If God exists then Infinity does not exist

[jgh7]

Does this make sense?

1) Infinity is that which has no end.
2) It is impossible to reach the end of something with no end.
3) God can do everything that is possible to do in existence.
4) If God can't do something, then that something does not actually exist, for if it did exist then God could do it.
5) God can not reach the end of infinity for infinity has no end.
6 conclusion) An actual infinity does not exist if God exists.

Consequence: Everything in existence must have a beginning (infinitely back in time does not exist) and end (infinitely forwad in time does not exist) if God exists. Since God would also be part of existence, He must have a beginning and an end as well.

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by OnceConvinced]

I can accept that a god would have no end.

Okay...

That he would exist forever.

And obviously that he can be a male...

That would be a pretty horrible curse I think, but I can accept that.

Why would that be a horrible curse and why can you accept that?

The problem I have is when people try to claim that God always was.

Why can you have a problem with that but not a problem with the idea that GOD would exist forever?

If he always was, then we have to go backward in time infinitely, which surely would be absurd.

Yes it would seem that way if time was involved.

It would mean that God would never have ever got to the time where he created the earth.

This doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say here?

There surely had to be some starting point for God where he came into existence and then decided that he was going to start doing some creating.

Why do you think so? Why do you think GOD had to have had a beginning?

To say he was always there is kind of a paradox, I guess. An impossibility.

Why do you say this? You give no clear reason for why you think this is the case.

At the very least he must have been there in some ungodly form at some stage. Something non-supernatural and something non-intelligent.

Again...Why do you say this? You give no clear reason for why you think this is the case.

[dianaiad]

God is not bound to time.

Many people claim this, but what does that really mean? He still did things in a linear fashion.

Did He?

Or is that simply the way we perceive it, since WE experience things in a very linear fashion?

The thing is, he even created the world in a linear fashion. It took place over a period of time. (7 days). He hadn't even created the sun and the moon until the third day. The fact that he created the sun and the moon on the third day should show that God existed in a linear time frame before the things that govern our time actually existed.

Well, there are those of us who see this particular time frame a bit more metaphorically than that, especially when the bible has two different stories and two different lineups for those events.

We now know that clocks run at different speeds depending on gravity and velocity.

But the fact remains is they run in a linear fashion.

Indeed...but, er...if linear timelines can be of different lengths, what does that say about the possibility of, oh, throwing timelines out altogether? For me, at least, understanding that the time distance between two events can be seen...and experienced...very differently depending upon the viewer throws a whole bunch of monkey wrenches in the staid linear 'one thing after another' idea. If the interval between events can vary, what's to say that this interval can't be eliminated--or made infinitely long?

The whole thing gives me a headache, and I'm certainly not going to go around making claims about God that depend upon mankind's idea of what time is.

Or isn't.

[OnceConvinced]

Why would that be a horrible curse and why can you accept that?

I will refer you to a tongue and cheek article I wrote on why at least it would be a curse for humans. Imagine what it would be like for a super intelligent being like God!:
https://reckersworld.jimdo.com/religion ... d-be-hell/

The problem I have is when people try to claim that God always was.

Why can you have a problem with that but not a problem with the idea that GOD would exist forever?

My post explained why. All you needed to do was read on.

It would mean that God would never have ever got to the time where he created the earth.

This doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say here?

Well if he "always was" then he would have to go forward from an infinite point back in time... say zillions and zillions and zillions of years (that's not even scratching the surface) before he got to the point 6000 years ago (or whenever it was) that he created the earth.

It's a paradox, isn't it? How can you travel through infinite time to a point where you create something? That's why to say he "always was" makes absolutely no sense, even if you want to conjure up some fantasy about timelessness. We can't even fathom timelessness and can't even prove there is such a thing, so why talk about it as if it is something real?

There surely had to be some starting point for God where he came into existence and then decided that he was going to start doing some creating.

Why do you think so? Why do you think GOD had to have had a beginning?

Because it makes no sense to say there was a super intelligent supernatural being that always existed. Every thing intelligent that we have ever seen comes from something. Every thing intelligent we have ever seen has a beginning. Why should we invoke special pleading for a god?

To say he was always there is kind of a paradox, I guess. An impossibility.

Why do you say this? You give no clear reason for why you think this is the case.

My entire post is trying to show this. Instead of trying to pick it apart line by line, why not try to grasp the entire post?

At the very least he must have been there in some ungodly form at some stage. Something non-supernatural and something non-intelligent.

Again...Why do you say this? You give no clear reason for why you think this is the case.

Because everything requires natural resources of some kind. Non-supernatural elements. Have you ever come across anything that doesn't?

[OnceConvinced]

The thing is, he even created the world in a linear fashion. It took place over a period of time. (7 days). He hadn't even created the sun and the moon until the third day. The fact that he created the sun and the moon on the third day should show that God existed in a linear time frame before the things that govern our time actually existed.

Well, there are those of us who see this particular time frame a bit more metaphorically than that, especially when the bible has two different stories and two different lineups for those events.

Yes, the bible usually becomes metaphors when it can't be taken at face value. How do you see it metaphorically? How do 7 days and the order in which things were done day by day become a metaphor?

I don't see why God would want us to believe that he created things in 6 days if he didn't actually create them in 6 days.

Indeed...but, er...if linear timelines can be of different lengths, what does that say about the possibility of, oh, throwing timelines out altogether? For me, at least, understanding that the time distance between two events can be seen...and experienced...very differently depending upon the viewer throws a whole bunch of monkey wrenches in the staid linear 'one thing after another' idea. If the interval between events can vary, what's to say that this interval can't be eliminated--or made infinitely long?

'

I for one don't buy that time can literally slow down or speed up. Nevertheless, I'll repeat what I said to William: even if you want to conjure up some fantasy about timelessness. We can't even fathom timelessness and can't even prove there is such a thing, so why talk about it as if it is something real?

The whole thing gives me a headache, and I'm certainly not going to go around making claims about God that depend upon mankind's idea of what time is.

Or isn't.

What do you suggest is the alternative?

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by OnceConvinced]

My entire post is trying to show this. Instead of trying to pick it apart line by line, why not try to grasp the entire post?

I did read your entire post and it made no sense to me, which is why I asked you the individual questions to do with your entire post.

Well if he "always was" then he would have to go forward from an infinite point back in time... say zillions and zillions and zillions of years (that's not even scratching the surface) before he got to the point 6000 years ago (or whenever it was) that he created the earth.

It's a paradox, isn't it? How can you travel through infinite time to a point where you create something?

What if simply by thinking something, it becomes and no 'travel' necessary? Wouldn't that be something one could expect from GOD?

In that way, thoughts lead to other thoughts, building upon concepts so these manifestations become real through that process and branch out in a never-ending cascade of possibility/potential made real. Indeed the whole thing could be instantaneous for that and only appreciated as 'time' or 'space' or 'experience' by beings like us who are involved within it.

In other words, everything which can possibly exist, may exist already but still be waiting to be experienced and is being experienced simultaneously by GOD, and we are part of that process, because we are part of the everything.

I speak of such concepts in my Member Notes - specifically here;

♦ The Earth Entity

Which is specifically why I am asking you questions related to your own claims.

That's why to say he "always was" makes absolutely no sense, even if you want to conjure up some fantasy about timelessness. We can't even fathom timelessness and can't even prove there is such a thing, so why talk about it as if it is something real?

Well the same really goes for GOD too, but here you are not only talking about GOD but even referring to GOD as 'he'!

There is no reason why we cannot at least get the gist re timelessness. Same with the idea of GOD always ever having existed. The problem isn't in that we cannot fathom the idea (because we can at least get the gist of it) but in that we are coming from the viewpoint of an experience which has a beginning and it is difficult to set that knowledge aside when contemplating ideas of timelessness and no beginnings.

Actually, the idea of no beginning makes perfect sense in relation to things (such as our universe and us) having beginnings, as I speak about here;

♦ Timelessness vs infinite regress argument

There are a bundle of links there which expand on the idea and debunk the notion of infinite regress that the reader can delve into.

[Complexity]

Thank you for your response.

OnceConvinced Wrote

You claim this but have zero evidence to back that up. That is a presumption on your part.

I said before the Big Bang there was no time. Actually, I was parroting the top scientists in the field, and what we hear repeatedly in science programs. They get it from math models using known laws of relativity and quantum mechanics. They could be wrong. There are many different models. But I haven’t heard disagreement on the central point that there is no time as we know it before the Big Bang. And there are numerous experiments proving the fundamentals of relativity of time. We are so blinded by our macro world, non-relativistic vision that we can't imagine what existence might be like in super-gravity, non-space, multi-dimensions, quantum or non-quantum worlds. Only the models can give us clues, leaving us to marvel at the complexity of it all.


OnceConvinced Wrote

So God was wrong about how he described himself in the bible?

I didn’t mean to imply that God was wrong in decribing Himself. God came down to the level of ancient man and talked in his terms. It is like when we speak of the sun coming up. I might wake my wife or a child saying, “The sun is up�, not “The earth has just rotated on its 23.5 inclined angle axis to where sunlight strikes the earth at a low angle.�

OnceConvinced Wrote

I see no reason to invoke special pleading when it comes to gods. That is considered a logical fallacy. If he was always there, then why not non-supernatural life giving elements?

Special Pleading: Special pleading is claiming there is a significant difference without supporting that claim with good evidence/argument. It is a blind assumption. The Bible claims there is a vast difference between God and man and between the supernatural and natural. The fulfilled prophecies of the Bible testify to God’s ability to see the future and it appears be in both the future & past. I made the special pleading fallacy, if Christianity is poorly supported by history, quality witnesses, science, 10,000 years of consistency, uniqueness above what man can muster, prophecy, personal revelation, the potential value factor, etc. If you haven't, read one of the many fine books on apologetic and you be the judge.

[dianaiad]

The thing is, he even created the world in a linear fashion. It took place over a period of time. (7 days). He hadn't even created the sun and the moon until the third day. The fact that he created the sun and the moon on the third day should show that God existed in a linear time frame before the things that govern our time actually existed.

Well, there are those of us who see this particular time frame a bit more metaphorically than that, especially when the bible has two different stories and two different lineups for those events.

Yes, the bible usually becomes metaphors when it can't be taken at face value. How do you see it metaphorically? How do 7 days and the order in which things were done day by day become a metaphor?

I don't see why God would want us to believe that he created things in 6 days if he didn't actually create them in 6 days.

I have a couple of geological and archeological textbooks which describe the creation and evolution in periods of time that may or may not comprise equal numbers of days (measured by the rotation of the planet, which seems to have changed since the very beginning). The Cambrian period, the Jurassic, the Hadian, Cryoginian...there are a great many of them and they are not exactly evenly divided into equal hours and days. Those books talk about what happened in those periods without defining 'how long' each one was. They may as well have said 'days...' meaning 'period of time.'

Not to mention that the people who wrote Genesis weren't astrophysicists...and had neither the education nor the time to get full educations in this sort of thing. WE have the time and the ability now, so...now we learn more about the process. As to the bible containing metaphors....good heavens. Metaphors and parables are how things were taught at the time. Certainly the NT is very little but analogy, metaphor and parable with a little history thrown in.

IMO, it's safer to figure that something read in the Bible is metaphorical until it is proven to not be metaphorical, at least in part.

Indeed...but, er...if linear timelines can be of different lengths, what does that say about the possibility of, oh, throwing timelines out altogether? For me, at least, understanding that the time distance between two events can be seen...and experienced...very differently depending upon the viewer throws a whole bunch of monkey wrenches in the staid linear 'one thing after another' idea. If the interval between events can vary, what's to say that this interval can't be eliminated--or made infinitely long?

I for one don't buy that time can literally slow down or speed up.

But that one has been proven. Not simply by Einstein's famous thought experiments about trains, stations and observers, but by actual experimental evidence.

Nevertheless, I'll repeat what I said to William: even if you want to conjure up some fantasy about timelessness. We can't even fathom timelessness and can't even prove there is such a thing, so why talk about it as if it is something real?

Why not?

We've been talking about black holes for a long time before they were proven to exist.

The whole thing gives me a headache, and I'm certainly not going to go around making claims about God that depend upon mankind's idea of what time is.

Or isn't.

What do you suggest is the alternative?

Hang around, enjoy the ride and keep learning stuff.

[OnceConvinced]

Well if he "always was" then he would have to go forward from an infinite point back in time... say zillions and zillions and zillions of years (that's not even scratching the surface) before he got to the point 6000 years ago (or whenever it was) that he created the earth.

It's a paradox, isn't it? How can you travel through infinite time to a point where you create something?

What if simply by thinking something, it becomes and no 'travel' necessary? Wouldn't that be something one could expect from GOD?

Thinking takes time and is done in a linear fashion. Also by saying that God just "thunk it" into being, dumbs down creation something chronic. I would imagine that God would spend time thinking things through figuring out how everything would work together, otherwise where's the intelligence in the intelligent design? If he spent a whole day to say create land and vegetation, this wasn't just something he said "abracadabra" for. I'd say he spent time concentrating and figuring out how it would work. This is why at the end of 7 days he needed to rest.

That's why to say he "always was" makes absolutely no sense, even if you want to conjure up some fantasy about timelessness. We can't even fathom timelessness and can't even prove there is such a thing, so why talk about it as if it is something real?

Well the same really goes for GOD too,

God doesn't seem to be a very abstract concept. Timelessness is.

but here you are not only talking about GOD but even referring to GOD as 'he'

Blame sexist ancient man on that. They were the ones who decided he was going to be a he.

My partner makes me laugh. When people refer to God as a "he" she sometimes ask. 'What? Does he have a penis?" And of course it makes people uncomfortable or they laugh. But she makes a good point. If God is a male he must do!

Actually, the idea of no beginning makes perfect sense in relation to things (such as our universe and us) having beginnings, as I speak about here;

It seems logical to say there must have been something that was always there in some form or another, but I think it's impossible to determine exactly what was always there and how it came to always be there. However if there is a god who did some creating, then there had to be a first time for that. But how long was that God around before he realised he was conscious and how long between realising who he was and when he did his first act of creating?

[OnceConvinced]

OnceConvinced Wrote

So God was wrong about how he described himself in the bible?

I didn’t mean to imply that God was wrong in decribing Himself. God came down to the level of ancient man and talked in his terms.

Well he didn't do a very good job did he? I'm sure he could have come up with a better explanation, one that created a more realistic scenario than talking in terms of days. I'm sure even ancient man were not so dumb that they couldn't have had it explained a little more accurately. Instead God misleads them, making them think he did all this creating in a linear process in a matter of days.

Christians like to point out the whole 1000 years equals a day to God scripture, but even if you want to say that's God trying to explain it in terms we dim-witted humans can understand, it's also a very misleading statement. That hardly equals a metaphor for timelessness.

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by OnceConvinced]

Thinking takes time and is done in a linear fashion.

In relation to us, it sure appears that way, but how are we to know this is the same for a timeless being with the ability to create within Its mind all sorts of interrelated realities - even if this is done in linear fashion - although there is nothing to say that creative process in the mind of such a being has to abide by only that.

Also by saying that God just "thunk it" into being, dumbs down creation something chronic.

I don't see why that is the case. The big bang would represent the first spark of thought - what we within the creation identify as the beginning, but this though might well have being the result of a whole previous universe - even in which many potentials branched off from the one, and perhaps even in this universe the same pattern continues.

Certainly using the word 'thought' may seem too human, but we do understand that thought does bring about action through the physical vessel and in that we do not say of the creations of human thought to being somehow unworthy of the process.

I would imagine that God would spend time thinking things through figuring out how everything would work together, otherwise where's the intelligence in the intelligent design?

My theology incorporates this idea but does so as a process which involves the linear, which has to do with the origin of consciousness - that which I identify as the being -
- First Source [FS] - who represents that which has always existed.

In relation to creations, these are achieved through a process whereby FS imbues aspects of Its consciousness into the creations as a means of experiencing these creatively, through that medium.

In relation to this universe, it is the creation of one such medium - The Universal Entity [UE] who repeats the pattern of divesting aspects of Its consciousness into the forms it creates within this universe.

This pattern continues through Galactic Entities [GE] and Planetary System Entities [PSE] Each in turn divesting aspects of their consciousness into the forms of the universe.

In relation to our planet (the Earth Entity) [EE] the pattern continues as aspects of Its consciousness are divested into the forms on the planet.

Wherein this theology, is there a chronic dumbing down or the process of creativity?

It corresponds with your imagining that God would spend time thinking things through figuring out how everything would work together, and presents a viable picture of the intelligence within the idea of intelligent design.

If he spent a whole day to say create land and vegetation, this wasn't just something he said "abracadabra" for. I'd say he spent time concentrating and figuring out how it would work. This is why at the end of 7 days he needed to rest.

I see you are working this out from the biblical perspective, and in this, how long something took from that perspective is not something I hold any stock in. I prefer the idea of billions of years unfolding with the process and biological evolution being the process the Earth Entity used to create forms.

I think if you or anyone else is going to use the biblical perspective literally as the position of argument, this will naturally enough stifle the comprehensive, and in that, it is more the thing which dumbs down the idea of intelligent design.

Of course I am speaking to the perspective of us within this universe - but understand that from the vantage of FSC, the whole thing could look to us more like an instantaneous simultaneous event. That is what I was alluding to.

God doesn't seem to be a very abstract concept. Timelessness is.

Well yes - I see your point when you are using the biblical idea of GOD alone, as the template.

but here you are not only talking about GOD but even referring to GOD as 'he'

Blame sexist ancient man on that. They were the ones who decided he was going to be a he.

They were also the ones who decided the idea of GOD was going to be the biblical one. We of course can easily enough remove ourselves from such constricting ideas of GOD, as we so chose to. We can indeed understand why this idea of GOD formed in relation to human culture and society and adjust accordingly. That is my preference when thinking about ideas of GOD, rather than say, flinging the whole baby out with the bathwater - as the saying goes. I see no rational for doing so just because ancient folk had weird ideas and ignorant attitudes.

My partner makes me laugh. When people refer to God as a "he" she sometimes ask. 'What? Does he have a penis?" And of course it makes people uncomfortable or they laugh. But she makes a good point. If God is a male he must do!

That would be true. I have argued that point myself. It makes no sense really.

In relation to the idea of the Earth Entity, one can perhaps understand her being more a hermaphrodite in relation to the forms she creates.
But calling her a 'she' would infer she has female genitals. So perhaps there is more to it than simply gender?

Whatever, if the earth is the form of a conscious being then that entity can be both (and perhaps more), but wouldn't be one or the other or neither. Its nature has to be able to be observed it what It creates - form wise.

It seems logical to say there must have been something that was always there in some form or another, but I think it's impossible to determine exactly what was always there and how it came to always be there.

I understand. We cannot fathom First Source in any detail. However, if FS has always existed then there is no need to include the notion of 'how It came to be' so all that is required with the idea of a being who always existed is to drop that notion - and it isn't a problem anymore. There is no 'how it came to be' - that is the definition.

Think of it in terms of if there were no evidence of a beginning to this universe, we could understand it had no beginning and has always been. There would be no requirement to ask ourselves 'how it came to be'.

However if there is a god who did some creating, then there had to be a first time for that.

In relation to our universe, yes. That first time is what we call the Big Bang. [BB]

But how long was that God around before he realised he was conscious and how long between realising who he was and when he did his first act of creating?

In relation to my theology, the UE is this particular GOD (aspect of FS) and we can examine answers to this question by looking at how things unfolded from that event (the BB), I don't know that we need to presume the UE was never conscious of its self, or its abilities from the go get, but if It began Its experience in the same moment of the BB (and thus had a beginning and no memory of any prior existence) and as creation unfolded in linear fashion, Its self awareness increased and It began to understand Its abilities therein, by observing Its thoughts in relation to the unfolding and seeing within that, the connection between Its thoughts and what was being manifested, one can get the gist.

Fast-forward to our Galaxy and our Planetary system, and we have something which is well and truly established within the context of that creative ability - something which was once potential became reality.

It makes sense in an overall way, but understandably almost beggars belief from the point of view of individuate consciousnesses in human form, especially when covered in the sedimentary strata of ancient thinking and subsequent behavior of human beings and their ideas of GOD, formed as the have, in ignorance.

I wonder if we look for perfection in all things, because we sense it is somehow missing?