On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God,
> who
> > doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality,
> containing
> > these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If
> you're
> > happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra
> layer
> > of complication instead of stopping at the universe?
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of
> universes doesn't either for that matter).

Actually, the plenitude does break the circularity, trumping even God. God
could create or destroy his own separate physical universe but the infinite
and infinitely nested universes of the plenitude, at least matching God's
work, would exist regardless. If you don't agree with this statement at
which point do you think the analogue of our present universe in the
plenitude would fall short of its real counterpart: would stars and planets
develop? Life? Zombie humans? Conscious humans but lacking a soul (and if
you could explain what that would mean)?

By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the
> existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system
> of logic.  I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only
> possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate
> meaning.  And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck
> with multiverses.  I think I've made my point.

Well, I think from what you've said you would have to agree that if you can
find a way to prove that ultimate morality and meaning exist, you would also
prove that God exists. Is there a way of proving that these entities exist,
independent of a separate proof of God's existence?

Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the
> Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last
> section on "whim".  The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only
> with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic.  This is the
> problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a
> closed system.  God's love transcends all closed systems.

That reference seems to suggest that there is an extra-God criterion for
morality, because as God is all-loving, "God's arbitrary commands can't be
arbitrary in the sense of being based on whim, but must instead concern
behaviour that is in the overall best interests of those involved".

through the dark dry barren sky
> pierced a warm red wet rain
> can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him
>   -- "Song of Longinus"

Who wrote that?

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to