On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both
are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent,
outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has
the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically
contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again).
No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide
love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the
discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who
creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy
mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with
God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated
and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.:
they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were
in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real
world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at