On Mar 1, 5:26 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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)?

God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order.  He
basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless
histories of the universes.  But this seems superfluous to what is
needed for meaning for us in this universe.  Thus why bother with
multiverses?  You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning.

> > 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?

Not proof in the sense of logic in a closed system of course.  How can
you *prove* something ultimate from something non-ultimate?  But as I
have said before, I am arguing *from* the fact that meaning and
morality are evident to us (my posts on "seeing" and consciousness),
and that you can't have meaning without ultimate meaning of the same
nature as the meaning.

> > 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".

You can't put God's love in a box.  Remember that I'm not pushing
through to a proof of God's existence.  You seem to be assuming that I
am.  I'm talking about what is evident to us, and the multiverse can't

> > 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

I did.


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