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.
If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Moderator: Moderators
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
- Contact:
Re: If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Post #31We would have to presume there was a timeless being. There just appears to be too much presumption here.William wrote: [Replying to post 28 by OnceConvinced]
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.Thinking takes time and is done in a linear fashion.
However I think I need to bow out of this discussion to a certain extent as there are many things discussed now between you and Diana that I have no idea about so should admit that I don't know rather than continuing to debate. You have both clearly done more research on this than I have.
You are right and it's what I try to do. Just accept that something always existed and why worry about how? "I think therefore I am" is good enough. However when it comes to debates on gods it's hard to avoid having to talk about FS. Can we also just do the same thing when it comes to ideas about gods? Do we really need to explain our existence by conjuring up fantasies about gods?William wrote:
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'.
Anyway... so judging by what I have been reading in your post am I right to conclude that you believe that God may have started to evolve from a non-supernatural source, before the BB? From something that always was?
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14000
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Post #32[Replying to post 31 by OnceConvinced]
But seriously, I would far rather engage in discussion about the idea of GOD than argue pointlessly about the contradictions of Christendom, or try and convince others that they don't need to have an explanation for their existence and list all the reasons
Having an explanation for my existence adds perspective to the reality of my existence - something more than nothing at all.
Each to their own.
The aspect of FS consciousness (UE) which entered into this universe simultaneously with the moment of its beginning (BB) may or may not have started to evolve from that moment. My theology can go either way on that, as it may not matter which. (I am open to argument about that.)
I don't use the word 'supernatural' but if you are using the word to describe anything which might exist outside of our universe, then FS reality fits the bill, (from our perspective within this universe) except that all realities are encompassed by First Source Reality. Think of that in terms of everything which exists does so in the mind of FS. In the mind of the source GOD.
The UE is a GOD. The EE is a GOD. We, as aspects of the EE are GODs. Obviously there are differences and limitations in relation to those positions.
Our positions are so far down the chain of events it is easy enough to believe we are not, and that too is our prerogative. The undivided connection throughout the process is consciousness. It is all connected to FS consciousness. All consciousness derives from FSC.
Form is what makes the difference.
In relation to our individual perspectives, and abilities etc, EE is more GOD than we, GE is more GOD than EE, UE is more GOD than GE, FS is more GOD than UE.
None are really separate. Form gives us that impression.
Personally speaking I don't mind presumptions as long as it remains logical in context with what doesn't require presumption.We would have to presume there was a timeless being. There just appears to be too much presumption here.
Diana and I have not discussed anything together.However I think I need to bow out of this discussion to a certain extent as there are many things discussed now between you and Diana that I have no idea about so should admit that I don't know rather than continuing to debate. You have both clearly done more research on this than I have.
We could talk about the Star Wars universe if you prefer.You are right and it's what I try to do. Just accept that something always existed and why worry about how? "I think therefore I am" is good enough. However when it comes to debates on gods it's hard to avoid having to talk about FS. Can we also just do the same thing when it comes to ideas about gods? Do we really need to explain our existence by conjuring up fantasies about gods?
But seriously, I would far rather engage in discussion about the idea of GOD than argue pointlessly about the contradictions of Christendom, or try and convince others that they don't need to have an explanation for their existence and list all the reasons
Having an explanation for my existence adds perspective to the reality of my existence - something more than nothing at all.
Each to their own.
No. Judging by what I wrote, FS (the source 'GOD') had no beginning.Anyway... so judging by what I have been reading in your post am I right to conclude that you believe that God may have started to evolve from a non-supernatural source, before the BB? From something that always was?
The aspect of FS consciousness (UE) which entered into this universe simultaneously with the moment of its beginning (BB) may or may not have started to evolve from that moment. My theology can go either way on that, as it may not matter which. (I am open to argument about that.)
I don't use the word 'supernatural' but if you are using the word to describe anything which might exist outside of our universe, then FS reality fits the bill, (from our perspective within this universe) except that all realities are encompassed by First Source Reality. Think of that in terms of everything which exists does so in the mind of FS. In the mind of the source GOD.
The UE is a GOD. The EE is a GOD. We, as aspects of the EE are GODs. Obviously there are differences and limitations in relation to those positions.
Our positions are so far down the chain of events it is easy enough to believe we are not, and that too is our prerogative. The undivided connection throughout the process is consciousness. It is all connected to FS consciousness. All consciousness derives from FSC.
Form is what makes the difference.
In relation to our individual perspectives, and abilities etc, EE is more GOD than we, GE is more GOD than EE, UE is more GOD than GE, FS is more GOD than UE.
None are really separate. Form gives us that impression.
- dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Post #33Hey, don't look at me; I'm just a NOVA junkie. Well, that and having an honest to goodness rocket scientist for a father. I'm fascinated by the idea of space-time and how it works....OnceConvinced wrote:We would have to presume there was a timeless being. There just appears to be too much presumption here.William wrote: [Replying to post 28 by OnceConvinced]
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.Thinking takes time and is done in a linear fashion.
However I think I need to bow out of this discussion to a certain extent as there are many things discussed now between you and Diana that I have no idea about so should admit that I don't know rather than continuing to debate. You have both clearly done more research on this than I have.
and maybe doesn't.
There is one thing we do understand, though that negates they idea that if can't prove that something did NOT happen, then it obviously DID. This seems to be what at least one poster here seems to be arguing in terms of different 'time states' or whatever it is he is using to support his very young earth idea.
that is this: the very thing that Einstein used to establish relativity...that is, in part, Doppler shifts, is how we know that space/time seems to have been abiding by the same rules since very shortly after the Big Bang, and those rules are the same rules we recognize now. We CAN reliably date things according to those rules...like, oh, carbon dating, etc.,
I am having some difficulty following reasoning that categorically denies all empirical evidence....just because.
(shrug) It's as silly as when one categorically denies all subjective evidence ...just because.
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
- Contact:
Re: If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Post #34What I mean is my discussions with you and Diana.William wrote:Diana and I have not discussed anything together.However I think I need to bow out of this discussion to a certain extent as there are many things discussed now between you and Diana that I have no idea about so should admit that I don't know rather than continuing to debate. You have both clearly done more research on this than I have.
Both seem to delve into the realms of fantasy.William wrote:We could talk about the Star Wars universe if you prefer.You are right and it's what I try to do. Just accept that something always existed and why worry about how? "I think therefore I am" is good enough. However when it comes to debates on gods it's hard to avoid having to talk about FS. Can we also just do the same thing when it comes to ideas about gods? Do we really need to explain our existence by conjuring up fantasies about gods?
But hey your FS stuff seems reasonable to me IF we are to agree that there is a god. I could see it as a legitimate argument for "how did God get there?" and how he could "always have been there" without the need for billions and billions of years of intelligent existence. I just don't see a need for a god there at all though.
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14000
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Post #35[Replying to post 34 by OnceConvinced]
My theology [FS stuff ] is not about need for a GOD.But hey your FS stuff seems reasonable to me IF we are to agree that there is a god. I could see it as a legitimate argument for "how did God get there?" and how he could "always have been there" without the need for billions and billions of years of intelligent existence. I just don't see a need for a god there at all though.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: If God exists then Infinity does not exist
Post #36jgh7 wrote: 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.
Incorrect:
Infinity is simply the negative of finite; which means what is infinite has no end or beginning, or can even be plotted along a temporal sequence at all. It provides no positive definition. There is very little that can be positively extrapolated from the definition "infinite". As a descriptive of God it merely guards against certain naive conclusions. All of this belongs to the discipline of negative theology going back to Plato, and, in my opinion, flourishes in Boethius. Eternity is the timeless fruition of unlimited life. We are forced to think of God as "always existing", as though he were traveling along the same timeline as we, only he has lived longer and will live longer. This is a most misleading concept. Time as a concept of sequences is a mere symbol for eternity.1) Infinity is that which has no end.
Post #37
Your second point assumes that eternal existence is synonymous with eternal time. Time has a beginning and an end, at least within the biblical framework. Existence is eternal without regard to time.jgh7 wrote: I'm not sure I understand where the fault in my argument lies. Let me rephrase it this way.
1) God, being all powerful, has the ability to reach all times in existence.
2) It is impossible to reach all times in an infinite existence because it never ends.
3) Therefore, either God can't reach all times in existence or existence must have an end.
Which one of these 3 points is incorrect and why?
The conclusion doesn't follow from the first point. Eternal existence is a given.
Post #38
I see the error of my argument as similar to stating that God cannot make a square circle. It is impossible to do something that contradicts its very definition (such as reaching the end of infinity), so my whole argument is invalid in that regard.shnarkle wrote:Your second point assumes that eternal existence is synonymous with eternal time. Time has a beginning and an end, at least within the biblical framework. Existence is eternal without regard to time.jgh7 wrote: I'm not sure I understand where the fault in my argument lies. Let me rephrase it this way.
1) God, being all powerful, has the ability to reach all times in existence.
2) It is impossible to reach all times in an infinite existence because it never ends.
3) Therefore, either God can't reach all times in existence or existence must have an end.
Which one of these 3 points is incorrect and why?
The conclusion doesn't follow from the first point. Eternal existence is a given.
So now I'm just debating to further understand what you mean. In my mind, as long as there is existence there is time. When Something or someone exists, they exist throughout time, from this moment to the next. What do you mean by saying existence is eternal without regard to time?
Post #39
As I pointed out earlier, this is only within the biblical framework.In my mind, as long as there is existence there is time. When Something or someone exists, they exist throughout time, from this moment to the next. What do you mean by saying existence is eternal without regard to time?
Things happen in time, but it is a contradiction to posit time before the beginning of time. The introduction to John's gospel simply points out that the word exists in the beginning. Existence must be before there can be a beginning to exist. Even that isn't accurate. Existence must be for the beginning to exist.Time has a beginning and an end, at least within the biblical framework. Existence is eternal without regard to time.
It's easy to contradict myself if I'm not paying attention because I also was brought up with these ideas that have nothing to do with what the texts are presenting.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #40
jgh7 wrote:
Everything that is created has a beginning. But God is not a created being. Therefore, he has no beginning and no end. God is eternal, not infinite. The two are compared here:
https://wikidiff.com/eternal/infinite
Also remember that God exists outside of time and space.
For_the_Kingdom wrote:
A hotel with an infinite number of rooms is full. When someone new comes along and asks for a room, we would expect the proprietor to say that there are no rooms available since the hotel is full. However, with an infinite number of rooms, the proprietor merely shifts the person in room 1 to room 2 and the person in room 2 to room 3, and the person in room 3 to room 4, etc. ad infinitum.
It results in a paradox that's mind-boggling. How can a hotel be full but still take in new customers?
Here's a brief article on the dilemma:
https://academic.logos.com/the-infinite ... -universe/
Or you can hear Craig explain it here:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hi ... &FORM=VIRE
And here's a brief explanation of the difference between potential and actual infinity:
These are things that really challenge my non-mathematical brain!
.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
Everything that is created has a beginning. But God is not a created being. Therefore, he has no beginning and no end. God is eternal, not infinite. The two are compared here:
https://wikidiff.com/eternal/infinite
Also remember that God exists outside of time and space.
For_the_Kingdom wrote:
This makes me think of Hilbert's Hotel, the argument used by William Lane Craig re: infinity with regards to the beginning of the universe. The idea is this:First, it would have been nice if you would have defined the two types of infinity...actual and potential. Because in your conclusion, you concluded that an actual infinity does not exist without defining what it is and the distinction between it and the other infinity; potential.
A hotel with an infinite number of rooms is full. When someone new comes along and asks for a room, we would expect the proprietor to say that there are no rooms available since the hotel is full. However, with an infinite number of rooms, the proprietor merely shifts the person in room 1 to room 2 and the person in room 2 to room 3, and the person in room 3 to room 4, etc. ad infinitum.
It results in a paradox that's mind-boggling. How can a hotel be full but still take in new customers?
Here's a brief article on the dilemma:
https://academic.logos.com/the-infinite ... -universe/
Or you can hear Craig explain it here:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hi ... &FORM=VIRE
And here's a brief explanation of the difference between potential and actual infinity:
These are things that really challenge my non-mathematical brain!