On Mar 2, 9:11 am, "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Stathis' proposal is not the same as Whitehead's concept. Stathis' original proposal (the plenitude is God): all that is is God. Whitehead's concept: all that is is IN God, and God is IN all that is. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
