↪Hallucinogen
Yep, that's something that seems possible. — Agent Smith
Yes, if the possible worlds become actual — val p miranda
What is an example of something outside the multiverse? — Agent Smith
This topic might be really interesting ... in some possible world. :grin: — Alkis Piskas
You made a claim and it seems possible. How did I miss the point and I couldn't possibly be begging the/any question because ... — Agent Smith
"Possible" presumes a relation or syntax in which that which is possible is distinctly identified and related to the rest of reality. God by definition would subsume the whole of that reality by dint of omnipresence, so if your conception entails God existing in any part, God by definition subsumes the whole. — Hallucinogen
Why do you think so?but of course it's too obvious to mention why omnipresence is much less defensible that God existing in some possible world. — Agent Smith
Why can't God be present in Hell? If he built the place it doesn't seem as if there'd be a repulsive force barring any future interaction with it.Clearly, God, a fortiori, can't be in hell, a legit possible world. — Agent Smith
I was also using the standard definition. I didn't say that you were in contradiction, though. Only that if God exists anywhere, He already exists everywhere, in all "worlds", and this encompasses the very law by which "possibility" is generated.As for possibility, I used the standard definition - isn't or doesn't entail a contradiction. As far as I could tell, your statements didn't imply one and hence my reply "possible". — Agent Smith
Yes.Are you saying there's no alternative other than to accept your statements i.e. to reject your position entails a contradiction? Please clarify. — Agent Smith
God is in Heaven, but it doesn't mean He isn't anywhere else, especially if He is omnipresent.I thought "Our God in heaven" for a good reason. — Agent Smith
What contradiction? — Agent Smith
As for possibility, I used the standard definition - isn't or doesn't entail a contradiction. — Agent Smith
You mean to say god's everywhere doesn't entail a contradiction in any world? But it does in our world (the problem of evil). What about the omnipotence paradox? — Agent Smith
However, omnipresence has a specific definition as far as I know and from that definition, your argument is a non sequitur. — Agent Smith
Coming to your belief being a possibility, one among many others, to my reckoning, no contradiction is entailed. — Agent Smith
As for it being necessarily true, I have my doubts (vide supra). — Agent Smith
In my universe, possible means consistent although not necessarily true à la scientific hypotheses. — Agent Smith
Omnipresence is consistent with god being in all worlds, but not in hell. There are only 2 kinds of beings in hell - those who hurt and those who hurt and god can't be either of them for He is sinless. — Agent Smith
Then your formulation of God, Hell and worlds is false. God is omnipresent, so everything is in God. God is not "in" anywhere, He is what everything else is in. — Hallucinogen
Hence if God exists in one universe He exists in all of them -- this is in other words, not "possible" but necessarily true. — Hallucinogen
If it were true it would make your god is everywhere inconsistent, oui? — Agent Smith
God being everywhere is inconsistent with hell, as I already explained. — Agent Smith
Why is my formulation of hell false? — Agent Smith
No I am not saying that. Did you not read the comment directly above? I just said Hell is in God. I’m not using a definition of God that makes it inconsistent with being in Hell, you are. I told you to explain why my God is inconsistent with Hell, not yours. You even saidThe inconsistency is that God can't be in hell and you're saying He is — Agent Smith
You were meant to explain why my God is inconsistent. Now you switch misleadingly by replying as if you are arguing against your definition of God.If it were true it would make your god is everywhere inconsistent, oui? — Agent Smith
No I did not. That is what you just did. I never replied to you as if I believed God can’t be in Hell.Then you changed tack - you now claim hell is in god — Agent Smith
It is no less supported than your own assertion that God can’t be in Hell. Besides, you haven’t given any reason why my definition of Hell/omniprescence is unsupported, especially since you seem to be avoiding arguing against it and prefer to switch to your own definition to argue against, even when you’re told to do the opposite.you now claim hell is in god (unsupported conclusion) — Agent Smith
The field F itself is analogous to God, the elements a and b are analogous to any objects or locations therein, and the operations + and × are analogous to the means of interaction and relation between elements. Calling God omnipresent therefore is asserting that God is the field under which all elements that exist are closed and interrelated.a field is a set F that is a commutative group with respect to two compatible operations, addition and multiplication, with "compatible" being formalized by distributivity (...) Closure of F under addition and multiplication F or all a, b in F, both a + b and a × b are in F (or more formally, + and × are binary operations on F).
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.