I think you should cite your sources, Collosians, so that they look as dumb as you do.
After we exclude future things, there still remains an infinite number of pieces of information to be known. If we then add future events back in to the total, the total number of things to be known doesn’t change, for ∞ cannot be exceeded: the number of things God would know would not be any greater than the number of things He already knew.
We therefore necessarily derive that the future and the past are not distinguishable in God’s eyes, for to know the future does not increase His knowledge level beyond an already-infinite level.
This is like saying that there are no numbers between 0 and 1because there are already an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2, and to add more numbers doesn't increase the number beyond and already-infinite level.
Your error is assuming that infinity has a "level". It does not. There are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 as there are on the whole number line. So, I can take an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and add to them the infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2, and there are still an infinite number of numbers there. Thus, as we can see, you can't state that the infinite has a limit. You can
always add to an infinite number.
So, idiocy #1 exposed.
Such is in accord with the fact that no sample of the present can be produced: as soon as one tries to cordon off a piece of the present for analysis, one finds that another piece has been added to it in the meantime.
And so we deduce that what we think of as the present, is really in the past, for the present always occurs simultaneously with our being, and given that knowledge of a thing comes necessarily after the thing itself, it is not possible for our being to have knowledge of the present at the same time that our being is occurring.
You're trying to lower God to a human level. Idiocy #2 exposed.
This stands to reason, for God's being light, and God's realm being the "perfect" (as opposed to the partial), we should expect that all knowledge in the partial realm (our knowledge) mirror the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Do you mean to say that God is ontologically equal to the created item we call "light"? (Idiocy #2 exposed.)
In short, Collossians needs to stop cutting and pasting websites and stick to his own intellectual depth, which is apparently somewhere between Barney and the Teletubbies.
Muz
