Not a theists, but I don't understand the question.

God (G) and God's creation (C), taken as two separate entities, both assumed to exist. What is the name given to G and C together? {G, C} = ?

He's asking this:

1. God created the universe.
2. The universe is everything.
3. Everything includes God.
4. Did God create himself?

ah gotcha. in judeo-christian mythology wouldn't god be a sort of omnipresent energy encompassed within the universe?

No god 'created' the universe in my religion. Night was born out of Chaos and gave birth to Earth and the Stars.

Which isn't really that different to the Big Bang Theory. And the Universe works fine, as the deities are within the Universe.

The Bible would say that God was not created but that God is eternal, and in order to have created anything, he would have had to be in existence.

(It follows that he created time or the concept of it as well.)

Thucy,

I'm not aware of a word for that, though it wouldn't surprise me too much to find that Orthodox mystics or such in some age had coined one and I was just unaware of it. "The universe" I usually take to mean "the physical universe." In that event, I would call God + the physical universe + all other entities "all that exists." I don't think I'd have a single word for it, though, for the purpose that I don't often have a need to call for it. God is so primary, and is the only self-existent being, so that it is generally more conceptually useful either to refer to creation (the totality of contingently existent reality that God has decided will exist) and God (the being who spoke the former into existence, and who exists necessarily).

To answer your second question (which seems to me distinct, and not a restatement) there is no environment upon which God is dependent.

(Although some Christian theologians *might* have slightly different perspectives on the last point. It is unlikely any of them would view the physical universe as relevant to the discussion, in any event).

If there were a word for it, what significance would it have to you, the concept of "all that exists", if any?

And if there is no environment which God depends on, would you then agree that God himself is the environment on which other things then depend?

I don't know the precise term for the set of them both, but you're looking at the combination of mundane and the extramundane. I don't think I have a name for that since I think of them as separate.

But, isn't God supposed to be the Supreme Being, that which is contained by nothing else? Does God contain Creation? Or is he separate from it? Which is it?

Separate, more or less. I suppose one may think of God as an external reference point to the world.

Wait, they're either different or the same. So you're saying they're different? The universe is indepdent of God?

God is Spirit. God created the physical universe and everything in it, but is not himself within or constrained by the physical universe. Because God is Spirit, it is nonsensical to talk about him being in any kind of localized space. The scriptures teach that God is omnipresent.

By this, we do not mean that "parts" of God are "spread out" such that some "part" of God is present at all physical spaces, because God has no parts, has no extension, and takes up no physical space. He is present everywhere in the sense that all things are immediately in his presence.

To answer your question, it might be helpful to think about what theists would say existed or what the state of affairs was before God created the universe. Before the creation of the universe (using before is rather problematic because there was no time before the creation of the universe, but you understand the concept), God exists as he always has, does and will: eternally and infinitely. His creation of the physical universe does not then limit his eternality and infinitude due to the novel presence of physical matter. God is outside of space and time, outside of any understandable dimension. To speak of any sort of "set" including God and the universe is rather problematic. Perhaps the best thing to say is this:

The physical universe's existence is at every moment contingent on the sustaining power of God's will. God exists outside of time, space, and any conceivable dimension as an eternally existing entity. Thus, it is impossible to add anything into a "set" with God. God by himself is eternal, non-corporeal, non-dimensional. The universe is finite, corporeal, and limited by dimension. God's being is therefore wholly outside of the universe, and does not relate to it in any way.

Note, God's *being* is outside the universe and does not relate to it. And this seemed to be the point of your question. This is referred to as the transcendence of God. God's immanence deals with how he relates to the universe, and we can talk about that if we have to. But your question seems to be primarily focused on God's being.

Although this question is tricky... I would say that a way to REFER to God and Creation is reality. And by reality, I mean that which IS.

Thucy, God is not an environment, so I would not say He is the environment that the universe depends on. But I would say He is the being it depends on.

Also, +1 to Cyrus for finding a word as requested.

Your first question ("What significance....") I find too vague to answer. If you could elaborate, I could try.

So if nothing contains god, if god is the highest possible category, then god himself must be the universe that contains both the creator and the creation, or "reality" as it had been said.

So does it not then follow that god is this reality and this reality is god? Or do you disagree that nothing can contain God?

Would you not agree that God's definition is essentially superlative: above everything else, the one thing that nothing else can contain. So you must then believe that the creation is contained within God; it is a part of god, because if not, it is independent of him and thus he is not greater than it. So if the universe is contained within god, the two are connected, and connections cannot be reduced or broken. So the universe is part of god.

Now; what about the part of god that is not the universe? What properties does this aspect of reality have? Eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, once again essentially a superlative . But is not "reality" also a superlative , simply the complete sum of whatever exists? To me it seems that reality and god are the same, on this basis. Do you not agree

Either the total reality contains god, or it is god. You pick

@sulram.

You say the universe is dependent on god. The you say god is wholly outside the universe and does not relate to it any way. It can only be one of those, so which did you mean?

"Would you not agree that God's definition is essentially superlative: above everything else, the one thing that nothing else can contain. So you must then believe that the creation is contained within God; it is a part of god, because if not, it is independent of him and thus he is not greater than it."
I'm sorry, there are some logical gaps here that make it hard to follow.

Let me number this: 1) God is "the one thing that nothing else can contain" necessitates that 2) "the creation is contained within God" apparently because 3) "if not, it is independent of him" and therefore 4) "he is not greater than it"

I agree with you on #1. I don't see why #2 is necessarily entailed by this, mostly because I don't see how you arrive at #3. The creation IS ontologically distinct from God, but it's not clear how that translates into the creation's "independence" (which means exactly what in this context?) or, in the case of #4, greater greatness (by which I suppose that you mean a less contingent form of existence? or maybe not? I'm not actually sure).

God is ultimate reality. God is the first, and highest and only necessary thing that exists, and thus, had God not created, God would be the only thing that exists. Could one somehow ponder a universe in which God had not created, in which God was all that was, one might well ask "what is it to be in this universe where there is only God?" In such a universe the only conceivable answer is "to be is to be God." In that sense God is Being Itself.

You present a false dichotomy. Those two options are not the only possibilities.

God is not contained within the universe, because nothing can contain God. He is above all and not bound by his own creation (see several good points above about God being a spirit).

I would not agree that the physical universe is God, because the physical universe contains sin and sin is not compatible with who God is. God created the physical universe separate from himself, and sustains wholly by His will.

@Thucy

I don't know who you are replying too, but I think there are some real problems with how you are understanding the problem.

First, you claim that if nothing contains God, then "God himself must be the universe that contains both the creator and the creation." God cannot 'contain' anything, because God is not corporeal, extended in space, or limited by dimension. The created universe contains everything physical that has being. God, being eternal, non-corporeal, non-dimensional, and non-extended, does not contain the universe, but is wholly separate from it. In fact, 'separate' is not the right word, because it implies that there is another realm or dimension where God could be pinned down. God is not found in any extension of space. He is spirit, and therefore does not contain the universe or have his being relate to the universe in any way.

This also answers your second point. The physical reality of the universe is wholly other from the non-corporeal entity of God's being.

This also answers your third point. To be speak of creation as being *contained* within God is to misunderstand the nature of God's being. In order for God to contain something, he would have to be extended in space-time. He is not extended in space-time because he is non-corporeal. Therefore, again, God does not contain the universe. The universe is the total quantity of all physical existence, and is dependent upon God's *will* for continued sustenance, but the nature of physical existence does not relate to the nature of God's eternal, infinite, noncorporeal being.

Your fourth point is the really interesting question. I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this matter. I am thinking here of the existence of other non-corporeal beings, but also beings who are not eternal, such as angels. But this consideration does not seem to indict what you appear to be fishing for, namely, that God is somehow equivalent to the universe.

^Actually, scratch what I said about #1. I quibble with invoking the term "contain."

Well, that was a pretty significant cross-post there. My bad.

@smoker

If there is dependency, they are connected and cannot be considered separate entities. Dependency and connection are the same thing. If creation is distinct from god, it cannot be dependent on him, because if it is, it is not longer distinct, rather, it is inextricably tied to him. If it is dependent on him, it is contained by him.

@dipplayer "In that sense God is Being Itself."

I'm surprised to hear you say that; I agree completely. If god really is not dependent on creation, then he is larger than creation and contains it, and thus all things in this universe are contained by the Being that is god, that is their essence and their source.

@awgray

Quite right. Nothing can contain god. There is no higher set than god, and so, anything other than god which exists must be contained by god. This of course is the definition of a Universe, but theists call it god. I have problem with referring to it as God either

When I say contain , don't think physically contain if you don't want, like a box contains widgets. Think conceptually contain, like a Venn diagram.

But God is not a being. He is Being. The Great I Am.

This sort of thing is nearly impossible to put into words, and can only be understood in metaphor and analogy, and one must be willing to accept paradox.