23.6.06

Religion: Divine Infinity

People tell me that God is infinite. Infinite in power, scope, beauty, presence - many different things. When I was younger, I heard it in church; I don't think the idea is biblical so much as Platonic, but appears to be a fairly universal belief within Christianity. I still hear it, from Christianity and Judaism and New Age religions, and I understand it to be a tenet of mono- and uni-theism.

People would tell me that I can't comprehend what it means to be infinite, even when I told them I could - I'd spent enough time thinking about it maths that I could understand it as well as I could understand the concept of 2 or red or yesterday - that is to say, vaguely, but enough to move on to other topics. (But it's really, really big! Yes, I know. Really BIG! Yes - it's much more difficult to understand exceptionally large non-infinite numbers than it is infinity, because then you have to reference a scale.)

But I had a problem with God being infinite - I understood it to mean that we must necessarily be a part of God. If God is infinitely everywhere and infinitely powerful, all places and powers must be caught up in him, including my power, right now, to do evil. Right?

But I had fallen into the trap of understanding all infinities equally. It's the same trap that some writers have made when they say: given an infinite number of worlds in an infinite universe, it is statistically impossible that we don't exist an infinite number of times simultaneously, or: give enough monkeys enough time on enough typewriters, and one of them will produce Hamlet.

But there are different kinds of infinities. There are an infinite number of numbers, right? You can keep counting forever. Infinity. But if you take away all of the even numbers, how many numbers do you have? An infinite number. But a lesser infinity, right? Yes. No. No. It's still infinite, though it's a non-comprehensive subset of the first infinitity. You could only count factors of 10: 1, 10, 100, 1000, ... and still end up with an infinite set that is not any smaller than our original set, though as a subset it's rather limited. Then, of course, we have all sorts of infinities squeezed into each member of our infinite set. Take all numbers: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ... There's an infinite number of them, though they all fit between 1 and 0. Even if we add them up, we don't any smaller of a number than if we add up any of our other infinities.

I'm no maths expert (even though I once thought I was), but I can only really distinguish two types of infinity - infinity and pleni-infinity. Perhaps there is a better word somewhere than pleni-infinity, but I don't know it, so I resorted to crafting a new word. Pleni-infinity is not an infinite set, but the complete set of all sets, infinite and otherwise. It's every single number, ever. All of them. Thought of one that's not in there? Nope, it's in there. Hah!

What does all of this have to do with religion and God? Well, God can be infinite in characteristics without including all aspects of those characterstics. His power could be infinite in might without being infinite in scope; it could be infinite in scope, and still not need to include those regions of power which involve flicking your sister's earlobe until she loses her temper. Infinite, but not pleni-infinite. Not every possible aspect of power need be in his scope of power for it to be infinite.

This comes to mind as I'm reading the Urantia Book, and it describes in very minute detail the infinitude of God - in this chapter, the infinity of his personality. And instead of being put off by the word "infinite", I say: Oh, why that means that his personality could be delved without reaching bottom - you could get to know him for as long as you like and still have more to learn than you know.

So maybe I get infinity a little better now.

8 Comments:

At 24/6/06 12:15 AM, Blogger Sarah said...

i've been reading all these posts and the only thing i can say is you're deeper than me. :)

 
At 24/6/06 7:27 AM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

I don't know about that - we just think about different things. I don't have as much of my time tied up in thinking about how best to raise a pair of kids.... yet.

 
At 24/6/06 10:13 AM, Blogger Sarah said...

pyes, but i can only comprehend what your thinking about on a superficial - read it through lightly level. if i start really trying to think about i get rather confused.

oh, and i really like the latest noo tattoo the best. i'm not sure what's so different, but its far and above the best. and what made you decide to go with the back shoulders instead of chest shoulders?

 
At 24/6/06 1:29 PM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

If anything, that's probably a sign of me not writing clearly. Sometimes when I think about things for too long before I write them, they come out jumbled or with important claritive steps missing. Or I use big words incorrectly - you know, trying to sound smart and all. If there's anything you actually want to understand but it's not clear, let me know and I'll go back through and try to make it more clear. I can't promise though, that when I strip away all of confusion I've added into the discussion, it won't turn out to be an obvious and trite point I was trying to make.

 
At 24/6/06 1:32 PM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

Oh, and basically it was the combination of so many people suggesting it and not wanting to have to keep my chest shaved or fear obscuring the angel and demon in the brush.

I won't be able to see them easily on my back, but that's okay.

 
At 24/6/06 1:44 PM, Blogger Sarah said...

i think you're being modest.

 
At 25/6/06 7:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had never thought of this before, Bry, but it makes great sense. Or at least the way you explain it makes great sense. But if God is the source of all things and is infinite in wisdom, power and goodness,etc. could it be he also has the negative aspects, but chooses to suppress them? that subset is not a part of the character that he chooses to express?

 
At 25/6/06 8:09 AM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

I think it certainly think that's a logical possibility, but I don't think it's a theologically orthodox point. I think (I could be wrong) that St. Augustine and his Neo-Platonic ilk in the Church's history have decided that leads into dualism or deism, or something like that. I believe they've said that for God to have an infinite power for evil would be in defiance of his good nature.

I think it does make good logical sense, though, and without even stepping on the toes of the point I was trying to make in the post. Even if God had an infinite capacity for evil, it wouldn't have to be (couldn't be, if we have free will) a pleni-infinite capacity for evil, so it doesn't mean that my ability to do evil is contained within his power, and therefore any evil I do is done by my own will and power, not his his.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home