If I should come up with anything substantive, I’ll let you know. Regarding the question on God’s infinity, this answer will probably be a bit rambling unless I take more time than I have available right now to write multiple drafts. I’ll give it a go, though:
There are two principles I use as guardrails when I try to understand the nature of God. The first I learned from a man named Richard Ross, the late teaching leader of my Bible Study Fellowship class. He liked to regularly remind us that, while God will certainly call us to give an account for all the times when we thought too little of him and too highly of ourselves, He is never going to demand we explain why we thought of Him more highly than we ought. It is impossible for us to do so.
The second principle comes from C.S. Lewis. In his book Miracles, he shares a parable of limpets trying to understand human beings. Some of the wisest limpets tell the others that humans have no shells. The less enlightened limpets hear this and conclude that humans must therefore be like amorphous blobs of jelly. Similarly, when I correctly recognize that my mental image of God as an old man sitting on a golden throne in the clouds is a childish anthropomorphism, a part of my mind wants to simply substitute an image of Him as nothing more than an amorphous blob of light on that same golden throne in the clouds. There is a danger that when we try to form a conception of God beyond our capacity, we will actually adopt a lesser view.of Him.
Applying the first principle to God and infinity, I believe God must at least be equal to the highest conception of infinity anyone can imagine. Aristotle’s objections to the idea of an actual infinity are true within the universe of space and time, and they would be true of any gods that were a part of it, but they need not apply to the one of whom Solomon says, “Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!” I’m aware other philosophers have posited infinities greater than Aristotle’s conception of it. Descartes made a distinction between the merely indefinite and the truly infinite, and Cantor, while founding the field of set theory, came up with the idea of an absolute infinite. I won’t pretend to understand very much about set theory, but if it’s genuinely a greater view of the infinite, then I believe it must be closer to God’s actual nature.
The second principle cautions me to beware of making sophomoric conclusions about what Divine infinity is based on my strictly negative knowledge of what it isn’t. For instance, I could argue that because choice (from a human perspective) involves a transition from a state of not knowing one’s intentions to a state of knowing one’s intentions, then God’s changelessness and omniscience mean that he does not make choices. This would be fallacious reasoning. The transition may be a characteristic of human choice, but it doesn’t fundamentally define what a choice is. I may not be able to understand how choice can work apart from time and change, but that’s a limitation of my knowledge, not of God’s ability to enact His will.
There are limits to what we can learn about God strictly from nature and our own reason. Discerning that God is at least potentially infinite may be the most we can really discern without special revelation. Because we do have such revelation, I can say that God existed before time began and will continue to exist after the universe has passed away, He knows everything that was, is, will be, and could be, and He has the power to bring about whatever He desires. I don’t understand how all those things work, but I shouldn’t really expect to.
Not the first time someone has mentioned Miracles by C.S Lewis to me. What is your review, if you have read it Tom? And is their much relevance to the topics we’ll be studying?
It had a pretty profound effect on me, but it was only the second or third book on Christian apologetics I ever read, so it might not be quite as groundbreaking for someone better read than I was at the time. I do heartily recommend it, though: it’s well-reasoned, easy to read, and only a couple hundred pages, so it doesn’t require a huge time commitment. If every Christian youth pastor had their students study it before going off to college, they would be much better prepared for what they’ll encounter.
Where it will definitely be relevant is in unit 13 of Larry’s plan of study. The book directly addresses Hume’s objections to the possibility of miracles and the supernatural. That’s quite a ways off, but it could have some applications to earlier units as well. Incidentally, it’s in the public domain under Canadian copyright law, so you can read it here for free. Give it a read when you have the time.
Sticking with the slow reading of Aristotle might start to rip its rewards. Any time I think I got it, I feel like it’s slipping through my fingers and have to read it again, while always slowly reading your commentary as well.
In this specific case, this potentiality and actuality is very interesting. It seems to me like Aristotle’s view of infinity aligns better with imperfection, with a work in progress, unlike our usual concept of God where infinity aligns with His perfect qualities: infinitely present, infinitely wise, infinitely knowledgeable, etc.
So, I am making a guess, but it does feel like this is heading towards a “finite” unmovable mover. This makes sense to me based on how Aristotle has built his argument so far.
But this just makes me only more curious on how later theologians would argue against Aristotle.
As I read III.6&7, I keep thinking of Anselm’s “A being than which nothing greater can be conceived”. I’ve always found the ontological argument for God interesting to think about, but not particularly useful for the apologist. People much smarter than me have argued for and against it, and some of them have changed their minds about its validity as an argument, but I’ve never heard of anyone changing their minds on God’s existence solely because of it.
Aristotle is giving me a feeling, though, that maybe there is a solid ontological argument to be made for the existence of the infinite. His discussion on the difference between the unlimited and the whole has been especially thought provoking. My thoughts on this are still quite nebulous, but I’m fascinated to see where this is going.
You’re very welcome to develop any such argument here—either in a comment or I can give you your own page if you have something more substantive to say!
Considering what you’ve said here, I am curious how you would respond to the last paragraph above where I say “I will leave you also with this question…”.
Reply to “Physics III.6: What is Aristotle's theory of infinity?”