Infinite universe?

[JimG]

Kirane:

How can someone be both subject to the limitation of time and not subject to the limitations of time. Is it not a contradiciton. We have one person. This one person is simultaneously:

1. Subject to the limitations of time.
2. Not subject to the limitations of time.
   Is this not contradictory ?

Catholic theology holds that Jesus is one Person but has two natures, human and divine. As a divine Person, (with a divine nature) he assumed a human nature, to become one of us.

In assuming a human nature, he took on the limitations of human nature. But that in him which we call the ego or “I” is but one Person, and that person is the divine person. Because he assumed a human nature, and actions flow from one’s nature, he acts both as a human and as God.

If Jesus had but one nature, then it would indeed be contradictory. But we believe he is both divine and human.

 

[Kirane]

freesoulhope:

I would say that you need reasoning in order to define truth from error, and more importantly revelation from God, including the holy spirit. .

I am bothered and find it problematical when asked to adhere to a self-contradictory statement.

 

[Kirane]

JimG:

But that in him which we call the ego or “I” is but one Person, and that person is the divine person. Because he assumed a human nature, and actions flow from one’s nature, he acts both as a human and as God.

If Jesus had but one nature, then it would indeed be contradictory. But we believe he is both divine and human.

Was the Person, Jesus Christ, subject to the limitations of human nature and subject to the limitations of time and place?

 

[Kirane]

freesoulhope:

It may have seemed like he was subject to the limitations of time, but that didnt stop him from walking on water…

however, some scientists say it was ice and not water.
livescience.com/othernews/060404_jesus_ice.html

 

[freesoulhope]

Kirane:

however, some scientists say it was ice and not water.
livescience.com/othernews/060404_jesus_ice.html

They would say that they would say anything to hold there material reality together.

Jesus either walked on water or he didn,t. The apostles where witttnesis, and one of them walked on water. If it where ice, then the people that where with him, would not have followed him since there hope in him was based on “revelation and miracles”, as much as his teaching. In light of Judaism, it is unlikley that jesus could have persuaded so many with talk. They certainlly would not have thought of him as God!

 

[freesoulhope]

Kirane:

I am bothered and find it problematical when asked to adhere to a self-contradictory statement.

It will be self contradictory, if you do not except that jesus was God. It is your self that has decided it to be. The anwser has been given, we can either except it or not except it. Not everything about God can be explained by reasoning alone. So i can understand your doubt, if you seek to only follow God if you have the facts. Yet many scientist do not know much about workings of nature, and what generates the reality in which they exist, yet some of them take on faith, that it is purley material, and that miracles dont happen. So it doesnt suprise me, that they would seek a Natural explaination to why Jesus was seemingly able to do miracles, which totally break every law of nature that we understand( Maybe not every law) . One should seek the truth, not try to maintain a natural truth, that they can only see with thier eyes, the world is so much more then that.

 

[JimG]

Kirane:

Was the Person, Jesus Christ, subject to the limitations of human nature and subject to the limitations of time and place?

Yes, as a human being, with a human nature. --But he was not a human person.

The divine person who assumed a human nature as Jesus at a particular moment in time and space, is called by John the evangelist, the Word, in the beginning of his gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”

The divine Word also retained his divine nature, and so was able to also act outside the bounds of time and space.

 

[Kirane]

JimG:

Yes, as a human being, with a human nature. --But he was not a human person.

The divine person who assumed a human nature as Jesus at a particular moment in time and space, is called by John the evangelist, the Word, in the beginning of his gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”

The divine Word also retained his divine nature, and so was able to also act outside the bounds of time and space.

Isn’t this contradictory to have a Person who simultaneously is and who simultaneously is not subject to the limitations of time and space?

 

[discipulus]

I’m sorry if I post the same thing someone else in this thread has already said, but it’s so long, and I didn’t want to read it all, so I’ll just say my bit and if it was already mentioned, you can ignore it.

Anyway, here is the problem with the universe being infinite: If the universe is infinite, that means it was always there. Ok, that must mean that anything that could happen has already happened, being that since it was always there, and by the reasoning of “give 10,000 monkeyes 10,000 typewriters and they’ll eventually type the works of shakespear if given infinite time.”

Now, if the universe has the possibility of being, that it has the possibility to not be too. If that doesn’t sound right, try this: from how our universe is set up, it is possible for one day for everything to end, for all life to die, for the universe to stop, and never be able to start back up again. So, since this is a possibility, it MUST have happened, if the universe is infiinite and always existed. But the universe is still here! Life is still here! The possiblity of the destruction of the universe has not occured, which can only mean that this universe could not have ALWAYS been here, it must have had a beginning and is still going. Therefore, there must be a beginner indpendant from needing a creator. This beginner is God.

 

[Kirane]

discipulus:

I’m sorry if I post the same thing someone else in this thread has already said, but it’s so long, and I didn’t want to read it all, so I’ll just say my bit and if it was already mentioned, you can ignore it.

Anyway, here is the problem with the universe being infinite: If the universe is infinite, that means it was always there. Ok, that must mean that anything that could happen has already happened, being that since it was always there, and by the reasoning of “give 10,000 monkeyes 10,000 typewriters and they’ll eventually type the works of shakespear if given infinite time.”

Now, if the universe has the possibility of being, that it has the possibility to not be too. If that doesn’t sound right, try this: from how our universe is set up, it is possible for one day for everything to end, for all life to die, for the universe to stop, and never be able to start back up again. So, since this is a possibility, it MUST have happened, if the universe is infiinite and always existed. But the universe is still here! Life is still here! The possiblity of the destruction of the universe has not occured, which can only mean that this universe could not have ALWAYS been here, it must have had a beginning and is still going. Therefore, there must be a beginner indpendant from needing a creator. This beginner is God.

Why could it not be in some sort of oscillatory motion going back and forth and in and out expanding and contracting infinitely in time? Also, the fact that something is infinite, does not necessarily imply that it would be the same at every moment in time. And the fact that something is possible, does not mean that it would have to happen, only that it is just possible.

 

[freesoulhope]

If the univerese was forever, then i doubt that stars would be born and die. Even if an ifinite universe could support the life and death of material objects, you have to ask your self, what makes the igredients that produces the star? some might say that somekind of forces brought them to be, or that the material igredients are eternal. But then you have to ask your self, what is it that drives the forces that puts the igredients together to produce the star.

And how is it these forces have a law on to them selves, that they would drive anything or push anything for an ifinite amount of time.

Its not resonable, even if its possible, to assume that Material objects arrange themselves. Nither is it reasonable to believe that the hidden forces should drive them or push them in to place, or have and ifinite law on to them selfs.

We know that, unless we construct, a sand castle, then it is very unlikly that a sand castle, let alone anything as complex as a space craft, will arrange its self. Its reasonable to believe that this being the case, there is a set law for material things of this universe, whether its wrong or right.

I can not say for sure that the universe has a creator. But its reasonable to assume that there is one. That is why are ancestors believed in one or many, because they where reasoning people to some extent, but unlike us today they where not slaves to presumptious disiplines such as meterialism, or the idea that Meterial Objects had a law on to them selves. They just had trouble believeing in the right God, because, Nobody knows Gods nature unless its revealed by God. Otherwise its just speculation, hence all the differing religions.

You should suspect that, any idea of materialist comes strongly from a desire to be self dependent, and the desire not to be subject to any moral law of any religion other then those we see to are liking. I believe this to be a barrier that is preventing many from beliving in a God or creator. Otherwise i cant see why one would not think it reasonable to believe in God. Or would want to prove that there wasnt one.

I believe in a ultimate reality that supports and created the known Physical universe, Partly because it is “reasonable”, and it is unreasonable that it could happen any otherway.

We munipulate materials and bring in to existence complex Objects that bennifit are lives, Just like the world supports and bennifits are lives. Otherwise the material by itself does nothing other then what it was put there to do in the first place.

 

[freesoulhope]

Pagans and other people worshiped the sun, yet the Old testement religion with no knoledge of science, refuted that idea, including all other superstitious ideas. They themselves had scientific errors and maybe some superstitous ideas, but why should they not believe that sun is a God? it gives life, and with out any scientific insight, it is reasonable to think that the sun is God. Yet isreal refuted these ideas, and said with conviction under pain of deaf that God created everything that is material. Now is this a coiencidence, or is there a creator that told them to say otherwise. Ill let you decide.

 

[JimG]

Kirane:

Isn’t this contradictory to have a Person who simultaneously is and who simultaneously is not subject to the limitations of time and space?

Let me rephrase a little. We believe that Jesus is a human being but not a human person.

As one Person with two natures, he acts according to either and both natures. The Son of God who is eternal, i.e. outside of time, voluntarily took on a human nature, which is subject to time and nature, without ever losing his divine nature.

In order to experience how that works in practice, one would have to get inside his mind, which we cannot do. It is as if you or I were able to somehow take on a dog nature in order to mingle with the canines. As a canine, we would certainly experience their limitations; yet as a human, we would be fully human. (The analogy is not perfect since both humans and dogs have bodies, but God does not; his divine nature is pure spirit.)

But we have wandered from the topic of the thread.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Angainor:

If God creates a ray of light, that light will simply travel forever, farther and farther into the emptyness. The finite task of creating a ray of light that will endure forever is complete.

No, the light’s lasting an infinite amount of time is not complete. Even if it has the potential to last for an infinite amount of time (like souls in Heaven), it never actually reaches that potential. It never actually becomes infinitely old.

Never? Maybe not from our perspective. We are in time and we will never get to see the light ray’s completion.

But I believe God is outside of time and infinite. God does not have to “wait” for the light ray to reach infinity. God can see all of our time. God can look into the infinite future and see that the light ray truly exists there. God can look to “infinity plus one” and see that the light ray truely exists there. The light ray is complete. And it is everlasting. Creating the everlasting ray was a finite task for God

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

Never? Maybe not from our perspective. We are in time and we will never get to see the light ray’s completion.

But I believe God is outside of time and infinite. God does not have to “wait” for the light ray to reach infinity. God can see all of our time. God can look into the infinite future and see that the light ray truly exists there. God can look to “infinity plus one” and see that the light ray truely exists there. The light ray is complete. And it is everlasting. Creating the everlasting ray was a finite task for God

Only God is actually infinite.

The problem with what you propose is that creation is actually subject to time. It is subject to change in successive steps. Infinite (boundless) tasks being completed is a contradiction in terms. If a task can be completed in time, it isn’t infinite. If the task is infinite, it can never be completed.

This thread feels like an infinite task.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Only God is actually infinite.

I actually dispute that. If God has created an infinite light ray, that ray is infinite.

I actually believe God transcends infinity. God is above a created something that happens to have always existed and will always exist (that is–it always existed in the frame of created time).

The problem with what you propose is that creation is actually subject to time. It is subject to change in successive steps. Infinite (boundless) tasks being completed is a contradiction in terms. If a task can be completed in time, it isn’t infinite. If the task is infinite, it can never be completed.

This thread feels like an infinite task.

Creation is subject to time. God isn’t.

If a task can be completed in time, it isn’t infinite.

God isn’t completing his task “in time” but he is completing it.

 

[JimG]

Infinity comes in several varieties. There are mathematical infinities. No one can deny that the series of positive integers: 1,2,3,4,5. . . is an infinite series. It has no end. Likewise, the series of positive even integers (0,2,4,6,8. . .) is an infinite series. Neither has an ending point. One can always (infinitely) add more integers.

Not only that, both the infinite series of ALL integers and the infinite series of EVEN integers only, are exactly equal infinities. You can set up a one to one correspondence with each member of the series. But there are mathematical infinities which are larger than the infinite series of integers.

The idea of infinity, when applied to God, does not refer to any infinite series, of numbers, space, time, or events. It refers rather to God having no limits as to his attributes–omnipresence, omnipotence, eternal, etc.

 

[Hubriss]

I don’t have time to read through all this so I’ll just comment on Bene’s posts.

The universe is a material object that owes its existance to something, either to semething else that was material or something that doesn’t rely on something for its existance. THe only thing I can think of that has this quality is God.

What I really don’t get is why Catholics don’t think material or matter is eternal. You all seem to just throw the concept that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. If you believe in something after this life, an afterlife with God lets say, what do you think it will be like? Will you be able to touch, see, feel, hear anything? If so, then how would it be any different than life we have here?

EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only changed from one state to another. Catholics have this preconception that this supreme being or form or whatever has to be an intelligent, thinking, being, when in fact there is no reason not to believe that this Universe IS the supreme being. We may actually be in the highest form we can get, but you reject it because you think this highest state must be perfect, which entails immortality, and this immortality must apply to us. You cannot accept the fact that we may not be immortal, and that we will each die and that will be the end of it. I agree that life, especially human life, is amazing, but is nothing beyond amazing, for all we know, we may not be the only ones (when considering the size of the universe, it is very likely that we are not the only ones).

 

[DeFide]

Hubriss:

I don’t have time to read through all this so I’ll just comment on Bene’s posts.

What I really don’t get is why Catholics don’t think material or matter is eternal. .

Try this:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

I actually dispute that. If God has created an infinite light ray, that ray is infinite.

I actually believe God transcends infinity. God is above a created something that happens to have always existed and will always exist (that is–it always existed in the frame of created time).Creation is subject to time. God isn’t.God isn’t completing his task “in time” but he is completing it.

Toward clarity, we’re talking about infinite tasks, which I contend cannot be completed.

God cannot bound the boundless. It’s a contradiction in terms. So, an infinite task (the boundless) cannot be completed (bounded), otherwise it is not infinite. In the same way, God cannot create a four-sided triangle. It’s a contradiction in terms… it’s a no-thing.

As the Scriptures say, no-thing is impossible with God. God is not the God of contradiction.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6