Is "God exists outside of spacetime a logically incoherent phrase?

Hi, Jim!

         There are a couple of kinds of logical possibility. When you asked your question, maybe you had in mind strict logical possibility. A strictly logically possible proposition is one that is free of contradiction when formally expressed in a logical language. The formal expression of the proposition God exists outside of space and time is free of contradiction. Therefore, God exists outside of space and time is strictly logically possible.

         You wrote to Dr. Richard, “Exists outside of space and time = exists in no place, at any time = does not exist.”

         What relationship do the equal signs signify? Are you saying that existing outside of space and time entails does not exist, or that it means does not exist, or some other relationship?

Thank you, Jim.

From, Kaiden

According to the prevailing view among scientists, our current spacetime did not always exist. The universe began about 14 billion years ago. So, many conclude something must have existed outside of our spacetime that caused our universe to come into existence. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that the state of things do not change unless there is something that causes the change. Put more simply, you cannot create something from nothing. So, one can argue since our universe exists at all it is logically necessary for something to exist outside of our spacetime that caused the universe begin to exist.

Philospher W.L.Craig has a put forward an popular form of this argument he calls the "Kalam cosmological argument" that states:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It would seem difficult to argue that it is logically incoherent for the universe to have been caused to exist. The reasoning, althought potentially incorrect, at face value, is not incoherent from a logical standpoint. Whether the content of the argument is sound is a different question though...

The proposition is flawed because it presupposes god exists. Before you can get to where a god exists, you must establish the existence of the god. In short, check your premises. 

Well, the claim is certainly problematic if not entirely "incoherent".  Sadly, (judging from some of the mental aerobics on display) it is all too coherent to the theo-logically, teleo-logically and religiously-logically challenged. ( Dr. William Craig among them).

As Dr. Richard points out, the petitio claim presupposes a creator God exists beyond the constraints of the space-time continuum, which is either a special pleading, a colossal moving of the goal post, or, what the philosopher Daniel Dennett would call ludicrous "theological spin". 

The initial problem is that it deceptively superimposes a dubious theological hypothesis upon a mathematical model in physics (the spacetime continuum) or with tongue-in-cheek sarcasm,  the equivalent of inserting a chocolate souffle recipe into an auto mechanic's manual.

As Lawrence Krauss often reminds us: The [God] subject just doesn't come up in serious cosmological discussions or theoretical physics. So the claim here is yet another attempt of the eternally wistful to tag "Deum ergo" on to their endless litany of argumentum ignorantium. 

I don't think this is a question of logic, rather one of cosmology or even theology. The idea that something can exist "outside of space and time" is currently unfalsifiable. Also, it may be that we have an incomplete understanding of what space and time are (spacetime). In conclusion, I wouldn't say there is anything logically incoherent here. Having said that, I do see a logical problem when people say "before the Big Bang" for the same reason "north of the north pole" is a problem.

"Is "God exists outside of spacetime a logically incoherent phrase" incoherent?

No, How do you define "outside of spacetime". How would you prove or disprove it. This is more of a philosophical question and not a question of logic.

Wikipedia: "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. The fabric of space-time is a conceptual model combining the three dimensions of space with the fourth dimension of time. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur."

Your question is probably better suited for physicists or philosophers. Judging from some online references I've checked, it looks like you could just about flip a coin. Some people believe it's possible for something to exist outside spacetime, while others disagree.

To answer your question more directly, I would argue that the question itself is clear. The only problem is the term "spacetime."

It's clear (to me) that spacetime is a thing that exists, but we don't know if it's possible for anything to exist outside or apart from it. In plain English, it's more than my brain can comprehend.

This question would belong to the field of logic if it were affirmed that God exists and does not exist outside of time and space at the same time and in the same sense.

Nor does it belong to the field of fallacies.

Since there is nothing logically impossible with that assertion, the issue would probably be whether it is physically and metaphysically possible if God can exist outside of space and time. There is nothing metaphysically impossible since many Platonic atheists consider that non-espatial and timeless objects such as mathematical objects exist in that way, outside of space and time.

Being outside of spacetime is a state very familiar to us, because it is a state in we ourselves exist.  *We* are outside of spacetime ourselves, since everything we perceive of it is a representation that claims to be a projection. 

God is itself a projection, it is basically the same concept as 'other people'.  We project to other human and perhaps animal bodies we see a subjective existence that we actually cannot directly experience, as opposed to a merely objective existence these bodies share with for instance rocks or light waves. 

God is simply the same projection directed towards the universe as opposed to other people's bodies.  The universe is perceived to possess a mental will at the core of it, just as we perceive other people as having a mental will at the core of their purely bodily actions.

Disbelieving in God creates an interesting situation.  We are saying that the universe, even though it contains conscious entities as part of it's composition, does not itself possess the characteristics of it's own elements. But our superiority over nature in general remains intact, we alone have minds and nothing else does, the parts are superior to the whole. 

Believing in God creates another interesting problem.  The purpose of the division between subjective entities VS objective things is to create a moral hierarchy.  A rock has less moral worth than a human child and we should not defend the boulders freedom to go where it wishes and blame the children for getting in the way.  The moral system is based upon the idea that boulders are just mindless objects but add God into the picture and the boulder's crushing movements are an expression of his will.  The rock crushing the small child was God discreetly getting rid of a future Hitler and by interfering through our seemingly 'good action' we brought about a terrible future.