Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Because anything that transcends this universe must by definition be infinite (e.g., infinitely big in all directions).
So an actual infinity can exist, contrary to what you previously claimed.
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'?)
So an actual infinite refers to a set with an infinite amount of (discrete) numbers. Right?
From our perspective (finitude) infinity/spacelessness is "big".
The universe is finite, right?
Or, in this case, a deity that you claim to be eternal. Eternity isn't finite, right?
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.
We don't know.
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.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;
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.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.
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.
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;
There is no evidence for an infinite number of universes, although the theory might attempt to explain bigger problems.
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.
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?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.
Exactly. Eternity is infinite.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There was nothing before then.
I'm not getting how this is an objection to my point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?