An actual infinite DOES exist

[coolduude]

In God, anyway. Correct?

So why can we say God is infinite, yet we can not say there exists an actual infinite in our world? An actual infinite in our universe causes logical contradictions, so how can we call God infinite without applying the same rules to Him that we’d apply to an actual infinite in our universe?

Catch my drift?

 

[Sunflake9]

Don’t know if this helps but, I take a crack at it.
God is infinite because he’s God, we can’t have a infinite thing in our universe because that realm belongs to him alone, To be finite belongs to us. This is a huge issue to wrap my head around as well. Maybe you could look at it this way God would have to be infinite to create a universe so vast but finite. If we had a infinite something in our universe then we would understand God and that is never going to happen, just one of the great mysteries of God.

 

[JimG]

Infinite doesn’t mean the same thing when applied to God as it does when applied to material things or even mathematical objects.

An infinity of stars, for example, would mean literally stars without limit. I think it would result in a totally bright sky both day and night, because there would be no part of the universe without stars.

An infinite number of people could not be counted because when you got to the last one there would still remain an infinite number to count. The same would apply to any material object.

One can conceive of an infinite mathematical series–i.e. the infinite set of all integers (1,2,3,…) the infinite set of even integers (2,4,6,8…) (which are equal infinite sets, by the way), the infinite number of points on a line or points in a plane. But those are mathematical objects, not material objects.

God, however, is pure spirit, and has no parts and no extension in space and time. So when we speak of God as infinite, we mean he is unlimited: his power, knowledge, mercy, justice, etc., are unlimited.

 

[tdgesq]

JimG is correct.

 

[greylorn]

All belief systems hypothesize an “infinite” or the equivalent. It is humans’ best way of dealing with the inexplicable, or, as I prefer to phrase it, an Absolute Miracle.

The Big Bang theory hypothesizes an effective infinite, except to avoid riding on religion’s rails, cosmologists call the cosmic micropea which existed before, and which exploded into the universe, a “singularity.”

Although it is easy to mathematically define a singularity, such as by dividing any real number by zero, doing so will generally produce an “F” on math (or physics) tests. There are no such things as physical singularities. Mathematical singularities are useless except as dissertation subjects for unimaginative doctoral candidates, or as obfuscating terms for nits with degrees who need to b.s. nits without degrees. .

It is only after the student acquires a Ph.d. that he is allowed to declare things he cannot possibly understand to be the equivalent of a freshman’s mistake.

The same kind of intellectual nonsense applies to theologians, who came up years ago with the clever idea that by dividing by zero they had an answer to everything. Modern cosmologists followed their lead in devising big-bang theory. The main thing for the chief mucky-mucks in both theology and cosmology is that their theories for the beginnings are sufficiently arcane to buffalo the folks who keep them in the style of luxury to which they would like to become accustomed.

Luckily for them that is only my opinion, worth every nickel they paid to obtain it.

I’ve long proposed the idea that in order to understand something, one must relegate it to the universe in which we can understand things. That does not mean that the thing we seek necessarily exists within our universe of understanding, but what do we lose by looking there for it?

 

[JimG]

I’m not sure that physics envisions any physical infinity, even in the big bang, which started out as a predicted conclusion of playing the cosmic expansion backward in time.

Aristotle thought that all matter was infinitely divisible, and after observing the enormous and ever expanding number of subatomic particles with which physics came up with during the 20th century, I was beginning to think he was right. However, physicists assert that infinite numbers don’t work in their equations.

We used to view some particles as “point particles” having zero dimensions, but how could that be envisioned except as some sort of mathematical construct? Now we envision one-dimensional strings or two-dimensional branes as basic. I’m still wondering if they are indivisible, or divisible, quantum like or particle like.

 

[greylorn]

Infinite doesn’t mean the same thing when applied to God as it does when applied to material things or even mathematical objects.

An infinity of stars, for example, would mean literally stars without limit. I think it would result in a totally bright sky both day and night, because there would be no part of the universe without stars.

An infinite number of people could not be counted because when you got to the last one there would still remain an infinite number to count. The same would apply to any material object.

One can conceive of an infinite mathematical series–i.e. the infinite set of all integers (1,2,3,…) the infinite set of even integers (2,4,6,8…) (which are equal infinite sets, by the way), the infinite number of points on a line or points in a plane. But those are mathematical objects, not material objects.

God, however, is pure spirit, and has no parts and no extension in space and time. So when we speak of God as infinite, we mean he is unlimited: his power, knowledge, mercy, justice, etc., are unlimited.

You were doing fine until your final paragraph.

What does the phrase, “pure spirit,” mean?

If you cannot define that term, you might as well be an atheist who believes that the universe evolved from an exploding “singularity,” which cannot be defined either.

How about applying your last paragraph to God’s commands to the Hebrews at Jericho. My Bible is an old one, not yet revised for political correctness. In it, God orders the Jews to kill all the males, including the male children, and to “enslave” their women and female children.

I don’t buy that absurd God concept. It ain’t right.

 

[JimG]

You were doing fine until your final paragraph.

What does the phrase, “pure spirit,” mean?

If you cannot define that term, you might as well be an atheist who believes that the universe evolved from an exploding “singularity,” which cannot be defined either.

How about applying your last paragraph to God’s commands to the Hebrews at Jericho. My Bible is an old one, not yet revised for political correctness. In it, God orders the Jews to kill all the males, including the male children, and to “enslave” their women and female children.

I don’t buy that absurd God concept. It ain’t right.

Well, I didn’t take the time to look it up, but I’ll use what I think F.J. Sheed used in his books: spiritual being is a being not made up of parts. It doesn’t apply just to God, but to the human soul as well.

God must be either composed of matter/energy or not. Matter/energy can always be subdivided or taken apart. If God has parts, then he can come apart, and would no longer be God. If he has parts, he can change, and has certain material characteristics including extension in space and time. But those characters are inconsistent with the infinite nature of God.

So if God is not immaterial, I would be simply a materialist and most likely a determinist as well.

As for the exploding singularity, it’s not just atheists who accept the Big Bang as a plausible hypothesis for how the universe began. (Not that the big bang need be necessarily equated with the instant of creation; it might have been preceded by a big collapse. But from a theological standpoint, creation is still necessary for any contingent being, including the universe.)

 

[greylorn]

Well, I didn’t take the time to look it up, but I’ll use what I think F.J. Sheed used in his books: spiritual being is a being not made up of parts. It doesn’t apply just to God, but to the human soul as well.

You meant Fulton Sheen, I’m certain. When I was very young I watched his tv program whenever it was on. Those were the days when a Bishop could actually appear on conventional network tv. I loved that man. His teachings helped guide my thoughts more effectively than any teaching nuns or priests, who had no understanding of simple logic. Sheen did. The man was a genius, and would have made an awesome Pope.

I believe that he was correct in his understanding of soul, and in applying it to God. I’ve taken his proposal a few steps further. The human soul was not actually created by God, but rather, all were formed in the same cosmic event.

God must be either composed of matter/energy or not. Matter/energy can always be subdivided or taken apart. If God has parts, then he can come apart, and would no longer be God. If he has parts, he can change, and has certain material characteristics including extension in space and time. But those characters are inconsistent with the infinite nature of God.

Your first sentence is correct. I propose that we go with the “or not” option.

So, while the rest of your paragraph is correct, it applies to a matter/energy Creator, not to the more interesting “or not” option. So I see no value in addressing it.

So if God is not immaterial, I would be simply a materialist and most likely a determinist as well.

Okay, You are not a materialist. Unless your personal label relates to you ideas, I don’t especially care. My underwear has labels, but no ideas so I don’t talk to it or bother to read the labels.

As for the exploding singularity, it’s not just atheists who accept the Big Bang as a plausible hypothesis for how the universe began. (Not that the big bang need be necessarily equated with the instant of creation; it might have been preceded by a big collapse. But from a theological standpoint, creation is still necessary for any contingent being, including the universe.)

I am aware of the willingness of dim-witted Christians to line up for Big Bang theory. Since they’ve not devised a better alternative, Doing so is simple minded self-preservation.

Moreover, Big Bang theory is functionally identical to creation of the universe by an omnipotent God. Both hypothesize a mysterious “singularity” at the beginning, which had remained stable for an indefinable period of time, and neither theory/belief offers any credible reason for its favorite singularity becoming unstable and either creating or blowing itself up into a universe.

In other words, Christianity cannot offer a credible reason for God’s creation of the universe and man, and Cosmology has no clue about what made the micropea blow up.

IMO both religion and science have devised illogical explanations for the beginning. . But most people base their beliefs upon agreement, and since most religious people are followers of agreement, by nature, it is no surprise that lots of religionists line up behind a theory which none of them understand, just because lots of Ph.d’s have bought into it.

Consensus is the intellectual blood bank of the unimaginative.

 

[JimG]

Well, it may have been Fulton Sheen. But I think that Frank Sheed also used the idea in his books, probably before Fulton Sheen.

Big Bang theory is theologically neutral. I consider it a hypothesis of science, not religion.

 

[Spirithound]

Well, it may have been Fulton Sheen. But I think that Frank Sheed also used the idea in his books, probably before Fulton Sheen.

Big Bang theory is theologically neutral. I consider it a hypothesis of science, not religion.

They were contemporaries. I think our friend simply had not heard of Frank Sheed, who used that definition in “Theology for Beginners”.

 

[greylorn]

They were contemporaries. I think our friend simply had not heard of Frank Sheed, who used that definition in “Theology for Beginners”.

You are correct. Until now, I’d not known of Frank Sheed, and have never read any of his books. Thanks for the heads up, and apologies for any confusion I introduced into this conversation. Curious how two men would have the same initials and similar surname. F. J. Sheed/Sheen. Given the many misspellings in these postings, I’d assumed another.

I did a bit of research on both,and discovered why, as a child, I liked’ Bishop Sheen’s teachings. He was a superb wordsmith. After reviewing some of his quotes a half century after being influenced by them (thanks for inventing the internet, Al Gore), I find that I disagree with about 80%. I’d kill for Bishop Sheen’s ability to use words. The man was, in that sense, a genius.