is everything that exists. If it does not exist in the universe, it doesn’t exist.
Even if your God were able to somehow exist nonsensically “outside” the universe, that would still make it indistinguishible from non-existent as far as the universe was concerned, because it would not be able to affect or interact with the universe.
You can’t define a word by restating the same word. Defining it as the opposite of something is fine. So what does “good” mean?
Scroll up and read the Wiki entry on Bell’s Theorem.
I would still be emotionally repulsed by it. Others might not. It would still be subjective, though. Most humans think that shit stinks, that doesn’t mean that shit objectively stinks, because “stink” only describes a human biological response, not an objective quality.
1> Which just goes to show you limit your sphere of thought to the physical universe. On what basis?
2> Again I ask…on what basis do you argue a God who is apart fomr the physical universe could not interact with the universe? This has not been answered.
On the basis of pure definition, and physics. Do you know anything at all about physics? Who told you that the universe has a boundary with an “outside” part to it?
Because that would be a logical contradiction. If it interacts with the unverse, it’s part of the universe. You can’t have it both ways.
An action is good if it is (broadly) beneficial, conducted without unjustifiable harm to others. The definition can go on. Most sane people recognise fundamental differences between good and evil without a lesson in ethics.
You aren’t answering the question.
Why would you be repulsed by it?
What would you think of the person who was not?
We’ve been here before. Even in the physical universe I can demonstrate this is a fallacy. I can interact with my fish pond and not be part of it.
If an entity had the wherewithall to make the physical universe, it is absurd to suggest that entity was then divorced from it. Unless you can demonstarte this is a logical impossibility.
Why do you think humans being able to agree on this definition requires magic?
Most people have general ideas about what they decide to call “good and evil.” Where things break down is when they try to agree on what goes where. There is no universal ethos, though some taboos come close (as they do in non-human animals as well).
Yes I am. That was exactly the answer to your question.
This is a DIFFERENT question, but I’ve already answered this one as well, and answered it multiple times.
It would depend on why they were not.
I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing.
No you can’t.
Familiarize yousrself with Bell’s Theorem. Wiki didn’t invent it. You’re also going about things wrong by asking for an authority. You would do better by actually learning something about scientific method.
‘Some taboos’ come more than close. There is a fairly universal (human) recognition that child abuse, murder, theft, rape are ‘wrong’. It is only in very small minorities, or amongst the insane, where these are considered anything other than wrong.
Yes I can. I can throw in fish food.
No, they don’t come more than close. There is no universal ethos. Sorry. Even the ones that tend to come close (because of obvious shared evolution among humans) are typically filled with loopholes and exceptions and are often not intended to apply universally to alll humans, but only to the in-group.
I am familiar with Bells Theorum. I prefere to read the source; Wiki has it’s problems, as I’m sure you are aware.
So can you name a physicist who has been published claiming virtual particles derive from nothing?
So prohibitions against child abuse are only supposed to apply to the ‘in group’?
And how does a prohibition against murder have an evolutionary background when killing off ones competition would provide more resources for oneself?
That makes you part of the pond.