In #34, the references to St. Anselmo and Aquinas were provided as examples of ‘Begging the Question’. I don’t accept or agree with either argument nor did I even ‘imply’ agreement.
In #102, “There is NO ‘Multi-Universe theory’ ... “ is, in fact, my own thought. The subsequent discussion of what a ‘theory’ is or is not constitutes my argument in defense of that assertion.
All the discussion beginning with
“As you seem to use it, the ‘Multi-verse’ addresses the notion that a single Universe is insufficient to contain all the possible components, events, information and whatever other ‘stuff’ CAN POSSIBLY exist.”
through the end of @102 is the substance of my own ‘take’ on the so-called ‘Multi-universe’ conjecture.
The rest of my prolix discourse addresses the form of the arguments presented by the various folk I was addressing.
WRT “Do you normally cite authorities whose arguments run counter to your own?”, in each case I was pointing out that the arguments cited were fallacious. I thought I was rather unambiguous about that. Since when is citing someone you disagree with, in order to present the disagreement, somehow a defect in presenting an argument ?
In fact, you got it backwards — I was citing ‘em BECAUSE I disagreed. It doesn’t seem fair to leave out the substance of the argument I am disputing, now does it ?
BTW: I am quite familiar with Whitehead’s concept of ‘reification’. I don’t quite see how it applies to anything I’ve said, ‘though. As you should realize by now, nothing I said argues for or against the existence of God in ANY Universe, let alone some mythical ‘Multi-verse’. I never went there, even by implication. I was addressing the form of the arguments others indulged in, NOT the underlying ‘theology’.
Does this provide sufficient clarity ?
Look, it’s really quite simple. I think the ‘Multi-verse’ conjecture is a bogus exercise as there is NO basis for proliferating ‘Universes’ in order to overcome a purely human inability to comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’. Referring back to @102,
... the ‘Multi-verse’ addresses the notion that a single Universe is insufficient to contain all the possible components, events, information and whatever other ‘stuff’ CAN POSSIBLY exist. This assumes that every possible event or outcome of the interaction of all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.
I can’t state my position any more succinctly without ‘losing’ the essence of what I mean to say.
As to YOUR assertion that ‘God is NOT within the Multi-verse’ ( or apparently anywhere else ), I suppose your supporting arguments might be interesting at SOME level but ... BIG But ... You lost me when you stated —
“Notice he also says that man’s knowledge of God comes via reason, intelligence. It must be that way, since God Himself is not a direct observable — the sort of thing required by the scientific method.”
Man’s ‘knowledge of God’ is merely the product of faith and the belief in some supernatural power that operates outside the realm of reason or the scope of man’s intelligence. That is NOT ‘knowledge’, that is the denial that ‘knowledge’ is possible.
I am often appalled to see how many different forms Man’s ‘Knowledge of God’ takes, depending on who is telling the story and what agenda they appear to be serving. Personally, I tend to sympathize with the adage ‘Man creates Gods to serve him’. It seems to cover the history of theological thought since prehistoric times quite adequately ...
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
Aw come on, 21stCenturion, do you mean to suggest that you do have the ability to "comprehend the concept of 'infinity'?" On the possibility that you might so comprehend (though that certainly seems doubtful to me), I suspect "infinity" in your sense would just be a stand-in for God.
You wrote:
... the ‘Multi-verse’ addresses the notion that a single Universe is insufficient to contain all the possible components, events, information and whatever other ‘stuff’ CAN POSSIBLY exist. This assumes that every possible event or outcome of the interaction of all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.Just who is it that (seemingly) claims to know future events (at least in general if not in each and every particular) and all the details of what is needed — "all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever" — because they "...MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime."
That person evidently has a most exalted, God-like view of things. Kinda reminds me of Laplace....
Tell me, why MUST "all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever" be "instantiated?" According to what rule, what purpose? Just because this cite of yours (with whom you state you disagree) insists that they should — i.e., insists that all possibilities eventually must manifest themselves, given enough time?
But of course, infinity doesn't really have so much to do with time as it does with number. It is a mathematical concept; and some physicists have complained that it is "unconstructible" in natural science.
I think what your cite may have in mind is "endless time." If time is endless, then anything that can happen, will happen. And the pièce de résistence is that if time is endless, then randomness might (in all probability) have a chance to "accidentally organize" itself into something actual. This is the thousand-monkeys-with-typewriters-shut-up-in-a-room-trying-to-compose-Shakespeare scenario.
Of course you don't need multiple universes to explain the manifold of the Universe. If there are other "universes," they would be embodied, integrated in some fashion into the ONE, indivisible Universe, the living Universe of God's Logos in the Beginning. JMHO.
You wrote:
Man’s ‘knowledge of God’ is merely the product of faith and the belief in some supernatural power that operates outside the realm of reason or the scope of man’s intelligence. That is NOT ‘knowledge’, that is the denial that ‘knowledge’ is possible.God is not "supernatural": He is not any kind of "natural." He is absolutely irreducible to your "measurements." He most definitely IS outside the realm of reason, and definitely beyond the scope of man's intelligence, individual, collective, historical.
As Saint Anselm said (in Proslogion):
O Lord, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but you are also greater than what can be conceived.Anselm is thinking and reasoning along a line that perhaps you don't suspect exists:
Speak to my desirous soul what you are, other than what it has seen, that it may clearly see what it desires.For Anselm, the fides quarens intellectum — the quest of faith seeking understanding, knowledge — is not essentially epistemic; it is volitional. Anselm is drawn by the Love of God, which he fervently and ever faithfully returns.
In the end, I gather we disagree about this: You believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive; I do not.
Rather I believe they are necessary complementarities. Truthful human knowledge requires the light of both.
But it's late, 21stCenturion, and I've run on long. It's time to say good night — and sleep tight!
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could first give an account of something implicit in your claim, which you take for granted; namely, "the realm of reason" itself.
How do you justify or account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities - those laws of thought in the realm of reason - in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?
Cordially,