What part of what you wrote is your own thought? Where did you present your thoughts elsewhere, "separately?"
Do you normally cite authorities whose arguments run counter to your own? I got the distinct impression that you were citing those with whom you agree — that's why you cited them. As corroborating evidence, a it were.
We can correct all this — just tell me what YOU think, and then we can take it from there! (Or refer me to the clear presentation which clearly I must have missed.)
Thanks for your reply, 21stCenturion!
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