In an infinite multiverse, must the Trinitarian God somewhere exist?

[SeraphimSarov]

This is a thread for the more philosphically-minded. Discuss. I'll chime in a little later as I do not have time to parse out my thoughts on this, but I'm interested to get the discussion going.

 

[Soyeong]

This is a thread for the more philosphically-minded. Discuss. I'll chime in a little later as I do not have time to parse out my thoughts on this, but I'm interested to get the discussion going.

If there is an infinite multiverse and if it is possible for a Trinitarian God to exist inside a universe, then there is a universe where He exists. However, if God created a universe, then He is not dependent on that universe for His existence, so He must exist outside of the multiverse.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is a thread for the more philosphically-minded. Discuss. I'll chime in a little later as I do not have time to parse out my thoughts on this, but I'm interested to get the discussion going.

Only if it is possible for a Trinitarian God to exist, and assuming that an infinite multiverse necessitates that all possible things exist.

But there is a catch here... a Trinitarian God is thought of as transcendent to a universe. So, what do the properties of a multiverse have to do with a Trinitarian God?

Furthermore, an infinite multiverse would seem to include an infinite number of deities, again assuming that deities are possible beings. Since a Trinitarian God is assumed to be the only God that exists anywhere, then a Trinitarian God is impossible. It could only exist in a polytheistic setting.

All of this modal reasoning is a mess.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ChetSinger]

Heh. I once read a paper on abiogenesis by Eugene Koonin, who is a quite out-of-the-box thinker. In it he despaired that we've been unable to describe a mechanism for the origin of life, and then he proposed a solution: he posited that life was guaranteed to exist somewhere because in the multiverse every possibility, no matter remote, is eventually guaranteed to occur.

My first thought was to want to ask him if that meant somewhere there was a universe where Jesus Christ died for our sins and we can be forgiven and resurrected.

More seriously, I think the OP question is an interesting one. Myself, I think the eternal nature of God puts him beyond a multiverse.

 

[Soyeong]

Heh. I once read a paper on abiogenesis by Eugene Koonin, who is a quite out-of-the-box thinker. In it he despaired that we've been unable to describe a mechanism for the origin of life, and then he proposed a solution: he posited that life was guaranteed to exist somewhere because in the multiverse every possibility, no matter remote, is eventually guaranteed to occur.

My first thought was to want to ask him if that meant somewhere there was a universe where Jesus Christ died for our sins and we can be forgiven and resurrected.

More seriously, I think the OP question is an interesting one. Myself, I think the eternal nature of God puts him beyond a multiverse.

I agree that in a multiverse everything that is possible is guaranteed to occur, but that assumes that there is a multiverse with infinite variation and that it is possible for life to arise by chance.

 

[Chesterton]

Like Eudaimonist said, the Triune God is transcendent, and is the creator of everything there is, so He can't be an effect of the physics He created.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is a thread for the more philosphically-minded. Discuss. I'll chime in a little later as I do not have time to parse out my thoughts on this, but I'm interested to get the discussion going.

I just called in Matt Slick's radio show today and he tried that one on me.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a thread for the more philosphically-minded. Discuss. I'll chime in a little later as I do not have time to parse out my thoughts on this, but I'm interested to get the discussion going.

God would still be the one Creator of all in the end.

 

[variant]

Like Eudaimonist said, the Triune God is transcendent, and is the creator of everything there is, so He can't be an effect of the physics He created.

I don't think transcendence is an issue.

In an infinite multi-verse where all possible universes exist, if Gods are a possibility, some non zero number of universes may be made possible by possible Gods.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In an infinite multi-verse where all possible universes exist, if Gods are a possibility, some non zero number of universes may be made possible by possible Gods.

No, Chesterton is right on that one, IMO.

In any question about possible universes (as in a multiverse), it is meaningless to talk about the "possibility of God". Universes don't determine such possibilities. No matter how different they may be, that says nothing about the existence of God(s).

When this is forgotten modal reasoning goes haywire. Then apologists suggest that a transcendent being for one universe in the multiverse must be transcendent for all, therefore God, therefore all "possible" universes are necessarily created by God.

One might as well start out by saying that all "possible" universes are either created by God, or not created by God. In an atheistic multiverse, no possible universes were created by God. With God, no possible universes were not created by God.

What a mess.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

No, Chesterton is right on that one, IMO.

In any question about possible universes (as in a multiverse), it is meaningless to talk about the "possibility of God". Universes don't determine such possibilities. No matter how different they may be, that says nothing about the existence of God(s).

I am saying that when you are talking about the possibility of a universe you are talking about all aspects of that universe including how it came to be.

If universe creating Gods are possible, then in an infinite multiverse where all that is possible is actual, all possible universe creating Gods created all possible God created universes.

This doesn't mean there are any Gods implied by an infinite multiverse where all possible universes exist, just all the possible ones.

Gods are free to be not how any universes come into being, which would make universe creating Gods impossible.

Then we can argue about how the multiverse came into being, and all possible multiverses.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

What a mess.

This seems to sum it up. I was going to write out a longer treatise, but the more I think about it, the more my thought process descends into absurdity...

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am saying that when you are talking about the possibility of a universe you are talking about all aspects of that universe including how it came to be.

I don't see how. You should be talking about what a universe is, not how it came about.

And the problem is that all universes, even ones with an eternal past, are consistent with divine creation. Presumably, God (if such a being exists as defined) can create any non-contradictory reality. Any possible universe is therefore consistent with divine creation, even if they appear obviously natural and uncreated.

So, there really is no way to make these distinctions without simply declaring them to be the case. But that just begs the question, and makes all of this modal reasoning pointless.

If universe creating Gods are possible, then in an infinite multiverse where all that is possible is actual, all possible universe creating Gods created all possible God created universes.

And that is where the question begging starts. Don't you see how pointless this sort of reasoning is? It's mental masturbation, and a disgrace to philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[-57]

I agree that in a multiverse everything that is possible is guaranteed to occur, but that assumes that there is a multiverse with infinite variation and that it is possible for life to arise by chance.

It's hard to conceive of just one universe contained in a singularity that went bang....let alone multiple or infinite universes.

......all creating themselves out of nothing...

 

[Oafman]

It's hard to conceive of just one universe contained in a singularity that went bang....let alone multiple or infinite universes.

It's hard to conceive that the Earth is 4.5bn years old, but we know it is. It's hard to conceive the idea that space time gets warped by mass, but we know it does. That something is hard for us to understand does not mean it is not accurate.

......all creating themselves out of nothing...

Can you support the assertion that anything 'created itself' 'out of nothing'? This is not a scientific position.

 

[variant]

I don't see how. You should be talking about what a universe is, not how it came about.

I don't see how talking about one isn't implicitly talking about the other.

 

[-57]

It's hard to conceive that the Earth is 4.5bn years old, but we know it is. It's hard to conceive the idea that space time gets warped by mass, but we know it does. That something is hard for us to understand does not mean it is not accurate.

Can you support the assertion that anything 'created itself' 'out of nothing'? This is not a scientific position.

If your assertions that the big bang happened....then the stuff of the BB had to have created itself from nothing...or was created by God. Considering you can't self create...be and not be at the same time...God is the only other choice.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

If your assertions that the big bang happened....then the stuff of the BB had to have created itself from nothing...or was created by God.

One does not follow the other, as time as we conceive it is meaningless prior to the Big Bang. You talk about nothing as though it has the property of existence. Before there was something, there was nothing, as in, no existence as we know it to speak of, period.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Don't you see how pointless this sort of reasoning is? It's mental masturbation, and a disgrace to philosophy.

My friend, we all will die, and all will be for naught. All thinking, all reasoning, all logic, is mental masturbation. Nothing we do matters in the cosmic sense. The universe will forget we were ever here, sooner than we think. But if we as individuals find meaning in what we do, that's what matters. So what is "pointless reasoning" to you may be stimulating to others, despite the fact that it is indeed, in the end, nothing more than mental masturbation.


EDIT: I am hesitant to say this to someone I consider to be smarter than me, but let's see where this goes...

 

[Eudaimonist]

If your assertions that the big bang happened....then the stuff of the BB had to have created itself from nothing...or was created by God. Considering you can't self create...be and not be at the same time...God is the only other choice.

That's like saying that God had to have created himself from nothing.

No, physical reality could simply have existed in its own right and developed to what we think of as the Big Bang.


eudaimonia,

Mark