davidm

What if we argued:

(1) It is logically possible that a God exists, provided that such an entity exhibits no logically inconsistent properties.

(2) If all logically possible universes are real, some of those worlds will contain Gods as specified above.

(3) All logically possible universes actually exist.

(4) Gods exist in some of them.

In the case of (1), it might be said that we still have to provide a coherent definition of God. I don't think this is a problem, because we have specified in advance that God must have logically consistent properties. So God could be loosely defined as a creator or overseer of manager of universes, or of their various structures or attributes. We ourselves could be Gods, if, as has been suggested, it might be possible for us to create universes in a laboratory. Or it might be possible for us to create self-replicating digital life forms that are self-aware.

If (1) is valid, it would seem that (2) must follow. Of course, we must prove (3). That might be possible to do. A Theory of Everything might demand that all logically possible universes are real, a variant of Many Worlds ideas. If 1, 2, and 3, are valid, (4) must follow.

Of course, none of this would prove the existence of a God in our own world. But on the other hand, the ensemble of logically possible universes would contain a universe in which God chooses to carefully conceal His existence for some reason, perhaps for the purpose of instigating amusing flame wars on bulletin boards devoted to discussions about Him, discussions that He can peruse at His convenience.

Anyway, the philosopher David Lewis proposed that all logically possible universes are actually real to their own inhabitants. The philosopher John Leslie writes of Lewis's multiverse: "All the Greek gods, for instance, are really to be found in some universes. Curious though this is, it seems to [Lewis] acceptable so long as they are not found in any universe at all close to ours in its properties."

So we have an argument for the Greek gods! To further this debate, it only remains for theists to abandon their peculiar idea that an incoherent, logically self-refuting and supernatural God exists. This idea has been amply refuted on the boards and in the library of this site, and elsewhere, including in the Bible itself. The Bible depicts a God at various times angry, sorrowful, remorseful, and, by His own description, jealous. So the Bible itself refutes the idea that God is perfect.

sentinel00

Define God.

curbyIII

To Davidm

I fully agree with you. I myself believe that anything logically possible actually exists. So any god whose definition is not self-contradictory must therefore exist. No god is completely omnipotent as then you would have the possibility of 2 omnipotent gods that want to do thwart each other's will which is a contradiction. However, incredibly powerful gods (omnipotent from our point of view) can exist. So our universe can indeed have a Christian-like god that is omnipotent from our point of view. But the odds of that are so small as to be almost negligible. Also, Pascal's Wager argument does not work here. Namely because it is equally likely that there exists a god that will reward everyone who is not a Christian and torture everyone who IS a Christian. So in such a universe, the only rational option for a person is to be an atheist.

Ron Singh

Having a god that depended on a universe for its existence would seem to kill the godness of the god.

ishalon

Universe - All existing things.

Therefore all "universes" are the Universe. Therefore only one "universe" can exist.
Therefore only one logically possible universe is real.

God exhibits logically inconsistent properties.
Therefore (1) is false.

If (1) is true, (2) is false. If (2) is true, (3) is false. If (3) is false, (4) is false.

davidm

The Sentinel writes: Define God.

I did, in the initial post. My point is that to usefully imagine a god or gods as a creative force, we have to remove god from the ground of the supernatural. I think it is the supernatural, not god per se, that is incoherent. See my first post for ways that such a god could exist. However, I also agree with Curby III that the odds of such a god in our universe are negligible. There is no evidence for such an entity and certainly no reason to go for Pascal's Wager.

To Sikh: Yes, God depending on a universe for its existence would kill the godness of god, so long as we persist in believing the discredited notion that god is a supernatural being. But a being that evolves in a naturalistic universe could obtain such great intelligence and extensive powers that it would be godlike from the point of view of others in that universe. However, the multiple universes proposed by David Lewis would not necessarily rule out a supernatural realm. He maintains that every logically possible universe is a real universe, including universes with Greek gods or even Yahweh, provided, however, that such entities are not logically inconsistent with their own reality. That would rule out a "perfect" god in any universe. The Lewis multiverse is extremely strange, and the properties of such universes have been catalogued by him and others. One example I saw recently: There exists a universe consisting of nothing but replicas of the Eiffel Tower standing side by side to form a grid that extends to infinity. Lewis would maintain that such a universe exists.

To Ishalon: Your counterargument has been discussed by scientists and philosophers, and many disagree with you. In addition to the Lewis philosophical multiverse, there are, of course, a number of scientific Many Words ideas kicking around. Most of them, and Lewis's idea in particular, stress the point that these universes are completely isolated in space and time from our own. It is thus argued that to define "universe" as "all existing things" is a bit of a word game. You could use that definition if you choose, but even so, the supposed other universes would have no contact with our own. So they could comprise domains of reality completely different from our own. Finally, again, Gods with logically inconsistent properties would not exist in any version of reality, in Lewis's philosophy. But Gods with logically consistent properties could and would exist in many of these domains.

sandlewood

It seems to me like you are not defining the same god as in a religion such as Christianity. So you’re not really arguing the existence of the God with a big ‘G’. To me, God as defined by most Christians is logically inconsistent.

I don’t know anything about David Lewis. But I can see (from a quick Google search) that he writes for such prestigious scientific journals as <a href="http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue8/ar8physicist.html" target="_blank">Atlantis Rising</a>. Assuming it's the same David Lewis, that is. I’m also not familiar with his theory about all possible universes existing. But at first thought it wouldn’t seem to make sense. First, there would of course be an infinite number of these universes. This is because it is logically possible to have any number of atoms in a universe. Therefore, by induction I guess, the number of universe would have to be infinite. (Never mind all the combinations and permutations of the atoms’ positions, states, etc.) Second, there is still an infinite regress problem. What do you call this realm in which all the universes reside? The multiverse? How many different logically possible multiverses are there? Is there a god outside of each multiverse as the creator/overseer? Or in only some of them? What do you call the realm that contains all the logically possible multiverses? And so on. So, although I haven’t actually read about it, I’m suspecting that this “all possible universes” idea is a wild extrapolation. Especially after skimming through the first part of that Atlantis Rising article.

davidm

No, Sandlewood, you've got the wrong David Lewis. The David Lewis I'm talking about was an esteemed professor of philosophy at Princeton University. He died last year, at age 60, of diabetes. He wrote a book published in 1986, On The Plurality of Worlds, outlining these ideas, represented by his phrase "modal realism." I suggest you do a google search with the following strings: "david lewis" + "modal realism" You'll find plenty.

Anyone read that book?

Also, in 1998, as I pointed out in a different thread, the physicist Max Tegmark proposed a formal scientific theory, with falsifiability checks, that mathematical reality is the same thing as physical reality. Thus, every mathematically possible reality instantiates an actual universe, according to Tegmark. If so, there are vast numbers of universes. Lewis would maintain that some of those universes contain a god or gods, provided they are not logically inconsistent.

On this very site, the physicist Vic Stenger defends the idea of a plurality of worlds, He also maintains that a vast ensemble of universes is more compatible with Occam's Razor than only one universe. I now tend to agree. It would seem simpler that all logically possible universes exist, than only one. For in the latter case, we should have to find a mysterious mechanism that restricts reality to only one universe.

advocate_11

I do not understand what the purpose for such a claim is.

Are you suggesting that we should qualify all statements about lack of belief with "in this universe"?

On another note, how would you reply to the suggestion that "God" is a being that is logically possible, and that is capable of manipulating the contents of all other universes from within that which it resides?

davidm

Advocate_11, these are not my claims, these are the claims of some scientists and philosophers.

I think these claims should be scrutinized seriously. You ask:: "Are you suggesting that we should qualify all statements about lack of belief with 'in this universe?'" The answer is, yes, that is exactly what these claims would imply. Whatever claims that we make about the reality that we observe would not necessarily be valid in other universes. Again, it follows that if all logically possible universes are real, then there will be a subset of universes containing an entity or entities that would be functionally indistinguishable from :"God." But I have pointed out that every current scientific and philosophical theory of this subject has ruled out a god with logically inconsistent properties. So nothing in these ideas argues for a supernatural, "perfect" god.

Again: If all logically possible universes are actual universes, some universes would contain a god or gods, There is strong circumstantial evidence that other universes exist, perhaps a vast ensemble of them. It is not unreasonable to think that someday we can prove the existence of these other universes. I am putting forth these posts in the hope of freshening this "God" argument, which seems, on these boards, to invariably default to an argument of: "Xian God exists!" "No, it doesn't" I'm saying, maybe there are other alternatives that are worth looking at.