Same God?

[Archaeopteryx]

Both. An actual infinite refers to a set with infinite numbers, e.g. Infinity by itself doesn't refer to a set; or there is just one number in this set, infinity.

So an actual infinity can exist, contrary to what you previously claimed.

Because anything that transcends this universe must by definition be infinite (e.g., infinitely big in all directions).

You need to show your working out here. This doesn't appear to follow from anything you've stated, and it doesn't appear coherent either (if you want to maintain that God is spaceless, then in what sense is he 'big' in any 'direction'?)

 

[Received]

So an actual infinity can exist, contrary to what you previously claimed.

So an actual infinite refers to a set with an infinite amount of (discrete) numbers. Right?

You need to show your working out here. This doesn't appear to follow from anything you've stated, and it doesn't appear coherent either (if you want to maintain that God is spaceless, then in what sense is he 'big' in any 'direction'?)

From our perspective (finitude) infinity/spacelessness is "big". The universe is finite, right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So an actual infinite refers to a set with an infinite amount of (discrete) numbers. Right?

Or, in this case, a deity that you claim to be eternal. Eternity isn't finite, right?

From our perspective (finitude) infinity/spacelessness is "big".

Bigness or smallness is a measure of size, which depends on space. Besides which, my first intuition wouldn't be to call something spaceless "big," but rather infinitely "small"; so small in fact that it occupies no space whatsoever.

The universe is finite, right?

We don't know.

 

[Received]

Or, in this case, a deity that you claim to be eternal. Eternity isn't finite, right?

How is something with a discrete set of infinite numbers the same as something that isn't a discrete set of infinite numbers?

Eternity isn't finite per our discussion.

Bigness or smallness is a measure of size, which depends on space. Besides which, my first intuition wouldn't be to call something spaceless "big," but rather infinitely "small"; so small in fact that it occupies no space whatsoever.

Intrinsically, yes. I'm speaking from our perspective.

We don't know.

All the evidence points to an open universe, indicating a big bang that began some time in the finite past. Finite past means finite universe; 14.6 billion years means 14.6 billion lightyears across. There is no evidence for an infinite number of universes, although the theory might attempt to explain bigger problems.

 

[TillICollapse]

All the evidence points to an open universe, indicating a big bang that began some time in the finite past. Finite past means finite universe;

Finite past doesn't necessarily mean finite universe. Again, from what I understand, we don't know definitively what things look like before the Plank era.

14.6 billion years means 14.6 billion lightyears across. There is no evidence for an infinite number of universes, although the theory might attempt to explain bigger problems.

Actually, from my understanding, certain fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation may be explained by the presence of other universes pulling on our own in it's early formation. Mapping of the CMB apparently reflects this (there was an article from a couple of years ago I read, I'd have to dig to find it), so it may be evidence to help support those who are proponents of the multiverse theory and a potential infinite number of universes.

 

[Greenest Desert]

That idea is a lie from the pit of hell. The God we follow makes the world turn, the God we follow is not created but exist,the God we follow makes us go against ourselfs to serve him, the God we follow makes weird supernatural power a normal occurance to a man who is rightious and, lastly the God we follow is all there is and every will be he is the Omaga and Alpha he knows no end and no beganing he makes the universe for his Devine pleasure GLORY TO HIM !!! Those other gods are stone or worse they are the Devil no Devil I lnow comes in red spandex with blood on him killing babies to you, no he comes in the night with dreams of lust he comes in the day with shinny things he comes always when you are weak. He will read you any gospial besides the God's to get you into hell. And his book is really simple, keep doing what your doing, embrace the world. He is a god in his mind and he is lower than dirt and he embraces hate, he embraces lust, he denies his maker, he embraces humanism. He comes in Islam with hate, treat your wife's as dirt, say peace as Mohamed did and as mohamed ordered the death of non believers by his followers wage war with non believers and Satan has promised us many wife's and gold and all Cardinal in eturnity. He comes in this new false hyper grace that people like Billy Gram, Joel Ostine, and many others bring. He comes and only talks about the grace of God the love of God oh how loving God is, oh don't stop your sin, oh God loves you so much he won't send anyone to HELL! Oh love everyone, entertain ideas against God, change with the times, embrace the world, have a marry sinful Christmas. No there is no such thing as worshiping the true God along with those other faulse imaginatary gods. God has hate to those who sin, he hates us all as we are in sin! Only the grace of God through Jesus to us can we hope for him to love us. Only that which is like Jesus does he love and Jesus cries rivers for every lost man woman and child! Only that which is rightous does he love! Glory to God we can ever hope to please him, praise Jesus that through him we can change to please the father!
Ok I got going there, no there is only one right way. Only one universe many scientist are wrong they may make math with what they know but that which they do not yet know defeats them when more is learned they are a stepping stone. We are going to do away with gravity soon electro magintisum is going to prove the suprior force and electristy will finely be exposed as what runs the universe. This is being brought in by the fallen ones to make us believe we are as gods and make a Tower of Babel again. So no we don't love on the same universe, until we face God then we face that there is only one universe one God one heaven and one hell; best of all one Jesus.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is something with a discrete set of infinite numbers the same as something that isn't a discrete set of infinite numbers?

Eternity isn't finite per our discussion.

Exactly. Eternity is infinite.

All the evidence points to an open universe, indicating a big bang that began some time in the finite past. Finite past means finite universe;

No, not necessarily. All the Big Bang shows is that the universe began expanding some 14.8 billion years ago. What happened "before" then, if "before" even makes sense at such high energies, is unknown.

There is no evidence for an infinite number of universes, although the theory might attempt to explain bigger problems.

How quick you are to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis due to paucity of evidence, even though your own "theory" suffers from the same problem, perhaps to an even greater degree.

 

[JGG]

I'm trying to answer the other questions elsewhere.

How could God be infinite before and after creating the universe? Much in the same way as a cloud passes over an "infinite" blue sky, the former being anything finite created (e.g., universes), with the latter being infinity, God. You don't need clouds to have the sky, and you need the sky to even consider having clouds.

Putting infinite in quotes doesn't help. How is it necessary that God is infinite, and how can we justify that God is infinite, if God was infinite before the universe, and infinite once the universe existed. That universe shows that God is finite, the same way polytheist gods are finite.

 

[Greenest Desert]

Putting infinite in quotes doesn't help. How is it necessary that God is infinite, and how can we justify that God is infinite, if God was infinite before the universe, and infinite once the universe existed. That universe shows that God is finite, the same way polytheist gods are finite.

If you guys keep talking like this the holy sprit is gonna turn me into a pile of ashes... Creating a finite universe does not prove you are fonite, creating a 2D picture does not mean your not in 4D. This universe from God's perspective is as complicated as drawing a picture. He's likely in the 10D and he put us into a 4D world. We are not very finite eather in that we have eturnal sprits. We creat machines that calculate but never come close to thinking like us. Does that mean we don't have emotions? No it just means the creation is the creators tinker toy. As we are to God we are his tinker toys. Your taking power away from God as well you should know that's very slippery slope. The universe is finite becuse God is not trying to make a all forever perfect universe he just wants some company for eturnity. He put us into something of a computer program anyway, that's all this world is a little computer program to see if we want to be a good child or continue disobeying. Speaking of which how does eturnity exist in a finite universe?

 

[Received]

Exactly. Eternity is infinite.

And how does this relate to our discussion on sets versus God's infinity? I.e., How is something with a discrete set of infinite numbers the same as something that isn't a discrete set of infinite numbers?

No, not necessarily. All the Big Bang shows is that the universe began expanding some 14.8 billion years ago. What happened "before" then, if "before" even makes sense at such high energies, is unknown.

There was nothing before then. A universe coming into existence implies that all things, including nothingness, began at point in time. Actually not even nothingness is there -- not physical nothingness -- "before" the big bang.

I'm not getting how this is an objection to my point.

How quick you are to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis due to paucity of evidence, even though your own "theory" suffers from the same problem, perhaps to an even greater degree.

Dude, I'm not claiming my theory is commensurate with evidence; that would be what science does. If science makes demands for evidence and isn't able to fulfill them, that's a problem; if metaphysics never says physical evidence is needed but instead we're forced to reason about things given that evidence in this sense isn't commensurate with our discussion, that't not a problem. You still have a problem and I don't.

 

[Received]

Putting infinite in quotes doesn't help. How is it necessary that God is infinite, and how can we justify that God is infinite, if God was infinite before the universe, and infinite once the universe existed. That universe shows that God is finite, the same way polytheist gods are finite.

1) Multiplicity is a property of the physical universe and physical things.
2) God is not part of the physical universe.
3) Therefore, God doesn't have the property of multiplicity. He is singular, which fits with the idea of infinity.

And again: God's infinity is like imagining an infinite (note the analogy here) blue sky, cluttered up by finite clouds. The clouds need a sky, but the sky doesn't need (or is affected by) clouds. Likewise with infinity being a necessary precondition for finitude, or God being a necessary precondition for the universe.

 

[Wryetui]

What you are saying is not compatible with Christianity. YHWH chose His people and His prophets revealing Himself to the world because people were being lost in idolatry and He said He will send His Son to redeem them, and His son came and He proved what His Father stated.

The concept of the Many-Faced God as in Game of Thrones is not compatible with the true God here in the real world

 

[JGG]

1) Multiplicity is a property of the physical universe and physical things.
2) God is not part of the physical universe.
3) Therefore, God doesn't have the property of multiplicity. He is singular, which fits with the idea of infinity.

First, I'm not sure whether you are using the philosophical concept of multiplicity or the mathematical one. In either case, there is no reason to assume, and no way to know, that multiplicity does not also exist outside of our universe (if such a thing is possible).

Furthermore, when we attach labels to God such as "good", "perfect", "He", or even the label "God" we place labels on the concept. Thus, making "God" finite, and undermining the concept altogether.

On top of that, by defining God as singular, that suggests that God is unchanging. The Bible tells us otherwise, and defining God as a creator undermines the idea that God does not change.

And again: God's infinity is like imagining an infinite (note the analogy here) blue sky, cluttered up by finite clouds. The clouds need a sky, but the sky doesn't need (or is affected by) clouds. Likewise with infinity being a necessary precondition for finitude, or God being a necessary precondition for the universe.

But the problem here is that you are defining God as "outside the universe" we are stating that reality is made up of at least "The Universe" and "God". God, therefore, cannot be infinite, as He is defined as not-The-Universe. There is something bigger than God: God + the Universe.

In the same way, you say there is an infinite blue sky, and clouds. Since you define clouds as being something different from the sky, the sky cannot be infinite as the sky does not include that which you define as clouds.

If you wanted to say that there is an infinite blue sky and leave it at that, then that would be singular.

And beyond all of that, let's just point out that this is all meaningless speculation. You're just making stuff up.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And how does this relate to our discussion on sets versus God's infinity? I.e., How is something with a discrete set of infinite numbers the same as something that isn't a discrete set of infinite numbers?

You tell me. You're the one who claimed God is infinite, despite claiming that an actual infinite is impossible.

There was nothing before then.

No indication of whether this is true or not. We don't know whether there ever was a pure philosophical nothingness.

I'm not getting how this is an objection to my point.

Your point was that a finite past means a finite universe. My point was that this isn't necessarily the case. The Big Bang indicates that the universe began expanding some 14.8 billion years ago. It doesn't entail that it sprung from pure nothingness. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't.

Dude, I'm not claiming my theory is commensurate with evidence; that would be what science does. If science makes demands for evidence and isn't able to fulfill them, that's a problem;

But when you present an idea and fail to meet the demand for evidence, it's not a problem?

if metaphysics never says physical evidence is needed but instead we're forced to reason about things given that evidence in this sense isn't commensurate with our discussion, that't not a problem. You still have a problem and I don't.

You think you don't have a problem but you're mistaken. If you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. What you currently have is a double-standard. A double-standard that you would never tolerate in someone else's reasoning about the origin of the cosmos.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1) Multiplicity is a property of the physical universe and physical things.

I already showed you that this isn't necessarily true. If the universe began as a singularity, then singularity is also a potential property of the physical universe.

2) God is not part of the physical universe.
3) Therefore, God doesn't have the property of multiplicity. He is singular, which fits with the idea of infinity.

You are tying yourself into knots again. First, there's the issue of infinity: on the one hand,you claim an actual infinite cannot exist, but on the other you posit a being that is infinite. Second, why must the divine be singular? One could posit the existence of multiple co-eternal supernatural beings. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity already implies multiplicity in God, so your claim would appear to contravene conventional Christian theology.

 

[Received]

You tell me. You're the one who claimed God is infinite, despite claiming that an actual infinite is impossible.



No indication of whether this is true or not. We don't know whether there ever was a pure philosophical nothingness.



Your point was that a finite past means a finite universe. My point was that this isn't necessarily the case. The Big Bang indicates that the universe began expanding some 14.8 billion years ago. It doesn't entail that it sprung from pure nothingness. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't.



But when you present an idea and fail to meet the demand for evidence, it's not a problem?



You think you don't have a problem but you're mistaken. If you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. What you currently have is a double-standard. A double-standard that you would never tolerate in someone else's reasoning about the origin of the cosmos.

Arch! I'm saying that there's a difference between something being infinite and an actual infinite. I've said it like at least four times.

How is something like {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...} counting to infinity, i.e., an infinite number of things

the same as

Something being infinite?

You might call the one quantitative infinity, because it involves an infinite set of numbers (or causes), whereas the other is qualitative infinity, infinity in terms of size (which, for God, means only in relation to our perspective)?

 

[Received]

First, I'm not sure whether you are using the philosophical concept of multiplicity or the mathematical one. In either case, there is no reason to assume, and no way to know, that multiplicity does not also exist outside of our universe (if such a thing is possible).

For one, if we're being pragmatic, and we know that a first cause or whatever is needed, which is more pragmatic: multiple deities or a single one?

Secondly, multiplicity is a property of the physical universe because of space; we can say there is one, two, three things because space separates physical objects, even at the quantum level. Any creator of the universe must be beyond the space which is intrinsic to this universe. Therefore, God is beyond space and time.

Furthermore, when we attach labels to God such as "good", "perfect", "He", or even the label "God" we place labels on the concept. Thus, making "God" finite, and undermining the concept altogether.

I don't understand how concepts like good, perfect, etc. are commensurate with the infinity/finitude divide. Even if they are, it's our words, which are projections of our finitude, which doesn't limit the infinity of what we're attempting to describe.

On top of that, by defining God as singular, that suggests that God is unchanging. The Bible tells us otherwise, and defining God as a creator undermines the idea that God does not change.

Implicit in this argument is that the Bible is meant to literally portray God. Talk to a fundamentalist.

But the problem here is that you are defining God as "outside the universe" we are stating that reality is made up of at least "The Universe" and "God". God, therefore, cannot be infinite, as He is defined as not-The-Universe. There is something bigger than God: God + the Universe.

"Reality" is not tantamount to physical reality. Physical reality involves finitude; metaphysical reailty can entail physicality and spirituality, finitude and infinitude. So here we're back again at the necessity of God being not finite because finitude is a property of the physical universe. Reality might mean that something outside of the universe can exist, which would be God, but only physical reality (i.e., the universe) would mean that God can't be infinite according to your logic.

In the same way, you say there is an infinite blue sky, and clouds. Since you define clouds as being something different from the sky, the sky cannot be infinite as the sky does not include that which you define as clouds.

If you wanted to say that there is an infinite blue sky and leave it at that, then that would be singular.

And beyond all of that, let's just point out that this is all meaningless speculation. You're just making stuff up.

What evidence or reasoning do you have I'm making stuff up?

 

[Received]

I already showed you that this isn't necessarily true. If the universe began as a singularity, then singularity is also a potential property of the physical universe.

And?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arch! I'm saying that there's a difference between something being infinite and an actual infinite. I've said it like at least four times.

I know you've said it. You say lots of things. Doesn't mean they make sense.

How is something like {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...} counting to infinity, i.e., an infinite number of things

the same as

Something being infinite?

You might call the one quantitative infinity, because it involves an infinite set of numbers (or causes), whereas the other is qualitative infinity, infinity in terms of size (which, for God, means only in relation to our perspective)?

Which means an actual infinite is possible, as we discussed previously. Are you ready to concede yet, or do you intend to continue droning on about how infinity isn't "actual infinity"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And?

And your point is moot.