Me too, but the "G" word pisses some people off, so I figure it's better to use a word that's not as likely to unnecessarily distract folks from the point I'm making.
Given those formulas, your religious proclivities would make sense. Since I'm now obviously talking to a logician I need to be more precise. I use "universe" as a euphemism for God, not a synonym. So for a mathematical analogy, I might use set theory instead of algebra, but I'm not sure that's entirely adequate either. You could say the universe is a subset of God. So by that analogy everything in the physical universe would also be part of God, yet God would be more than the physical universe itself. And then it might also be possible to say the God is IN everything. So by that token maybe pantheism wouldn't be totally out of line, except that it would fall short of recognizing the true source. And by that view, if you don't believe in God, you must also not believe in yourself. But I guess lots of folks are like that, including myself at times.
Yeah it all comes down to definitions, when I say "universe" I do not meant "physical universe" but rather "everything", including every no-thing . All of it. Whether god is "in" it or not, whether it all is god or not. All of it = universe. universe = god. if you want. that last step is optional
Well yeah, I can't agree with your definition - from a physicist's point of view, "the universe" is generally considered to be space-time, and has a definite starting point and age. I could say that God existed before the universe began, but since time is part of the physical universe that statement would make no sense. In fact, the harder I try to think about it, the less sense anything makes. And "nothing" makes no sense at all. Nuthin don't make no sense...
From the perspective of absolute any distinction is an abstraction. The whole defines the part, but the part does not define the whole.
