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