For the material universe I am inclined towards the multiverse as an explanation, though cosmology has not yet done enough work to be reasonably sure that is correct.
Why is that?
So? It just means that it is a timeless cause.
I didn’t realise that you had the infallible right to interpret how the bible should be read.
The Bible describes a God that changes. Is the sea still parted where Moses crossed? God changed from not parting the sea in Abraham’s time to parting the sea on Moses’ time and back to not parting the sea in Jesus’ time. The Bible God changes in time, hence He cannot be changeless.
Not exactly, If you want to know about atomic and subatomic particles and their interactions, I would recommend for you to read the following books by Steven Weinberg;
Yes, I have heard this, but I am not sure how it is relevant to the argument i was making. At any rate, I agree with Thomas Aquinas that one cannot prove one way or the other whether the universe is eternal or finite philosophically, but for different reasons. However, modern science har shown that our visible universe certainly began to exist. The question then is if it is an only child, so to speak, and if there is rebirth of universe(s) after they die.
Yes. i think so.
There are a few physicists who continue to maintain the cyclical theory of the universe.
There comes a point when you cannot divide particles any further. So because of the planckian lower limit to subatomic distances, it does not make sense physically to divide your walk finer than the Planck interval. Below this lower limit the real line fails to be an accurate description of reality. Although in contemporary mathematics your question is solved mathematically by invoking the theory of convergent infinite series, nevertheless, there are constructivist mathematicians who question whether it is proper to talk about something which is not algorithmic. Yes, these constructivist mathematicians are sometimes called crackpots, but for your entertainment, I give you a link to one such mathematician who deviates from the contemporary mathematical view on infinity.
Merely because his human body was constrained and restricted by time and space does not imply God, in his nature, was so constrained.HarryStotle:
Since God has a human body, namely the Body of Jesus, then His human body would be constrained and restricted by time and space.
The problem here is that language is limited. What does Jesus mean when he says, “Not my will but yours be done?” Is he speaking loosely, as in … “What I desire, in the current moment, emotionally, as a human being?” Or does he mean as a fundamental and committed determination of my entire being? Clearly, it isn’t the latter. Part of human nature is to have emotional conflicts when faced with difficult situations. The will as the ground of choice is something quite different.
to choose a certain course?
That would depend upon whether God changes in any way when he “determines” an act, or whether the object that he determines is what is changed. If God is the fullness of Being Itself, the infinitely Unactualized Actualizer, then he need not change in any way because he is fully, eternally, actualized. Only the object acted upon changes – that is the definition of Aristotle’s UNMOVED Mover.HarryStotle:
to choose a certain course?
Would that not denote a movement of some sort?
Was Aristotle right in everything he wrote about?
Are you? Is anyone?HarryStotle:
Was Aristotle right in everything he wrote about?
Existence is not identical to essence. Existence is objective (meaning it has reality external to the mind), whereas essence is subjective. Existence is univocal, whereas essence is equivocal.