On 2 Mar, 11:54, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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).
cf Whitehead's Primordial Nature of God.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
