About the god of the philosophers

[Vera_Ljuba]

I used the lower-case spelling for god, to make sure that it is not confused with the God of Christianity.

If anyone is interested in discussing this concept, I will be glad to do so. Please, let’s stick to the topic, and avoid reference to the Bible, the Revelation, the Magisterium, the Sacred Tradition or the Catechism. As Joe Friday said in Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am”.

I offer the starting point which is unquestionable: “the universe exists”. The word “universe” is used in its literal meaning: “everything that exists”. It obviously includes the physical part, which we experience with our senses and its extensions. Part of the universe is the realm of “ideas and concepts”. They do not exist independently from the physical universe; they are not ontological objects. There is no ontological “distance” or “before” or “in-between”. There is no ontological “love”, “freedom”, “good” or “evil”. Concepts describe attributes, relationships and activities. Concepts do not exist independently from the physical realm. No Platonic ideal of “forms” are accepted.

Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same. It is somewhat unfortunate that both are describe by the same word: “existence”. Physical existence is “active”, it interacts with our senses, while the conceptual existence is “inactive”. Conceptual existence is merely a mental construct. The concepts MAY refer to physical entities, other concepts or nothing at all.

**I use the word “god” in the following meaning: “an entity, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual either. It is not part of the physical universe, but it can interact with the physical universe.” **

The universe is assumed to be WYSIWYG. Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.

This is NOT a full picture. It is only a basic definition of the entities involved in the topic. I offer it as a starting point for a discussion. You are welcome to accept it, or criticize it, or discard it fully or partially. It would be nice to start your reply with either an acceptance of these terms, or a criticism of them. But I would hope to see constructive criticism, not a flat-out rejection like “You are wrong”. And also, please avoid presenting a generic link to some website. I would prefer to see your arguments, expressed in your words.

If you don’t like these simple terms, you are welcome to stay away.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Let’s talk about the god of the philosophers, but none of this ‘Plato’ foolishness.”

“If you don’t like these simple terms you can stay away.”

Most everyone here is happy to talk about the god of the philosophers. If you want to actually do that, drop your arbitrary and fallacious presuppositions you doggedly apply to everything and we’ll all be happy to oblige.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

“Let’s talk about the god of the philosophers, but none of this ‘Plato’ foolishness.”

“If you don’t like these simple terms you can stay away.”

Most everyone here is happy to talk about the god of the philosophers. If you want to actually do that, drop your arbitrary and fallacious presuppositions you doggedly apply to everything and we’ll all be happy to oblige.

I did not think that using your own words is such a difficult requirement to fulfill. I also think that starting from the actual, observable physical universe is the only rational way to conduct a discussion. I also asked to offer constructive criticism. Looks like that you are unable/unwilling to do even that.

You are welcome to stay away.

 

[dmar198]

I used the lower-case spelling for god, to make sure that it is not confused with the God of Christianity.

Some philosophers think the God of philosophers is the same as the God of Christianity. I suppose in the phrase “the God of philosophers,” it depends on which philosophers you are talking about. Different philosophers have believed in different gods. Catholic philosophers believe that the God of their philosophy is the same as the God of the Bible. Do you think that is reasonable?

If anyone is interested in discussing this concept, I will be glad to do so. Please, let’s stick to the topic, and avoid reference to the Bible, the Revelation, the Magisterium, the Sacred Tradition or the Catechism. As Joe Friday said in Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am”.

That paragraph assumes that the Bible is not fact. And that the other things aren’t facts. Catholics aren’t willing to accept this premise, because we believe the Church’s teachings are facts, and the Bible too. If you don’t require that assumption, we can get along just fine. It is okay for us Catholics to talk about God without mentioning the Bible or Church documents, but it is not okay for us to accept the premise that these things aren’t facts.

I offer the starting point which is unquestionable: “the universe exists”.

I agree and I think this is a good starting point.

The word “universe” is used in its literal meaning: “everything that exists”.

I don’t think that is the literal meaning of universe. That definition appears to fit the word “reality” better than “universe.” Some things exist that are not in the universe, but are in reality. God is a good example.

“ideas and concepts”…are not ontological objects.

“Not ontological objects” is confusing. Ontology is the study of being, so one interpretation of this phrase is that ideas are not objects in the category of being. If so, then it would seem they are either Subjects in the category of being, or they are objects in some category other than being, or they are neither subjects nor objects in any category at all. I think there is good evidence that ideas are real things that are not physical. Would you like me to provide that evidence?

There is no ontological “distance” or “before” or “in-between”.

I think you are saying that something doesn’t count as an object in ontology unless there is distance or before or in between. Is that what you mean?

There is no ontological “love”, “freedom”, “good” or “evil”.

I think you mean love and freedom and morality do not exist ontologically. And I think “ontologically” means “in the category of being.” Do you mean this as well?

Concepts describe attributes, relationships and activities.

I agree that some do. I think others describe substances. “Stone” is an example of an idea that describes a substance: stone is a category of material substance, populated by many many examples, none of which are the category itself. The word “stone” can be used to describe the substance.

Concepts do not exist independently from the physical realm.

Why do you think that? Do you think it is impossible that there are non-physical beings who think about concepts? Angels, for example? I think there is good evidence that angels exist and think about concepts. So I don’t accept this statement. Would you like me to provide evidence of angels, or would I be missing the point?

No Platonic ideal of “forms” are accepted.

Why not? I think there is good evidence that ideal forms are real, existing things. If we want to talk about “just the facts,” why should we exclude some of them? I infer that you do not think these things are real and aren’t factual, so perhaps I could give you evidence of Platonic ideal forms. Would you like that?

Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same.

I agree.

It is somewhat unfortunate that both are describe by the same word: “existence”.

I disagree. Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same, but they do have some things in common. We ought to have at least Some words to describe what they have in common, and “existence” seems like a very appropriate example because both things exist.

Physical existence is “active”, it interacts with our senses, while the conceptual existence is “inactive”.

Conceptual things interact with our minds. I think that makes them active.

Conceptual existence is merely a mental construct.

I’m not sure about “merely.” I think you would need evidence to support that descriptor.

The concepts MAY refer to physical entities, other concepts or nothing at all.

Agreed.

I use the word “god” in the following meaning: “an entity, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual either. It is not part of the physical universe, but it can interact with the physical universe.”

Sounds partly good, but angels would fit that definition as well. The God of Catholic philsophers is also the Creator, which is one thing that differentiates Him from angels. Could we add that to your definition?

The universe is assumed to be WYSIWYG.

Agreed.

Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.

Some philosophers think it is possible to establish the existence of God without observing the physical universe. I am one of them, and so was Descartes.

This is NOT a full picture. It is only a basic definition of the entities involved in the topic. I offer it as a starting point for a discussion. You are welcome to accept it, or criticize it, or discard it fully or partially.

Thank you for the starting point. What do you think of my criticisms?

 

[Gorgias]

As Joe Friday said in Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am”.

Actually, he didn’t. Just the facts…

I offer the starting point which is unquestionable: “the universe exists”. The word “universe” is used in its literal meaning: “everything that exists”.

We can work with that, as a starting point. As some have mentioned to you here and in other threads, that taxonomy will eventually create a significant problem for those who believe in a Creator, as it conflates ‘creator’ and ‘creation’. But hey, for the sake of argument… let’s see where this goes.

No Platonic ideal of “forms” are accepted.

No… you can accept them as concepts; you’re just not including them in your definition of the ‘universe’. (This, too, will create a problem down the line… but still… )

**I use the word “god” in the following meaning: “an entity, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual either. It is not part of the physical universe, but it can interact with the physical universe.” **

OK: so, already, we’ve got the “universe” and a subset of it, the “physical universe”. Fair enough. What else is a member of the “universe” without being a member of the “physical universe”? How would you describe those things that are members of the former but not members of the latter? Or are you positing a singleton? (That is, you’re positing that only ‘god’, as you’ve defined him, is in the former but not the latter?)

The universe is assumed to be WYSIWYG.

Nope. Not trying to be difficult, but by positing a difference between “universe” and “physical universe”, you’ve already set up a construct in which the latter is WYSIWYG and the former is… not WYS (?).

Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning

“Beyond” what? Beyond the universe? Beyond the physical universe? Beyond what we observe in the physical universe?

 

[inocente]

I used the lower-case spelling for god, to make sure that it is not confused with the God of Christianity.

Philosophers create various deities. For instance Aristotle’s unmoved movers. Apparently he calculated there should be 47 or 55 of them, but decided 1 might be more economic. Even so, his complicated theory has to be massaged and hacked to fit with modern physics.

But more importantly, his theory is irrelevant to our lives. And, flagrantly ignoring your prohibition on the bible (Christians have rights), most importantly, there is no logic which can place his unmoved mover on the Cross. No philosopher could ever have produced the message of the Cross. It transcends all earthly wisdom (1 Cor 1).

It’s likely that 99.9% of Christians have never even heard of Aristotle’s theory.

 

[STT]

I offer the starting point which is unquestionable: “the universe exists”.

You need to define what do you mean with “exists”. Moreover, what you are proposing is that matter is primary. One can argue that consciousness is primary and matter is mere illusion. In another word what we experience is not real therefore it cannot be consider as basic principle to discuss God.

The word “universe” is used in its literal meaning: “everything that exists”. It obviously includes the physical part, which we experience with our senses and its extensions. Part of the universe is the realm of “ideas and concepts”. They do not exist independently from the physical universe; they are not ontological objects.

Ideas and concepts are underlying entities of the reality. 1+1=2 is not simply the construct of mind.

There is no ontological “distance” or “before” or “in-between”. There is no ontological “love”, “freedom”, “good” or “evil”. Concepts describe attributes, relationships and activities. Concepts do not exist independently from the physical realm. No Platonic ideal of “forms” are accepted.

I don’t agree considering the previous comment.

Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same. It is somewhat unfortunate that both are describe by the same word: “existence”. Physical existence is “active”, it interacts with our senses, while the conceptual existence is “inactive”. Conceptual existence is merely a mental construct. The concepts MAY refer to physical entities, other concepts or nothing at all.

Again, concepts are not only mental constructs.

**I use the word “god” in the following meaning: “an entity, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual either. It is not part of the physical universe, but it can interact with the physical universe.” **

Do you consider God as creator?

 

[Vonsalza]

You need to define what do you mean with “exists”. Moreover, what you are proposing is that matter is primary. One can argue that consciousness is primary and matter is mere illusion. In another word what we experience is not real therefore it cannot be consider as basic principle to discuss God.

:clapping:

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I used the lower-case spelling for god, to make sure that it is not confused with the God of Christianity.

If anyone is interested in discussing this concept, I will be glad to do so. Please, let’s stick to the topic, and avoid reference to the Bible, the Revelation, the Magisterium, the Sacred Tradition or the Catechism. As Joe Friday said in Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am”.

I offer the starting point which is unquestionable: “the universe exists”. The word “universe” is used in its literal meaning: “everything that exists”. It obviously includes the physical part, which we experience with our senses and its extensions. Part of the universe is the realm of “ideas and concepts”. They do not exist independently from the physical universe; they are not ontological objects. There is no ontological “distance” or “before” or “in-between”. There is no ontological “love”, “freedom”, “good” or “evil”. Concepts describe attributes, relationships and activities. Concepts do not exist independently from the physical realm. No Platonic ideal of “forms” are accepted.

Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same. It is somewhat unfortunate that both are describe by the same word: “existence”. Physical existence is “active”, it interacts with our senses, while the conceptual existence is “inactive”. Conceptual existence is merely a mental construct. The concepts MAY refer to physical entities, other concepts or nothing at all.

**I use the word “god” in the following meaning: “an entity, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual either. It is not part of the physical universe, but it can interact with the physical universe.” **

The universe is assumed to be WYSIWYG. Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.

This is NOT a full picture. It is only a basic definition of the entities involved in the topic. I offer it as a starting point for a discussion. You are welcome to accept it, or criticize it, or discard it fully or partially. It would be nice to start your reply with either an acceptance of these terms, or a criticism of them. But I would hope to see constructive criticism, not a flat-out rejection like “You are wrong”. And also, please avoid presenting a generic link to some website. I would prefer to see your arguments, expressed in your words.

If you don’t like these simple terms, you are welcome to stay away.

There is no one concept of God in philosophy as your thread title suggests. There are various concepts of god that philosophers have brought up ranging from pantheism (Spinoza) to classical theism (Plato, Aristotle, St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas). However, even within the classical theism crowd, there are some differences in the attributes of God. All of this just relates to Western concepts of God but we must also not forget all of the Eastern concepts of God, like those we get from the Indian philosophers.

Unlike some of your other threads, you’ve at least specified here that you’re not referring to the Christian God so your points would hardly be for or against Christianity. Your points would only relate to your own made up ‘god’. If you do intend to use your arguments to go against the Christian God, like some of your moral arguments, then you should not be surprised that Christians resort to Christian beliefs when discussing their god. For example, if someone wants to argue that specifics examples of evil as being evidence against the Christian God, then the Christian can show how it’s not evil according to their Christian terms or perhaps even debate on what is evil or which standard to accept, etc.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That paragraph assumes that the Bible is not fact. And that the other things aren’t facts. Catholics aren’t willing to accept this premise, because we believe the Church’s teachings are facts, and the Bible too.

Of course the Bible is a fact, but most of the events described in it are not accepted as facts - due to the lack of evidence.

I don’t think that is the literal meaning of universe. That definition appears to fit the word “reality” better than “universe.” Some things exist that are not in the universe, but are in reality. God is a good example.

God’s existence has never been established. The concept called “god of the philosophers” is an attempt to establish a “deistic type of god”, as a first step which would lead to the Christian God.

Would you like me to provide evidence of angels, or would I be missing the point?

That would be a surprise.

I infer that you do not think these things are real and aren’t factual, so perhaps I could give you evidence of Platonic ideal forms. Would you like that?

That would be another nice surprise. Will you open a new thread about it?

---

But more importantly, his theory is irrelevant to our lives.

I agree that people believe in a “flesh and blood God” (and not an abstract concept) - figuratively speaking, of course. (Actually it is assumed that Jesus was God and yet was composed of flesh and blood.) But some philosophers, like Aquinas wanted to prove that God’s existence can be established on a fully rational platform. And that is referred to as the “god of philosophers”. It has nothing to do with the different gods proposed by different philosophers.

The Catholic church says in the catechism that the existence of God can be demonstrated rationally, without any reference to “revelation”. Unfortunately they “forgot” to tell the ways and means, how to do this. (I am aware that you are not catholic.)

You are also right, that this question does not have a whole lot of practical significance. Though it might be a huge breakthrough for the apologists if they could establish the existence of some “supernatural”. I recall that on the old pinball machines there is a sign: “For amusement only”. And this was the reason I created this thread. For fun and amusement only.

---

We can work with that, as a starting point. As some have mentioned to you here and in other threads, that taxonomy will eventually create a significant problem for those who believe in a Creator, as it conflates ‘creator’ and ‘creation’. But hey, for the sake of argument… let’s see where this goes.

If it creates a problem for some, they will have to deal with it. The word of the capitalized “God” or “Creator” has no place in this thread.

No… you can accept them as concepts; you’re just not including them in your definition of the ‘universe’.

Yes, they exist as concepts. What I meant was that considering them primary, and the actual referents of them is secondary is nonsensical. To say that there is an ideal “excrement”, and each actual instance of the waste product is just an approximation of this ideal is unacceptably ridiculous.

OK: so, already, we’ve got the “universe” and a subset of it, the “physical universe”. Fair enough. What else is a member of the “universe” without being a member of the “physical universe”?

I already did in the OP. Concepts, ideas created by thinking beings. If Tolstoy would not have been born or would have died in some childhood disease, “War an Peace” would never have been created. If the Sun would go nova soon, every copy and every reference to “War and Peace” would cease to exist. For the sake of the discussion we can posit the existence of “god” or “gods”.

Nope. Not trying to be difficult, but by positing a difference between “universe” and “physical universe”, you’ve already set up a construct in which the latter is WYSIWYG and the former is… not WYS (?).

Exactly as you say. The rest is not WYSIWYG.

“Beyond” what? Beyond the universe? Beyond the physical universe? Beyond what we observe in the physical universe?

Beyond the physical part of the universe, of course. I already touched on this in the OP. The assumption of “gods”, non-physical, yet physically active entities, who (or what) can interact with the physical universe.

The point of this thread is simple. Is there a way to start from the physical existence, applying reason and logic, and arrive at some non-physical, “supernatural” entity, who (or what) exists objectively, and is capable of interacting with our physical realm?

---

You need to define what do you mean with “exists”.

No, I don’t. To define something is to reduce it something more fundamental. And there is nothing more fundamental than existence.

Moreover, what you are proposing is that matter is primary. One can argue that consciousness is primary and matter is mere illusion. In another word what we experience is not real therefore it cannot be consider as basic principle to discuss God.

Whoever wishes to argue that consciousness is primary, and matter is secondary must bring up evidence for this assumption. If someone believes that matter is only an illusion, let’s take an “illusionary” baseball bat and smash his kneecaps. He will be “cured” of his misconception. And finally, this thread is NOT about discussing the capitalized “God”.

---

I am quite surprised that so many people are not familiar with the concept of the “god of the philosophers”.

 

[inocente]

I agree that people believe in a “flesh and blood God” (and not an abstract concept) - figuratively speaking, of course. (Actually it is assumed that Jesus was God and yet was composed of flesh and blood.) But some philosophers, like Aquinas wanted to prove that God’s existence can be established on a fully rational platform. And that is referred to as the “god of philosophers”. It has nothing to do with the different gods proposed by different philosophers.

The Catholic church says in the catechism that the existence of God can be demonstrated rationally, without any reference to “revelation”. Unfortunately they “forgot” to tell the ways and means, how to do this. (I am aware that you are not catholic.)

You are also right, that this question does not have a whole lot of practical significance. Though it might be a huge breakthrough for the apologists if they could establish the existence of some “supernatural”. I recall that on the old pinball machines there is a sign: “For amusement only”. And this was the reason I created this thread. For fun and amusement only.

*CCC 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.

CCC 286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. *

Both are a posteriori claims (the basis of his works / through his works), meaning reasoning dependent on experience or empirical evidence, so allowing teleological, cosmological and moral (law giver) arguments, while excluding deduction from pure reason, such as ontological arguments.

I don’t know if the CCC makes any other references, but those two don’t seem to me to refer to the god of the philosophers. The wordings could just be referring to Paul’s argument in Romans 1 : “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse”.

Maybe someone could say whether there is dogma requiring Catholics to accept any specific philosopher’s argument, but I wouldn’t have thought so.

 

[dmar198]

Of course the Bible is a fact, but most of the events described in it are not accepted as facts - due to the lack of evidence.

Would you like to discuss that claim in this thread?

God’s existence has never been established.

On the contrary, the world cannot exist without God. Would you like to discuss the reasons why we think that the previous statement is true?

The concept called “god of the philosophers” is an attempt to establish a “deistic type of god”, as a first step which would lead to the Christian God.

I wonder what you mean by a “deistic type of god.” In my understanding, deism agrees that there is a Creator, but denies that He continues to interact with the world He created. Is that your understanding as well? I ask because I think there is verifiable evidence that something outside the universe is constantly keeping everything inside the universe in existence, and if it wasn’t, our whole world and everything in it would instantly stop existing. I think I can support this claim using logic. Would you like me to try?

That would be a surprise.

My evidence for angels presupposes that God exists and made at least two types of creatures: physical creatures, and creatures with a mixture of physical bodies and intelligent spirits. Then, it uses a probablistic argument to infer that He probably created intelligent spirits Without physical bodies too. This particular argument is not just probablistic, but also demonstrative. It is a deductive argument, which is the kind that demonstrates the truth of its conclusion with certainty. The following statement is the conclusion: “Therefore, intelligent spirits without physical bodies are probably real.” After demonstrating that intelligent spirits without bodies are probably real, it tries to demonstrate that, if these things are real, they are what Christians call angels. Would you like to hear more?

That would be another nice surprise. Will you open a new thread about it?

Nope. But I’ll contribute if one is opened.

 

[dmar198]

**This post has been deleted by its author.

]

 

[Bradski]

It is a deductive argument, which is the kind that demonstrates the truth of its conclusion with certainty.

The following statement is the conclusion: “Therefore, intelligent spirits without physical bodies are probably real.”

Don’t you see a problem with those two statements?

 

[dmar198]

Don’t you see a problem with those two statements?

I’ll give an example of a deductive argument with a probable conclusion:

Most mice are nocturnal.
This animal is a mouse.
Therefore, this animal is probably nocturnal.

The above argument has valid form, true premises, and unambiguous terms. It is therefore a sound deductive argument, and the conclusion is certainly true: it is certain that the animal in question is probably nocturnal. You cannot be certain, from that argument alone, that it Is nocturnal, since the conclusion has “probably” in it. But you can be certain that it is Probably nocturnal, because the argument proves it. A similar argument can be made for the existence of angels.

Perhaps I should have been more clear when I used the words “certain” and “probably” together, since they ordinarily exclude one another. But they can be used together quite rationally. At least, that’s what I think. What do you think?

 

[Bradski]

I’ll give an example of a deductive argument with a probable conclusion:

Most mice are nocturnal.
This animal is a mouse.
Therefore, this animal is probably nocturnal.

The above argument has valid form, true premises, and unambiguous terms. It is therefore a sound deductive argument, and the conclusion is certainly true: it is certain that the animal in question is probably nocturnal. You cannot be certain, from that argument alone, that it Is nocturnal, since the conclusion has “probably” in it. But you can be certain that it is Probably nocturnal, because the argument proves it. A similar argument can be made for the existence of angels.

Perhaps I should have been more clear when I used the words “certain” and “probably” together, since they ordinarily exclude one another. But they can be used together quite rationally. At least, that’s what I think. What do you think?

I agree. I think that it is certain that the conclusion is valid. No doubt about that. But the conclusion in itself is not a definitive statement. Which is what I thought you were trying to state.

In contrast, I could say:

Angels are meant to interact with the physical world.
There is no physical evidence for angels.
Therefore angels probably don’t exist.

That conclusion, as you would have it, is certainly true.

If you can use the argument on both sides of the debate, it cancels itself out.

 

[Bradski]

The universe is assumed to be WYSIWYG. Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.

I’m not sure if this will affect the direction of your train of thought, but there is obviously more than what we see. Even as we talk, there is an immeasurable amount of what we can see (or would be able to see given enough time) expanding past the limit of the observable universe.

As this has been happening since the blue touch paper was lit, there may be an infinite amount of universe over and above what we see. And that’s not to mention the possibility (and a possibility only) of multiple universes.

This is where any concept of a personal god breaks down for me. Why is existence either infinite (or at least infinite for all practical considerations)? An omniscient being could make it so. But why…?

 

[Vonsalza]

An argument can also be rejected if the form is functionally valid, but a premise is not sound.

That is, the premise must be true. If one premise lacks soundness then any derived conclusion would lack soundness, even if the other supporting premise(s) are true.

The whole argument must be both valid and sound or the whole argument must be abandoned and reconsidered.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’m not sure if this will affect the direction of your train of thought, but there is obviously more than what we see. Even as we talk, there is an immeasurable amount of what we can see (or would be able to see given enough time) expanding past the limit of the observable universe.

That is correct. We cannot see whatever happens outside the “light cone”, but that is not a problem. No information can escape from a black hole either. Our speculations must be founded on what we can see and know. The “see” is more than what our senses perceive, it includes what the extensions of senses can register and record. From that starting point the philosophers attempted to come to a conclusion that the physical universe is “insufficient” and thus they try to carve out a realm for the “supernatural”. Of course they failed - at least so far.

 

[Bradski]

That is correct. We cannot see whatever happens outside the “light cone”, but that is not a problem. No information can escape from a black hole either. Our speculations must be founded on what we can see and know. The “see” is more than what our senses perceive, it includes what the extensions of senses can register and record. From that starting point the philosophers attempted to come to a conclusion that the physical universe is “insufficient” and thus they try to carve out a realm for the “supernatural”. Of course they failed - at least so far.

It would seem to me that early thoughts on what God had provided were that what you could see - a small part of the Middle East. Then later an entire planet (albeit with limited information on what that encompassed). If you had suggested then that ‘there surely must be more’, then you would have been ignored. Why would God make something we couldn’t access?

Then there were planets. Then a solar system. Then a galaxy. Then multiple galaxies. Then billions upon billions of galaxies. Then galaxies that were beyond what we could experience. What we see might be an infinitely small part of the universe itself. And now there could be an infinite number of universes.

At what point do you say: ‘Hang on…there’s too much.’ At what point did it stop making any sense whatsoever to say that this is all for us?