“Rationalism and Infinity”

“Rationalism and Infinity”

Someone in their rationalism postulated that “…an all knowing god (sic) could not possibly exist because there are infinities.”

Most certainly there are infinities, for example one might ask, how large is the largest number in existence?  The truth of the matter is that one could simply add another zero to that number to increase it tenfold.  For the purposes of this paper, we will call that addition the “zero factor.” 

The question that then follows the original assertion is this.  How is it possible to connect the existence of an all knowing God (omniscient God) with there being infinities?  It seems that one is not dependent upon nor connected with the other.  However, for the purposes of the argument let us assume some sort of a connection/relationship.

 Someone offered the following as the support for the assertion.

“… "ALL/Omni" knowledge...means a beginning and end to knowledge... that means there cannot be infinities...because your god is "OMNI">ALL.”

--Name Withheld

Continuing the following was offered.

“Infinities do NOT end. They can begin, but they don't end. The Judaic god is said to be the beginning and end...and to be all knowing. It's a contradiction to the notion of infinity as infinity is information that never ends.”

--Name Withheld

Indeed there are the semantic difficulties with what was being offered as support.  First, the assumption that “All” in the argument is limited.  What if the “All” and the “Omni” were just as the original illustration and the “zero factor” were added to the argument?  Then the notions behind these words would be delimited.

Second, there is an assumption that God is bounded and thus there comes a point of limitation.  What if we again applied the “zero factor” to God?  Then the person of God would be ever greater than the notion tendered.

The third matter requiring attention is found in the writers word knowledge.  Man only discovers knowledge and such discovery in no way creates said knowledge.  There are any number of examples where man had uncovered some new fact, scientific process, etc. and claimed creation when in fact he only discovered it.

Finally, there is an assumption that suggests one meaning of God being the same yesterday, today, and forever.  However there is another way in which that is true which removes limitation from the discussion.  What is commonly accepted as stability may in fact be something else entirely.  What about this thought?  What if it means that the qualities of God are stable (He knows all, sees all, is immutable, etc.) but beyond those things we can best understand Him if we include the “zero factor”?

The one who embraces Rationalism postulates that all that may be known of reality is available to the mind--that is one's understanding. Problem is that even the most intelligent cannot comprehend but a small portion of the body of knowledge.  This is especially so with the “zero factor” added to the discussion.

The simple truth is that the mind of the rationalist is finite. Such being so, then there is another question that accrues. How can such an one even acknowledge infinite realities.  This is but one of the problems with rationalism.