Thursday, August 02, 2012

Infinite Versus Finite (God, Creation)

Infinite Versus Finite (God, Creation)

Preface

Chateau near Paris, France (trekearth)

I have taken material from previous posts 'Infinite' and 'Infinite Revisited' edited some material and added some in for more of the 'finite' angle to be included.

Infinite Versus Finite (God, Creation)

Philosopher Blackburn explains that the infinite is unlimited and that which is beyond anything that is fixed and bound. Blackburn (1996: 193). In contrast a ‘finite set’ (example used) is a set that stops at a point, somewhere. Blackburn (1996: 140). 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). He 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). Biblically there is not a specific philosophical explanation of a doctrine of the infinite God. He explains that God's infinity is viewed as marking his perfection, and that God alone is understood as infinite. Davies (1999: 298). As one could count to the minus and to the plus to infinity, numbers could be considered infinite in a sense, but are not ontological living beings. As God is uncreated and uncreatable, he is alone is infinite ontologically. God would not be limited by time and space, and so in another sense created matter 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).

It could be stated 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, space and time, perhaps. I reject process theology's notion of a finite God, for at least the following reasons.

It could be argued that 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, there is the problem of vicious regress in which there are a hypothetical infinite regressions of Gods. If it is suggested at some point the regression ends, why cannot one 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 one has a problem of determining the first cause. A reasonable explanation is that God prior to time eternally was and eternally is today.

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 human being, only living 100+ years maximum in the modern age 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 God, and perhaps the angelic beings prior to the existence of matter, time (solar time at least) 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. It can be reasoned there are 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 some type of time, not solar 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, time 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. Again, God eternally simply was and is.

I suppose it possible and perhaps reasonable for God to instantaneously provide angelic beings with information in a timeless state, and at the same time  I deduce information would also have to be available for demonic beings in the spiritual realm if time does not exist there, in order for them to function as the Bible has them. I am not meaning solar time, but time allotted for a finite spiritual being to process thoughts. For example, angels to process instructions from God and communicate and for demonic beings to communicate.

I reason a timeless state is more difficult philosophically as in likely being correct than a spiritual realm of some sort with time where angels and demons would work.

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.

God and not his creation, is alone infinite in the sense described.

Human beings in contrast are finite. Humanity has a distinct Biblical religious historical beginning in Genesis 1-2, and a secular historical beginning which is not certain as far as date. From a Biblical perspective, even with promises of everlasting life for those in Christ a human being that lives forever with a resurrected body is still finite ontologically.

Any other living creatures that would exist in the new creation described in Revelation would also be finite.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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.


Hohenaschau Castle, Germany (trekearth)


Royal Palace, Madrid (trekearth)


Glasgow (trekearth)

31 comments:

  1. 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).


    This conflicts with James 1:17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."

    If there was a God that created God and so on, there is the the problem of vicious regress in which we there are a hypothetical infinite regressions of Gods.

    I believe that is the problem in Mormonism.

    If God is merely finite, then one has a problem of determining the first cause.

    As one Atheist asked me, "Who created God?"

    It can be reasoned there are two or more limitless beings by definition as they simply would be an aspect of one infinite, eternal God of one substance.

    Not sure I follow what you're saying here.

    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, in order to process thought patterns, as God alone is all-knowing and does not need to process thoughts within time.

    I might possibly disagree here, though I would have nothing to back it up, and it would only be supposition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ‘I believe that is the problem in Mormonism.’

    Yes and noted in the Vicious Regress post now temporarily missing from archive search as I corrected a Blogger font error, but it is still in the blog archive. One has to search for it another way. Sorry. Blame blogger.

    'If God is merely finite, then one has a problem of determining the first cause.'

    'As one Atheist asked me, "Who created God?"'

    No one. If God has a creator it would create a vicious regress. God was and is eternal and infinite.

    ‘It can be reasoned there are two or more limitless beings by definition as they simply would be an aspect of one infinite, eternal God of one substance.’

    ‘Not sure I follow what you're saying here.’

    There cannot be two limitless beings. They would have to be of one substance therefore one being.

    ‘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, in order to process thought patterns, as God alone is all-knowing and does not need to process thoughts within time.’

    ‘I might possibly disagree here, though I would have nothing to back it up, and it would only be supposition.’

    Not 24/7 solar time but some type of time I deduce. Finite/angelic beings would not have infinite knowledge and would need some type of time to process thoughts and divine instruction. A way to get from point A to B. God does not need this process.

    Sir Jenkins, hats off to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Got an error, so trying again:

    There cannot be two limitless beings. They would have to be of one substance therefore one being.

    This brings to mind the Trinity: one substance/essence/Being, three Persons, unique in all existence. There is no created being that exists in this manner. Therefore, no analogy (i.e., an egg [white, yolk, shell], a shamrock [three-leafed clover], the sun [sun, light, heat], forms of H2O [liquid, gas, solid] or [rain, sleet, snow], dimensions of space [length, width, height], the roles of a man [husband, father, son] or [brother, uncle, son], the aspects of a human being [body, mind, spirit/soul], etc.) is a perfect representation or comparison, because nothing in nature perfectly parallels the Trinity. All analogies fall short.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed!

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'All analogies fall short.'

    Yes. I was thinking Trinity, in part when I revised, as in added to, the post.

    The post is even now more so significantly different than the first two ‘infinite’ articles.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well written post on ontological infinity. Nice pics too.
    I'd like to go to that German castle someday.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In your article discussing God and Infinity, Davies a scholar suggests that there is no doctrine in the Bible on infinity, perhaps because infinity is not a truth and is a concept rather than a reality...
    -Blog Lug-

    ReplyDelete
  8. The pics of Europe and the UK that you have laid out so well in your blog posts make one want to visit these countries. You should be getting royalties on your blog for promoting historical Europe!!
    -Tacky Tourist-

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'chucky said...
    Well written post on ontological infinity. Nice pics too.
    I'd like to go to that German castle someday.'

    Thank you. I need to see more than Bonn and Cologne.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Anonymous said...
    In your article discussing God and Infinity, Davies a scholar suggests that there is no doctrine in the Bible on infinity, perhaps because infinity is not a truth and is a concept rather than a reality...
    -Blog Lug-'

    The Bible is a religious teaching text and religious historical text, not a philosophy text, although it contains theology. This would explain to an extent the lack of explanation.

    That being stated I did mention mathematics as in numbers, as in infinity as a concept.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'Anonymous said...
    The pics of Europe and the UK that you have laid out so well in your blog posts make one want to visit these countries. You should be getting royalties on your blog for promoting historical Europe!!
    -Tacky Tourist-'

    I need to tour more...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am pondering that the classical philosophers weren't bothered as much by infinity as by infinite regress and the infinitesimal, or infinite subdivision. They also argued that what has a finite start must always have an end in the finite. My understanding is that people are souls with distinct beginnings, but or infinite (whatever that means) duration, which separates us from the classical Epicureans and Stoics. Do you have a post on this?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very intriguing points you have noted, appreciate this for adding.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Work form home : http://finance.uni.me/?post-sk.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, I need to get out of the upstairs condo loft.

    I have done plenty of working from home, including blogging, but I will do what I can. Not a very professional website by the way but it may entertain my readers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you for the outstanding posts

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your new profile pic with the shades makes you look like a secret service enforcer. Maybe you could replace Arnie in a Total Recall sequel...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Antacids are typically safe and sound inside being pregnant because that regarding mixture the exact placenta towards the child's blood circulation. Having said that, antacids which contains salt (salt bicarbonate) causes the liquid ongoing availability. Aluminum which has antacids could make constipation linked to having a baby worse. Magnesium may perhaps decrease your efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have no medical training but I will take a 'wild stab' at this and state that the aluminum I will recommend for my female readers to learn how to use is an aluminum martial arts club or baseball bat for defensive and offensive purposes, within the laws of the land.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you, well the alternative would be quite undesirable.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I really was willing to understand internet website, it functions specifically the information I was previously planning to discover.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [url=http://cheapqualityviagra.com/#23305]buy cheap viagra[/url] - viagra 50 mg , http://cheapqualityviagra.com/#19774 viagra online without prescription

    ReplyDelete
  23. I do not need it. Very much doubt I ever will...

    Plus I would not want to take such a drug...

    Carlos Viagra

    Quote:

    'Before taking Viagra

    Do not take Viagra if you are also using a nitrate drug for chest pain or heart problems. This includes nitroglycerin (Nitrostat, Nitrolingual, Nitro-Dur, Nitro-Bid, and others), isosorbide dinitrate (Dilatrate-SR, Isordil, Sorbitrate), and isosorbide mononitrate (Imdur, ISMO, Monoket). Nitrates are also found in some recreational drugs such as amyl nitrate or nitrite ("poppers"). Taking Viagra with a nitrate medicine can cause a sudden and serious decrease in blood pressure.

    To make sure you can safely take Viagra, tell your doctor if you have any of these other conditions:

    heart disease or heart rhythm problems;

    a recent history (in the past 6 months) of a heart attack, stroke, or congestive heart failure;

    high or low blood pressure;

    coronary artery disease;

    liver or kidney diseas;

    a blood cell disorder such as sickle cell anemia, multiple myeloma, or leukemia;

    a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;

    a stomach ulcer;

    retinitis pigmentosa (an inherited condition of the eye);

    a physical deformity of the penis (such as Peyronie's disease); or

    if you have been told you should not have sexual intercourse for health reasons.

    Viagra can decrease blood flow to the optic nerve of the eye, causing sudden vision loss. This has occurred in a small number of people taking Viagra, most of whom also had heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or certain pre-existing eye problems, and in those who smoke or are over 50 years old. It is not clear whether Viagra is the actual cause of vision loss. Stop using Viagra and get emergency medical help if you have sudden vision loss.

    FDA pregnancy category B: This medication is not expected to be harmful to an unborn baby. Do not use Viagra without telling your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant during treatment. It is not known if sildenafil passes into breast milk or if it could harm a nursing baby. Do not use this medication without telling your doctor if you are breast-feeding a baby.

    See also: Viagra pregnancy and breastfeeding warnings (in more detail)'

    Sounds wonderful.

    ReplyDelete