Infinite

Warwick Castle, England

Throughout my writing I mention that within Christianity the God of the Bible is understood to be infinite. Here are some quotes and explanations from my library of what that means.

Brian Davies writes that the English word infinity comes from the Latin word infinitas, meaning boundless or endless. Davies (1999: 298). Davies states that some have ascribed the term infinity with various degrees of understanding of substance, time, space, the universe, numbers, and classes. Davies (1999: 298). Davies mentions that many philosophers have dealt with the issue of infinity through the centuries, but Biblically speaking there is not a doctrine of infinity. Davies (1999: 298). I can give Davies this point if by this he means that within Scripture there is not a specific explanation of a doctrine of the infinite God. Davies writes that God's infinity is viewed as marking his perfection, and that God alone is understood as infinite. As God is uncreated and uncreatable, he is infinite. Davies (1999: 298). God would not be limited by time and space, and so contrary to the previous comments time and space would be considered finite and not infinite within traditional Christian thought. God would be superior to all creatures and would be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Davies (1999: 298). Davies notes that process theology has postulated that God's personal nature means that he can change as he works within created time. Davies (1999: 228). Process theology reasons that God possibly develops in personality as he deals with his created beings. Davies (1999: 228).

I would state that if God's nature can be changed and develop within time, then he is not infinite, but rather the most advanced finite being in existence. A finite being that is beyond matter, perhaps. I reject process theology's notion of a finite God, for at least the following reasons.

1. If God is not infinite then he cannot posses any infinite attributes, and this would prohibit God from being eternal. To be eternal would mean that one has unlimited life. If God is not eternal, then how did God come to exist? If there was a God that created God and so on, we have the problem of vicious regress in which we are stuck with an infinite regressions of Gods. If it is suggested at some point the regression ends, why cannot we simply reject the vicious regress and state that the Biblical God, or a God, is the only God? To state that God simply came to exist from nothing does not seem reasonable, and the suggestion answers nothing. If God is merely finite, then we have a problem of determining the first cause.

2. Many scientists and scholars reason that the universe is 15-20 billion years old, and believe in a 'Big Bang Theory'. Whether the universe is billions, millions, or thousands of years is not the primary concern of this article, but with a big bang model or like, the universe in agreement with the Bible, is not eternal. Billions, millions, or thousands of years is more time than any of us can comprehend and may be considered perhaps from a human perspective, virtual eternity, but is not actual eternity, and therefore is not infinite. Since God created matter, time and space in Genesis, Chapter 1, it is clear that nothing within the material, physical realm existed prior to creation. This would leave us with God, and perhaps the angelic beings prior to the existence of matter, time and space. It can be deduced that angels cannot be infinite in nature, because if they were limitless in nature they would themselves be God. We cannot have two or more limitless beings by definition as they simply would be an aspect of one infinite, eternal God of one substance. Thiessen notes angels are not eternal although the Bible does not state when they were created. Thiessen (1956: 191). Thiessen thinks angels may have been formed at the Genesis 1 creation or just after. Thiessen (1956: 191). I would of course have no definite idea, but think that angels were created within time. I do not reason that angels existed in a timeless state with God. I would deduce that even non-physical finite spiritual beings must exist within time, although not necessarily within physical matter and space, in order to process thought patterns, as God alone is all-knowing and does not need to process thoughts within time. I would conclude this point by stating that God alone existed before the creation of matter, time and space and angelic beings. Note, as angelic beings are finite, they would exist within time, but not solar time as they exist in a non-physical, spiritual reality.

3. Millard J. Erickson discusses the Scriptural concept of God's existence in contrast to that of his creation. In Acts 17: 24-25 it states that God does not dwell physically, but is the creator of everything. Erickson notes that God is called the first and last in Isaiah 44: 6, and the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13. The idea being shown here is that God has always existed and will always exist. Erickson (1994: 273-274).

As pointed out previously, before the creation of matter and the angels nothing else would have existed. There is also the idea put across in Scripture that God is immutable and does not change in his nature. Malachi 3:6 states that the Lord does not change and Erickson views this as referring to God’s nature and attributes.

It can be stated here that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic as the creator is totally independent in nature from his creation. Erickson (1994: 303). God existed before the creation of matter, time and space as a purely spiritual being, and was not dependent on matter, time and space or anything other than himself for existence. God is not equal to his creation or matter, time and space he is beyond it. God is also not to be considered in a panentheistic context as although the creator does sustain all of his creation through his power he is not the vital force within all he creates. Erickson (1994: 307). God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my view a traditional Christian understanding would be that God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. If God is the vital force within a tree, it could be argued that the tree’s essence is infinite and eternal and I think that this would be error. In contrast, I think that God sustains and energizes all of his creation while allowing it existence separate from his own. The tree remains finite although it is sustained by God. When the tree dies so does its essence, although the related finite matter continues to exist.

God and not his creation, is alone infinite.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Infinity’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

A Vicious Regress

A Vicious Regress

2006 article, reformatted and edited on August 1, 2022 for an academia.edu entry.

Photos: McSween, BC (trekearth)

Introduction

The concept of infinite regression has been discussed in two of my previous articles, but I wanted to deal with the topic primarily in this posting.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously.[1] A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem.[2] Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress.[3]

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items.[4] A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent.[5] From the same volume, Raymond D. Bradley cautions that the mere existence of an infinite series is not the same as infinite regression, and is not philosophically objectionable.[6] His first example is that every natural number (a positive integer, 1,2,3,4, …, or a non-negative integer, 0,1,2,3,4,…) has a successor that is a natural number.[7] Bradley writes that it would not be illogical to state that each free act of consequence is a result of an act of free choice.[8] Bradley thinks that trying to answer infinite regress by bringing in the idea of the theist’s God makes no sense.[9]

As usual, Blackburn offers reasonable and helpful definitions and explanations. I also find Tolhurst’s ideas helpful. I agree with Bradley that an infinite series of numbers is not objectionable or a vicious regress. I do not doubt that we can hypothetically at least, count from 0 or 1 to infinity, but we are dealing with hypothetical numbers, and not actual things. Numbers are members or sets used to describe real things. For example, I could say I have 200 compact discs but it would be the compact discs that are actual things and not the number 200.

Edwards and Free Choice

Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. Jonathan Edwards deals with this issue in a previous blog article I wrote entitled, Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will. Again, for philosophical clarity, in my view choices are real things, not members or sets like numbers used to describe real things.

Thursday, August 31, 2006 Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will

Edwards thinks that if the human will determines the will and resulting choices, and since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined. What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on.[10] This would be a vicious regress since it could not be determined what caused human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead believed that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by God’s will. This human nature had become corrupted and as a result human beings desired and had motivation to do sinful acts only that were not pleasing to God.

A possible way out of this contradiction is to come to the last act of will and choice and state that it is not self-determined, but is rather determined without the use of a will and choice. However, to Edwards, if the initial act of will and choice within the chain is not free, then none of the resulting willed choices can be free.[11] By stating that acts of the will occur without any cause at all is to render human choice random, and if human choices are made randomly it is difficult to establish any ethical value to them.

The following is my speculative chain, influenced by Edward’s idea of how the human will works:

God would freely and by choice give human beings within their nature consciousness and self-awareness, an understanding that they have identity as an individual. There would be in a sense significant, yet limited freedom present within the human consciousness to have an understanding of personal identity, apart from every other individual entity, but this in itself would not be free will or choice, and would not be libertarian free will.[12] Human choice would be caused by the human nature which has consciousness and from that motives and desires. Human nature and consciousness does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. This a reasonable explanation that does not use a vicious regress in trying to explain that every human choice made through libertarian free will is made by a previous choice, and so on. It must be noted that God would be the primary cause of human actions, while human beings (and angelic beings at times) would be the secondary cause of human actions. The concept of human beings as a secondary cause of actions is essential to the idea of compatibilism or soft determinism.

Craig and the First Cause

In The First Cause argument article on this blog I discussed William Lane Craig’s understanding of first cause.

He presents the kalam cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successiveaddition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[13]

Premise 1 deduces that something cannot come from nothing, and that the material universe is not self-caused.[14] Premise 2 therefore states that the universe began and 2.1 deduces that the actual infinite is impossible. An actual infinite cannot exist because if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.

With 2.21, Craig notes that one cannot have an actual infinite collection of things by simple addition. This means that a proposed infinite past could not be reached as the formation of an actual infinite would not be reached whether one proceeds to or from infinity.[15] The events described in 2.2 would therefore be finite and not infinite in agreement with 2.23. Premise 3 concludes that the universe has a cause.

If matter and the universe is eternal and therefore unlimited in time, I have not read a convincing explanation that explains how we could arrive at our present state, and indeed have a future. From the first cause argument I would deduce that the universe has a cause and this cause is an infinite, omnipotent being who has always existed beyond time and matter, and created time and matter. I realize that for the finite human mind this type of creator or God cannot be completely comprehended, only apprehended to a point, but it seems that the idea of first cause is not contradictory where as a vicious regress associated with an infinite temporal regress of events is very problematic because neither the present or future would be realized because of an unlimited past.

Joseph Smith and Gods

Joseph Smith the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints writes that there is a plurality of gods. Please note, this is not an attack against the Church, or the people within it, but simply a review of a theological point. I am not interested in attacking in a militant fashion any religious or philosophical group. I am focused on reviewing ideas in order to grow in my understanding and to perhaps help others in an understanding of the Biblical God. I think the topics I discuss are already controversial enough and so there is no need to be militant as well! However, I firmly believe in taking a stand for the truth.

Smith preached on June 16,1844, eleven days before his death, that a plurality of Gods existed and that the head God organized the heavens and the earth.[16] Smith explains that the idea of the God of the Christian Trinity is a strange one.[17] He also states that the Bible supports the idea of the plurality of Gods.[18] The founder of the Latter-day Saints reasons that if Jesus Christ had a Father, that God the Father would have a Father as well. This concept would create an infinite regression of Father Gods.[19] This established a vicious regress within the Latter-day Saints theology concerning God.

The Walter Martin website has some interesting comments on this view. Martin first points out that the Bible in Isaiah, clearly states that there is just one God in Chapters 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 45:5, and 21–22.[20] Martin also mentions that the Lord is called one Lord in Deuteronomy 6:4.[21] Martin further explains that others are called god in the Bible such as Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1, but this is a metaphorical use and is not claiming that Moses is the one and only true God.[22] In Psalm 82 and John 10:34, the judges according to Martin are not intrinsic deity, but became mighty ones like Gods in the eyes of the people. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34 the judges are shown to be sinful men that were in no way to be confused with the God of the Bible in nature.[23] The Bible in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not only stating that there is only one true God to worship, but that there is only one God in existence period.

I am not going to heavily discuss Trinitarian theology within this article, but I shall state that it is believed within Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons of one, substance, nature and essence, and therefore are not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is called the exact representation of God’s nature, and in Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God. Philip Edgcume Hughes writes that in Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word translated “nature” denotes the very essence of God. Christ is the representation of the Father and shares the same substance as God.[24] So whatever distinctions can be drawn concerning the Father and Son, Biblically it must be concluded that from Hebrews 1:3 they are of the same nature (υποστασεως )[25] and substance. They are not two Gods, but two distinctions within one God, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 5 is also shown to be God sharing in the same nature and substance as the Father and Son. Jesus Christ as both God and man has a human body, but shares the same spiritual substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.

Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes.[26] Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past.[27] There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present. In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time and matter. Mary Kochan mentions the same problem with the Latter-day Saints' concept and states that with an infinite regression of Gods there is no way to get to the present and that time had to have a beginning in order for the present to exist.[28]

It appears the Smith’s notion of a plurality of Gods influenced the Latter-day Saints' theology which leads to infinite regression, but it is a contradictory view that features a vicious regress.

[1] Blackburn (1996: 324).[2] Blackburn (1996: 324).[3] Blackburn (1996: 324).[4] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[5] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[6] Bradley (1996: 371).[7] Bradley (1996: 371).[8] Bradley (1996: 371).[9] Bradley (1996: 372).[10] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 1-2).[11] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 2).[12] Libertarian free will is the idea that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[13] Craig (1991)(2006: 2).[14] Craig (1991)(2006: 12).[15] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[16] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[17] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[18] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[19] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[20] Martin (2006: 1).[21] Martin (2006: 1).[22] Martin (2006: 1).[23] Martin (2006: 1).[24] Hughes (1990: 43-44).[25] The Greek New Testament (1993: 741).[26] Slick (2006: 1).[27] Slick (2006: 1).[28] Kochan (2002: 1).

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BROWNING, W. R. F. (1997) 'Alpha', in Oxford Dictionary of The Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

GEISLER, N.L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2. 

HUGHES, P. E. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

HUGHES, P. E. (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’ http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html p. 1.

KOCHAN, MARY (2002) 'Drawing the Line for Mormons - A Closer Look at the LDS Church', Powell River, B.C., Catholic Information Resource Center. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0112.html

KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith  http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html pp. 1-5.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org. http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc

MOUNCE, R.H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) A logical proof that Mormonism is false, Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org

STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368 

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993), Munster, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, United Bible Societies.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.