Philosophically, though, you allow yourself unlimited room to define or redefine "God" whereas I am held to your definition of reality, materialism etc. I don't think that is fair :o). Why can't I define a multiverse as an eternal sea in which an infinite variety of universes bubble away?
In a philosophical dialog, the rules should be the same for birds and frogs.
Dear Soliton, I cannot "define" God at all! Though I do have conceptions of Him based on His own self-revelations and on my sense of His presence in my life. God in His immensitas transcends human reason, understanding, and imagination altogether.
Michael Novak, a Roman Catholic and author of the recently released No One Sees God, in a letter to the editor (National Review, December 15, 2008) speaks eloquently to this issue:
Jewish and Christian conceptions of God derive from God's own "pulling back the veils" (revelare) that hide his full nature from reason. But revelation depends on the possibility that the Author of all things can make known, to creatures capable of insight, reasoning, and judgment, truths addressed to their minds. He invites them to accept or to reject these truths, on grounds for which they are prepared to give an account. Thus, revelation implicitly affirms the legitimacy and necessity of the exercise of reason."...Because reason has limits does not mean that reason is worthless. Novak's statement accords with the scholastic philosophical tradition of the Roman Church advanced by such great spirits as Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm. This tradition ever has been motivated by fides quaerens intellectum, "faith in search of its reason." Faith is primary. Some faithful will be drawn to this search; others not. There is nothing wrong with simple faith, simple belief. But a philosopher — a lover of God's wisdom — will be drawn to the search.
Novak adds, "Even non-philosophers — especially non-philosophers — usually have an obscure awareness of God's presence. That seems to be the default position of the human race, not only in the long-distant past but today."
Indeed, it seems to me they must be aware of God; for many of them are doing battle with God, and for that to happen, He must somehow be "present" in the fight....
You certainly can define a multiverse as "an eternal sea in which an infinite variety of universes bubble away." This would then be your hypothesis. The problem is whether the hypothesis is true, and how do you find out?
You wrote, "In a philosophical dialog, the rules should be the same for birds and frogs." I totally agree with you! Just as the laws of the universe are said to be the same for all observers regardless of their inertial fames (roughly translated as their spatio-temporal positions). Einstein said this, in 1905. BTW, his statement is still regarded as a "theory" only, evidently because nobody really knows how to test it. (Just to indicate how deep the epistemological problem goes here....)
Anyhoot, the frog and the bird see what they see from where they sit. So to speak. The frog's view is closer in to the ground, to the material world; the bird, in flying to the highest point, has a more panoramic, aerial view. It would lack the "finer resolution" of the frog's view. On the other hand, the frog doesn't see what's coming "from over the hill" till it gets to where he is, while the bird does. Both views may well be truthful views. Perhaps the apparent difference in the respective accounts is the difference of observational position, which involves a whole lot more than just the observer's physical spacetime coordinates.
In any case, frogs and birds are both creatures of God....
Thank you so much for writing, Soliton!