Can God know a Potentially Infinite Future?

[Lion_IRC]

ChainBreaker, do you think God could, if He wanted, choose NOT to know or not to think about something?
ie. Something about the future.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…by the way, I like your interesting thought experiment.
I’m just chiselling away at premise #2

 

[ChainBreaker]

It’s just all “now” to Him. So, what you perceive as a ‘sequence’ (and therefore, as something that is experienced sequentially) is no sequence at all to God.

Therefore, there is no impossibility for God to know “a string of events that go on forever”; He knows them all, immediately, without sequence.

And here is the problem. And unending sequence of events cannot be contained within an “eternal-now” precisely because it is unending.

From God’s perspective all potency is actualised. All change that will ever be is complete. But an unending chain of movement from potency to act is **never fully actualised and never fully completed regardless of perspective since there is always one more.
**

It will not do to simply say that God is outside of time, because that does not solve the problem. The only problem it solves is how God knows all events without change. It doesn’t show us that God can know an unending sequence of potency and act.

 

[MrSnaith]

This doesn’t seem to be a proper definition of eternity. In addition to positing eternity as a “string of events” of a certain duration, it seems to bring in the notion of potentiality in an unwarranted way. What is it about eternity that you associate with potentiality? Eternity isn’t a sequence of ‘present’ events receding into the ‘past’ and encountering new ‘future’ moments in a sequence; rather, it is an eternal ‘present’. It seems that your conclusion, then, based on its inaccurate definition of eternity, invalidly tangles God up with potentiality, and from this entanglement, gives you the room to assert (erroneously) the problem you’ve presented.

While the way you describe eternity in this thread is correct, ChainBreaker isn’t defining eternity. Actually, in his argument, he doesn’t even mention eternity. In fact, his argument is about an eternal God having the capacity to know an everlasting temporal sequence. That it is an everlasting sequence of actualizing potencies implies a beginning, and thus a finity. The theoretical difference is that eternity is an actual infinite while temporality may be a potential infinite.

And here is the problem. And unending sequence of events cannot be contained within an “eternal-now” precisely because it is unending.

From God’s perspective all potency is actualised. All change that will ever be is complete. But an unending chain of movement from potency to act is **never fully actualised and never fully completed regardless of perspective since there is always one more.
**

It will not do to simply say that God is outside of time, because that does not solve the problem. The only problem it solves is how God knows all events without change. It doesn’t show us that God can know an unending sequence of potency and act.

Nevertheless, Gorgias is right, if his articulation is deficient. God’s omnipresence implies an immediate and constant presence to all actualizations, regardless of their temporal placement, even if potency is infinitely actualizing.

This is because in God’s presence, as you say, “all potency is actualised.” The error in your argument lies in your interpretation of “all potency.” You’re conceiving “all potency” here as limited, finite. If potency, however, is infinite, then God’s eternal presence to the actualization of all potency includes the infinitely extending series of actualizing potencies. Though for the finite observer the potential infinite is never complete, for the infinite observer, who is actually infinite, the potential infinite actually is complete.

 

[oldcelt]

There is only 3 way’s to solve this problem in my view.

1. God changes. This would mean that God’s being is a string of contingent acts of existing, just like the universe.

1. God’s knowledge is not identical with his being and so his knowledge changes but his act of existence does not. This would mean that God is not simple and would lead to further dilemmas.

1. There is no such thing as a potentially infinite future and that therefore all change will eventually come to an end or be completed

I’ll go with number 1. I believe that god is constantly in the creation mode.

 

[glendab]

Hello Chainbreaker.

…I am arguing that it is impossible for God to know a string of events that go on forever in the sense of never reaching an end, or and endless movement of potency to act, because that would mean that God’s actual knowledge would never be fully actual in respect to change because there is no end to change in this particular scenario…

You’re saying it is impossible for God to know what eternity is. Eternity is an unchanging state that does go on forever. It never ends. Your statement above says God cannot know this. That is impossible. I think what the problem is is that you’ve imagined a scenario that you don’t understand and it sounds silly enough for God not to get! Like you’ve out-smarted God or something. It doesn’t exactly work that way. Keep in mind your own eternity and you might find yourself acknowledging God knows a little more than you do. Now that’s really smart.

Glenda

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While the way you describe eternity in this thread is correct, ChainBreaker isn’t defining eternity. Actually, in his argument, he doesn’t even mention eternity. In fact, his argument is about an eternal God having the capacity to know an everlasting temporal sequence. That it is an everlasting sequence of actualizing potencies implies a beginning, and thus a finity. The theoretical difference is that eternity is an actual infinite while temporality may be a potential infinite.

Nevertheless, Gorgias is right, if his articulation is deficient. God’s omnipresence implies an immediate and constant presence to all actualizations, regardless of their temporal placement, even if potency is infinitely actualizing.

This is because in God’s presence, as you say, “all potency is actualised.” The error in your argument lies in your interpretation of “all potency.” You’re conceiving “all potency” here as limited, finite. If potency, however, is infinite, then God’s eternal presence to the actualization of all potency includes the infinitely extending series of actualizing potencies. Though for the finite observer the potential infinite is never complete, for the infinite observer, who is actually infinite, the potential infinite actually is complete.

Well said.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

While the way you describe eternity in this thread is correct, ChainBreaker isn’t defining eternity. Actually, in his argument, he doesn’t even mention eternity. In fact, his argument is about an eternal God having the capacity to know an everlasting temporal sequence. That it is an everlasting sequence of actualizing potencies implies a beginning, and thus a finity. The theoretical difference is that eternity is an actual infinite while temporality may be a potential infinite.

Correctomondo

Nevertheless, Gorgias is right, if his articulation is deficient. God’s omnipresence implies an immediate and constant presence to all actualizations, regardless of their temporal placement, even if potency is infinitely actualizing.

This is a circular argument. You are merely saying that God is omniscience and therefore he would have to know a potential infinite. But that doesn’t in and of itself demonstrate that a potential infinite is consistent with God’s omniscience.

This is because in God’s presence, as you say, “all potency is actualised.” The error in your argument lies in your interpretation of “all potency.” You’re conceiving “all potency” here as limited, finite. If potency, however, is infinite, then God’s eternal presence to the actualization of all potency includes the infinitely extending series of actualizing potencies. Though for the finite observer the potential infinite is never complete, for the infinite observer, who is actually infinite, the potential infinite actually is complete.

I will assume for the sake of argument that an actually infinite number of events is consistent with God’s knowledge because i don’t actually think that an actually infinite number of events can exist in principle.

A potential infinite, in principle, is never “actually-infinite”, no matter what way you look at it and no matter how much potency is actualized because you cannot in principle transverse a finite number of change; it is not a matter of perspective. You would have to begin with a temporal actual infinite. It would have to be in principle an “actual infinite” both in a temporal sense and in respect to the “eternal-now” if it is to be consistent with God’s omniscience; and thats only if a temporal actual infinite makes sense in the first place. It’s not a matter of perspective but rather its the nature of what a potential infinite is that is causing problem.

A Potential infinite is never complete and never fully actualized and there for it is contradictory to speak of it as being fully actualized or complete in the eternal now.

The eternal now conflicts with a potential infinite.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Correctomondo

This is a circular argument. You are merely saying that God is omniscience and therefore he would have to know a potential infinite. But that doesn’t in and of itself demonstrate that a potential infinite is consistent with God’s omniscience.

I will assume for the sake of argument that an actually infinite number of events is consistent with God’s knowledge because i don’t actually think that an actually infinite number of events can exist in principle.

A potential infinite, in principle, is never “actually-infinite”, no matter what way you look at it and no matter how much potency is actualized because you cannot in principle transverse a finite number of change. You would have to begin with a temporal actual infinite. It would have to be in principle an “actual infinite” both temporally and in respect to the “eternal-now” if it is to be consistent with God’s omniscience; and thats only if a temporal actual infinite makes sense in the first place. It’s not a matter of perspective but rather its the nature of what a potential infinite is that is causing problem.

A Potential infinite is never complete and never fully actualized and there for it is contradictory to speak of it as being fully actualized or complete in the eternal now.

The eternal now conflicts with a potential infinite.

You and Bahman seem obsessed with dreaming up " gotsha moments " for the unweary. Yet you both fail to recognize your own weakness, the lack of a solid philosophical base.

God is the only existing actual infinity. Man and the created universe may be a potential infinity. That implies nothing about man’s and the universe’s past, it may imply something about their future. Their future may indeed be infinite ( we at least do know that man’s will be infinite). From God’s perspective, whatever potency exists in the future of man and the universe, is known in all its detail. And he knows it as actually being present to it in its actuallity. And that is no contradiction.

1 O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. 5 You hem me in–behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. 17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! 18 Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

You and Bahman seem obsessed with dreaming up " gotsha moments " for the unweary. Yet you both fail to recognize your own weakness, the lack of a solid philosophical base.

God is the only existing actual infinity. Man and the created universe may be a potential infinity. That implies nothing about man’s and the universe’s past, it may imply something about their future. Their future may indeed be infinite ( we at least do know that man’s will be infinite). From God’s perspective, whatever potency exists in the future of man and the universe, is known in all its detail. And he knows it as actually being present to it in its actuallity. And that is no contradiction.

Yahweh, you examine me and know me,

2 you know when I sit, when I rise, you understand my thoughts from afar.

3 You watch when I walk or lie down, you know every detail of my conduct.

4 A word is not yet on my tongue before you, Yahweh, know all about it.

5 You fence me in, behind and in front, you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such amazing knowledge is beyond me, a height to which I cannot attain.

7 Where shall I go to escape your spirit? Where shall I flee from your presence?

8 If I scale the heavens you are there, if I lie flat in Sheol, there you are.

9 If I speed away on the wings of the dawn, if I dwell beyond the ocean,

10 even there your hand will be guiding me, your right hand holding me fast.

11 I will say, ‘Let the darkness cover me, and the night wrap itself around me,’

12 even darkness to you is not dark, and night is as clear as the day.

13 You created my inmost self, knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 For so many marvels I thank you; a wonder am I, and all your works are wonders. You knew me through and through,

15 my being held no secrets from you, when I was being formed in secret, textured in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.

17 How hard for me to grasp your thoughts, how many, God, there are!

18 If I count them, they are more than the grains of sand; if I come to an end, I am still with you.

Linus2nd

First of all this is theology and scripture you are presenting. Where is your solid philosophical base? And please don’t couple me in with others in your bizarre conspiracy theory. This is a philosophical discussion. I understand that God is omniscient and I am not arguing that God does not know all things. I am stating that there are logical problems involved in the idea that God knows a potentially infinite future and i am presenting my argument as to why. You can assert that i am wrong but that is all it will ever be, an insecure assertion. I really don’t care if the logical implications involved make you feel uncomfortable. All i can say is have faith.

Secondly are you implying that i am in some way attempting to either deceive or mislead people?

If you don’t like the discussion or the implications involved you are free not to participate in the thread. Or perhaps you should protest to the forum administration to shut the philosophy forum down.

 

[MrSnaith]

This is a circular argument. You are merely saying that God is omniscience and therefore he would have to know a potential infinite. But that doesn’t in and of itself demonstrate that a potential infinite is consistent with God’s omniscience.

Well, there’s no circularity here, it’s just a statement of fact (or opinion, if you like). Moreover, I didn’t actually say anything about God’s omniscience. I was talking about His omnipresence, which *does *imply certain things about His omniscience (for example, God’s omniscience is tied to His omnipresence, specifically in that God’s knowledge comes as a result of His immediate and constant presence to all moments), but that wasn’t the point I was making.

I will assume for the sake of argument that an actually infinite number of events is consistent with God’s knowledge because i don’t actually think that an actually infinite number of events can exist in principle.

You’re right that an actually infinite number of events cannot exist, in principle. This is because in a finite, temporal universe, which is where events occur, an actual infinite cannot exist without inherent contradiction.

A potential infinite, in principle, is never “actually-infinite”, no matter what way you look at it and no matter how much potency is actualized because you cannot in principle transverse a finite number of change; it is not a matter of perspective.

Correct.

You would have to begin with a temporal actual infinite.

Which we both know is impossible.

It would have to be in principle an “actual infinite” both in a temporal sense and in respect to the “eternal-now” if it is to be consistent with God’s omniscience; and thats only if a temporal actual infinite makes sense in the first place.

I disagree with this statement. Firstly, because it begins with a logical impossibility (that an actual infinite can exist in a temporal sense). Secondly, because it argues that God’s omniscience can only be true with respect to said logical impossibility. Thirdly, it reiterates the unlikelihood of the logical impossibility making any sense.

It’s not a matter of perspective but rather its the nature of what a potential infinite is that is causing problem.

A Potential infinite is never complete and never fully actualized and there for it is contradictory to speak of it as being fully actualized or complete in the eternal now.

The eternal now conflicts with a potential infinite.

Actually, I understand the nature of a potential infinite very well. I question, however, your understanding of an actual infinite. In Infinity Theory, it is recognized that there are greater and lesser infinities, and that lesser infinities can subsist within greater infinities. In this question, an everlasting series of actualizing potencies is infinite in one direction only, but God’s omnipresence is omnidirectional. That is to say, God’s omnipresence (and therefore His omniscience) is infinite in every direction, and this includes the direction of the everlasting series of actualizing potencies.

In other words, the lesser infinity of the potential infinite subsists within the greater infinity of God’s actually infinite omnipresence.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Actually, I understand the nature of a potential infinite very well. I question, however, your understanding of an actual infinite. In Infinity Theory, it is recognized that there are greater and lesser infinities, and that lesser infinities can subsist within greater infinities.

What has that got to do with a potential infinite that is never actually infinite? It is you that doesn’t understand what a potential infinite is. A potential infinite is not an infinite by definition; it is never infinite regardless of direction.

 

[MrSnaith]

What has that got to do with a potential infinite that is never actually infinite? It is you that doesn’t understand what a potential infinite is. A potential infinite is not an infinite by definition; it is never infinite regardless of direction.

Actually it is an infinite, by definition.

Let’s go back to the drawing board. A finity is a limit. To be infinite is to be unlimited. To say that a temporal series is potentially infinite is to say that it is unlimited in its future actualizations. Ergo, it is infinite one-directionally. If it were not, then at some point in the future, it would cease.

What you mean to say is that a potential infinite is not an actual infinite, by definition, which is true. An actual infinite is a complete set, but complete doesn’t imply an outer limit, a boundary. This is because infinity, by definition, is unlimitedness. Within a temporal, finite universe, actual infinity doesn’t make any sense. We can’t help to do what you do, which is to envision it’s “completeness” as a somehow a self-contained set, unlimited unto itself. When we try to apply the properties of an actual infinity in our universe, we arrive only at oddities and conundrums and logical impossibilities, and that’s because our universe is finite, limited.

Let’s consider the “number line.” A line that extends infinitely to the left, and infinitely to the right of zero. Conceptually, this is an actually infinite set of numbers. Within this set of numbers you can define subset infinities (lesser infinities). For example, you can define a subset of all odd numbers. Within the actually infinite line, there is an infinite set of odd numbers, but this infinite set is less than the whole set which contains both odd and even numbers.

Likewise, you can define a limit. Let’s call the limit 1. If we proceed additionally, forever, then we’ve just defined a potential infinite: 1+n forever. Yet, this potential infinite is contained within the actually infinite number line. It is a subset of the line. Moreover, a strictly finite subset 1 to 100, which has both beginning and end, and is neither actually, nor potentially infinite, is still a subset of the line, and subsists within the actual infinity of the number line.

With respect to God, His being itself is what is actually infinite. Perhaps the most basic and fundamental aspect of being is that it has presence. Thus, God’s being is omnipresent, actually infinite in all directions. Our being, and the being of the created universe, also has presence, but that presence exists three-dimensionally in space, and two-dimensionally in time. Even if that being is potentially infinite, it exists as a subset of the kind of being that God has. Thus, even though our being does not have an end, even though it has a beginning, and is therefore potentially endless actualizing, God’s presence to that endless actualization is already complete, in the same sense that the number line is complete. Our potentially infinite presence subsists as a subset of God’s actually infinite presence.

 

[Gorgias]

MrSnaith:

While the way you describe eternity in this thread is correct, ChainBreaker isn’t defining eternity. Actually, in his argument, he doesn’t even mention eternity. In fact, his argument is about an eternal God having the capacity to know an everlasting temporal sequence.

Correctomondo

Grr…

ChainBreaker, if you weren’t talking about ‘eternity’, you could’ve mentioned that to me, as I went on and on about how your definition didn’t work for ‘eternity’! :crying:

OK, then: if you’re talking about the temporal realm, your question reduces to triviality. God created space and time. Among other things, this implies that God is outside our frame of temporal reference. It’s not that he’s a being who exists inside of time, like we do; rather, he’s outside of it (just as a movie audience is outside the temporal timeframe of the movie they’re watching). Therefore, asking how God can ‘know’ something inside that frame of reference, and concluding that He cannot, is like asking how we can ‘know’ something that happens in the Lord of the Rings, and concluding we cannot, since it’s a really long set of movies that (at times) seems like it’s never gonna end. That would be an absurd assertion, since we don’t exist inside the LotR temporal framework.

This isn’t circular reasoning; it simply follows from the definition. God is external to our temporality; He is not bound by it, and encompasses it fully (without being part of it). Therefore, it doesn’t matter what the extent of our temporal timeframe is; He is – by definition – not constrained by it.

A Potential infinite is never complete and never fully actualized and there for it is contradictory to speak of it as being fully actualized or complete in the eternal now.

The eternal now conflicts with a potential infinite.

No, a potential infinite is a proper subset of the eternal now. (That’s a dangerous way to say it, as if they are of the same domain – which they’re not – but it’s the image I’m picturing at the moment.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Grr…

ChainBreaker, if you weren’t talking about ‘eternity’, you could’ve mentioned that to me, as I went on and on about how your definition didn’t work for ‘eternity’! :crying:

OK, then: if you’re talking about the temporal realm, your question reduces to triviality. God created space and time. Among other things, this implies that God is outside our frame of temporal reference. It’s not that he’s a being who exists inside of time, like we do; rather, he’s outside of it (just as a movie audience is outside the temporal timeframe of the movie they’re watching). Therefore, asking how God can ‘know’ something inside that frame of reference, and concluding that He cannot, is like asking how we can ‘know’ something that happens in the Lord of the Rings, and concluding we cannot, since it’s a really long set of movies that (at times) seems like it’s never gonna end. That would be an absurd assertion, since we don’t exist inside the LotR temporal framework.

This isn’t circular reasoning; it simply follows from the definition. God is external to our temporality; He is not bound by it, and encompasses it fully (without being part of it). Therefore, it doesn’t matter what the extent of our temporal timeframe is; He is – by definition – not constrained by it.

No, a potential infinite is a proper subset of the eternal now. (That’s a dangerous way to say it, as if they are of the same domain – which they’re not – but it’s the image I’m picturing at the moment.)

Very good.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

Actually it is an infinite, by definition.

Let’s go back to the drawing board. A finity is a limit. To be infinite is to be unlimited. To say that a temporal series is potentially infinite is to say that it is unlimited in its future actualizations. Ergo, it is infinite one-directionally. If it were not, then at some point in the future, it would cease.

To be potentially infinite in respect to “change” is to be forever finite in extant. In respect of change, a potential infinite number of events is always finite since it is never an infinite number of events. Thats why the word “potential” is placed before the word “infinite”; it never actually becomes infinite. As such we are always speaking about something finite regardless of the fact of it being never-ending.

This is what it is in principle.

God looks at time from the eternal-now. But a time that is never ending cannot be eternally known because there is always one more event to know. A potentially infinite number of events cannot in principle be complete or be fully actualized. Thus it makes no logical sense to say that God can know a potentially infinite number of events because in respect of the eternal now everything is complete and fully actualized. Nothing is potentially real from the perspective of the eternal-now.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I am having difficulty seeing anyway out of this argument.

However: If i am correct this does not preclude the belief that we will live forever in God. It simply means that an eternal heaven is not a potentially infinite number of events. Instead we will be living in some kind of fully actualized state of being. The implication is that we will be fully actualized in God; whatever that means.

 

[MrSnaith]

To be potentially infinite in respect to “change” is to be forever finite in extant. In respect of change, a potential infinite number of events is always finite since it is never an infinite number of events. Thats why the word “potential” is placed before the word “infinite”; it never actually becomes infinite. As such we are always speaking about something finite regardless of the fact of it being never-ending.

This is what it is in principle.

God looks at time from the eternal-now. But a time that is never ending cannot be eternally known because there is always one more event to know. A potentially infinite number of events cannot in principle be complete or be fully actualized. Thus it makes no logical sense to say that God can know a potentially infinite number of events because in respect of the eternal now everything is complete and fully actualized. Nothing is potentially real from the perspective of the eternal-now.

I continue to assert that you do not understand how an actual infinite and a potential infinite relate to each other. You continue to conceptualize an actual infinite as limited, which is a contradiction in terms. If change is unlimited, and a finite thing may change endlessly, then all change that the finite thing may undergo has already been realized in God, because God, being infinite in every coherent respect, is present to the whole of the infinity of change already, regardless of whether the finite thing ever has the possibility of arriving at infinity. Actually infinite is actually infinite. If the infinite series of change were not already a subset of the actual infinite, then it isn’t actually infinite to begin with.

 

[oldcelt]

I am having difficulty seeing anyway out of this argument.

However: If i am correct this does not preclude the belief that we will live forever in God. It simply means that an eternal heaven is not a potentially infinite number of events. Instead we will be living in some kind of fully actualized state of being. The implication is that we will be fully actualized in God; whatever that means.

Nor does it prove the same.

John

 

[Bahman]

You and Bahman seem obsessed with dreaming up " gotsha moments " for the unweary. Yet you both fail to recognize your own weakness, the lack of a solid philosophical base.

God is the only existing actual infinity. Man and the created universe may be a potential infinity. That implies nothing about man’s and the universe’s past, it may imply something about their future. Their future may indeed be infinite ( we at least do know that man’s will be infinite). From God’s perspective, whatever potency exists in the future of man and the universe, is known in all its detail. And he knows it as actually being present to it in its actuallity. And that is no contradiction.

1 O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. 5 You hem me in–behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. 17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! 18 Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.

Linus2nd

Huh, why don’t you quote what I said so we can start a discussion?