Chapter 4: The Mind Works on Infinity

1. Introduction
   • Beginning to Use Our Newly Acquired Knowledge
     • Having come to the realization that God is infinite existence, we need to make use of the concept in order to begin to grow out of the mental picture of God as an old man with a beard(61-1).
     • There are many ways in which to begin. We will begin with the question often posed by unbelievers:
       • “Where was God before the universe was created?” (61-1).
         • Note: The question will be revisited in chapter 11 (148-2).
     • The question “assails God’s infinity in two ways, for the word “where” raises the question of space . . . [and] the word “before” raises the question of time.” Hence, the question brings us to the topics of God’s Immensity and Eternity (61-1).
     • The question’s implication is that God could not exist without the universe because He needs space in which to exist (61-1).
     • We must address the question by using the intellect without the imagination’s assistance.
       • The reason for this is that the imagination leads us to believe (erroneously) that space and time are absolute necessities (i.e., that they must exist).
     • The question requires that we consider space (where?) and time (before, i.e., when?) with respect to God.
     • In order to examine the question, we first need to consider “infinity.”
2. Infinity
   • The Meaning of Infinite
     • The word “infinity” comes from the Latin words “in” (which negates) and “finis” (meaning, limit or end) (62-2).
       • Thus, “infinity” means: without limits, boundless (62-2).
     • Note that limits can be both external and internal (62-2).
       • External limits (i.e., the reach or range of a particular power)
       • Internal limits (i.e., the inner workings or makeup of something)
       • Examples of limits with respect to a human person:
         • External
           • Inability to be here and in another location at the same time
           • Inability to pass through solid objects
           • Inability to resist strong external forces (e.g., gravity)
         • Internal
           • Inability to hear distant sounds
           • Inability to smell distant scents
           • Inability to drink certain liquids
           • Inability to live without functioning parts (heart, lungs, etc.)
     • Infinite, then, means the absence of all limits, internal as well as external. That being the case, an infinite being must be spirit, as will be shown below (62-2).
   • The Limitation of Parts
     • A notable characteristic of material things is that they are made up of parts; being made up of parts, material things necessarily have an internal limitation (62-3).
     • Consider the “limitation of parts” as it applies to humans:
       • No part is the whole of me; no one element of me is me (62-3).
       • My body’s functions are distributed all over my body (62-3).
       • My power to act in any physical way is dispersed rather than concentrated (62-3).
       • I cannot do all that I am capable of at one time (62-3).
       • Our parts can be broken apart (62-3).
       • We can experience the ultimate “brokenness” of death (62-3).
     • If a being is composed of parts, then it is evident that one part cannot be the other part, and neither part can be the entire being. “This fact makes it possible for a material being to occupy space” (63-2).
       • This quote is, perhaps, better expressed as: This fact makes it necessary for a material being to occupy space, for beings without parts are incapable of occupying space.
     • It follows that “unless a being is composed of elements which are not each other, it cannot occupy space” (63-2).
       • It may appear that apparently fundamental particles (i.e., quarks, leptons – electrons are a type of lepton) are not composed of parts but are, rather, a single part.
       • However, the very fact that a particle is observable indicates that it has physical dimensions, and that which has physical dimensions necessarily has sides (i.e., outside, inside, top, bottom, left, right) (63-2).
       • It is evident in the case of an object having sides that one side cannot be the other side. Hence, even “fundamental” particles have “parts” in some sense.
   • The Universe, God and Infinity
     • Cosmologists have been debating whether the universe is finite or infinite for a long time. Our current understanding of the universe is that it “exploded” into existence, from a tiny point in space some 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since.
     • If it is capable of expanding forever, can we say the universe is infinite?
     • No. The universe has the internal limitation of being composed of parts. That is why it takes up space. “It is incurably finite” (63-3, 64-1), regardless of whether it has some external boundary.
     • Clearly, God, who is infinite existence cannot suffer from any limitation, for limitation is a deficiency of existence and one who is existence cannot be deficient of any aspect of that existence.
     • In particular, God cannot suffer from the internal limitation of being made up of parts as is the case with all material beings; thus, He must be spirit. (62-2)
       • The nature of spirit will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 12.
     • Because God is spirit and, therefore, has no parts, He is free from the limitation of occupying space. Space cannot contain Him (64-2).
     • At this point, we must not let the imagination cause us to think that God is unimaginably tiny since He does not occupy space. God is not tiny; He simply has no size because He has no parts (64-2).
   • Summarizing What Has Brought us to This Point
     • From chapter three:
       • The universe is exclusively a receiver of existence, for nothing in the universe can account for its own existence.
       • It follows that there must be a source of existence external to the universe and pre-existing the universe.
       • The source of existence must be existence itself.
       • That which is existence can have no limitation of existence; hence, it must be infinite existence.
     • From Chapter four:
       • Material beings are limited in that they are made up of parts.
       • The source of existence must be a “part-less” being, a “non-material” being, a spirit.
   • Scripture and the Need for a Proper Concept of God
     • If we don’t have a proper understanding of the nature of God, we can be led to erroneous conclusions about Him in our reading of Scripture. Consider three verses:
       • “‘Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?’ says the LORD. ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ says the LORD” (Jer 23:24).
         • This verse seems to imply that God is physically present in the universe, and perhaps that the universe “fits” Him, that His “shape” is identical with the “shape” of the universe, in which case He must be very large.
       • “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!” (1 Kg 8:27; also see 2 Chr 2:6; also see 2 Ch 6:18).
         • This verse seems to imply that God is even bigger than the universe, for it cannot contain Him.
       • “In [God] we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
         • This verse also seems to imply that God is bigger than the universe, and it also implies that the universe is physically present in God.
     • These verses, and others like them, can easily be misunderstood to mean that God is a physical being, and a very large physical being at that.
     • The reality is that “Space cannot contain Him” (64-2), because He lacks the property of size, and He lacks the property of size because He has no parts.
3. God, Space and Time (Immanence, Immensity, Eternity)
   • The Presence of God (Immanence)
     • Scripture says that God is present everywhere, yet everywhere is a word of space and we have just said that God cannot occupy space.
       • “Where can I hide from your spirit? From your presence, where can I flee? If I ascend to the heavens, you are there; if I lie down in Sheol, you are there too. If I fly with the wings of dawn and alight beyond the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand holds me fast” (Ps 139:7-10).
     • So, when we say that God is everywhere, we mean that He is in everything, not that He has parts that take up space (64-3).
     • Note that the presence or absence of a spirit is determined by its activity, rather than by physical location. “A spaceless being is where it operates; it is in the things which receive the effects of its power” (65-1).
     • Consider your soul, the animating principle of your body. It is a spirit and it acts in every part of your body. Hence, our souls are present to every part of our bodies in the mode of spirit, but they are not present throughout the body in the mode of matter.
     • God’s presence in the universe is analogous to the soul’s presence in our bodies in that the mode of presence is spiritual, rather than material.
       • Limits of the analogy:
         • The degree of God’s presence in the universe is infinitely greater than the degree of the soul’s presence in the body.
         • God gives the universe existence; the soul merely animates the body, giving it life (when the soul departs, the body is dead).
     • God is infinite and everything else in finite. As such, He can dominate everything by His infinite power. “And His first act of domination is to hold [all things] in existence. . . . He is everywhere; that is, He is in all things, because the effect of His power (omnipotence acting upon nothingness) is upon all things” (65-2).
     • Because God dominates all created beings by holding them in existence, He is immanent with respect to all created beings.
       • Note: Immanent, not imminent (coming soon) or eminent (distinguished, renowned).
       • Immanence is defined as “intimacy between Creator and creature” (CCC 239).
       • God’s immanence is also called the “natural” presence of God (as opposed to the indwelling presence, the Incarnational presence, and the Eucharistic presence, all of which will be discussed in later chapters).
   • God Transcends Space (Immensity)
     • Because God is infinite spirit, He transcends space, which is a place for beings that have parts.
     • We must emphasize both God’s transcendence and His immanence so as to guard against Deism and Pantheism.
       • Deists believe that God created a self-sustaining world that doesn’t need His attention after having been set in motion.
         • If we only emphasize God’s transcendence, we may be inclined to slip into what is essentially Deism, in which God is an “extra.”
       • Pantheists believe that the world is identical with God and that God is an impersonal being.
         • If we only emphasize God’s immanence, we may be inclined to slip into what is essentially Pantheism, which is similar to seeing God as an “equal.”
     • Returning to the question: “Where was God before the universe was created?”
       • “Where” implies a location in space, but only things made up of parts have spatial location, and all things made of parts are created beings. Hence, the “Where was God” part of the question speaks of God as something created.
       • The “Before the universe was created?” part of the question literally means “the time prior to the existence of created beings.” Hence, the question now becomes:
         • “What created thing was being held in existence by the power of God before there was any created thing?” (65-3).
       • The question is a contradiction in terms and is inconceivable. It has no meaning.
     • We call God’s total transcendence of space His “Immensity” (i.e., immeasurability) (66-1).
       • “We must note that immensity and omnipresence have not absolutely the same meaning. Immensity, or impossibility of being circumscribed by real space, is commonly defined as the aptitude or capacity to exist in all things and places. But omnipresence is the actual presence of God in all places. Hence immensity is an attribute that is an indispensable accompaniment of the divine nature. Even if God had not created, He would have been immense; on the contrary, omnipresence is a relative attribute since it refers to actually existing creatures” (Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, ch. 8).
   • God Transcends Time (Eternity)
     • We are now ready to look more closely at the “. . . before the universe was created” part of the question.
     • Just as “where” raises the question of “space”, “before” raises the question of “time.” And Just as we showed God transcends space, we must also show that He transcends time (66-1).
     • According to philosophy, “time” can be understood in two closely related senses:
       • First: “Time . . . is the duration of that which changes” (66-1).
         • In other words, that which changes has the property of duration, and that property is time.
       • Second: “Time is the measurement of the changes of the universe” (66-1).
     • The common element of both of these senses of time is that time is the measure of change.
     • Now, if time is the measure of change, then it follows that when nothing changes, there is no change to measure, and, therefore, there is no time (66-1).
     • We established in chapter 3 that God is infinite existence. Because He is infinite, He is not capable of change:
       • If He were to gain something, then He was not infinite to begin with, because He would not have possessed all things prior to what He gained (66-1).
       • If He were to lose something, He would no longer be infinite, because He would no longer possess all things (66-1).
       • Therefore, God is immutable; He is absolutely incapable of change.
         • “[He is the] Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (Jas 1:17).
     • Change, then, belongs only to that which God created, but not to God Himself. Therefore, time also belongs to creation and not to God (66-1).
     • Consequently, prior to the creation of the universe, there was no time, because there was nothing that could undergo change.
     • Because change is intrinsic to the universe (everything is always changing), it follows that “time and the universe started together: time is the ticking of the universe” (66-1).
       • Note the perspective of science: “According to the Big Bang theory, time and space have a beginning in the Big Bang” (Bennett, et al, “The Cosmic Perspective,” 691).
     • “Thus, the phrase ‘before the universe was created’ has no meaning at all. Before is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe [came into being] because time began with the universe” (66-2). There is no “before the universe.”
     • So the question “Where was God before the universe was created?” can now be restated as “Where was God when there wasn’t any when?” (66-2).
       • Again, the question a contradiction in terms, and is inconceivable.
   • Time vs. Eternity
     • Let us consider more closely what change implies. A being that experiences change (i.e., time) is never the totality of itself at any moment in its existence (67-1)
       • Such a being can only possess itself partially at any moment. Its totality is only possessed successively, which is obviously a significant limitation (67-1)
         • For example, a human being at birth is incapable of a great number of things that the same human being is capable of at age twenty.
       • Such a being that possesses itself only in successive moments is never “all there.”
     • God, on the other hand, who is absolutely changeless, fully possesses Himself in one single act of being, which we call His eternity (67-1).
     • Eternity is not an endless succession of moments to which there is no beginning and no end; rather, it is the absence of time.
       • “Just as space has parts lying alongside one another, time has parts [moments] following one another” (67-1).
       • If God were to have the experience of time, His existence would have to be broken up into successive slices, in which case He would never be wholly Himself, and, thus, would not be God (67-1).
         • But infinite existence cannot have the internal limitation of parts; hence, God cannot have the experience of time.
     • “Eternity is the “duration” of that which simply is, the duration of the Being who, in one infinite act of being, does not change and does not cease, is all that He is, and does all that He does” (67-1).
       • For lack of a better word, Sheed uses the word “duration” even though we understand it as a time-relative word.
       • One might consider using “nowness” in place of duration, but it is also defined as being time-relative (“the quality or state of existing or occurring in or belonging to the present time”).
       • Another option for duration is timelessness, which literally means a condition or state without time. However, the word is typically used to refer to something that lasts forever, so it too has the problem of being time-relative.
       • Philosophically, eternity is the “tota simul” of Boethius, the “all at once.” See Sheed’s footnote on pg. 67.
     • Consider the word “now” with respect to time and eternity.
       • For created beings, “now” is the “nunc fluens,” the flowing now, which implies something before and after the current moment.
         • “At every use of the word “now,” it applies to a different instant” (68-1); hence, telling someone to “do it now,” creates an impossible task!
       • We live in the “fleeting” present, a present that is constantly changing.
       • God, on the other hand, for whom “now” is the “tota simul,” the “all at once,” lives in the “abiding” unchanging present. His present is the eternal now” (68-1).
       • Consequently, “We must not think of God creating the universe after a certain amount of eternity had rolled by . . . [because] eternity does not roll by” (68-2). It does not have successive moments.
       • For the same reason, we must not think of God as the old man the imagination portrays Him to be. In order to be old, one must live through a long period of successive moments, but there are no successive moments for God to live through. He is not old; He has no age, just as He has no size (68-2).
     • In conclusion, our concept of creation must be that of a Creator who possesses Himself in “one single act of infinite existence” and who wills a universe that “possesses its being in successive acts” (63-3).
       • His creative act is in eternity, as all of His acts necessarily are. “The result of His creative act is in time” (68-3).
     • “The discouraged intellect may feel itself utterly incompetent to make anything at all of such concepts. But there is no gain in trying to imagine eternity in terms of the bit by bit [i.e., successive moments]. It is easier, of course, but it is a denaturing of eternity and therefore of God (69-1).
4. A Paradox: Infinite Activity and Changelessness
   • Statement of the Problem
     • In our attempt to understand the timelessness of God’s existence, which is to say the changelessness of God’s existence, we may be faced with a problem: “We have seen God as infinite and utterly changeless; and these two ideas might tend to combine in our minds in a concept of infinite stagnation” (69-2)
       • To put it another way, what kind of activity can there be for an unchanging being?
     • But God is alive, and life is activity. He is infinite activity, and yet utterly immutable.
       • This gives us two apparently irreconcilable elements in the mystery of God. The problem we have in reconciling these two truths lies, not in the truths themselves, but in us (69-2).
       • In order to gain insight into this mystery, we need to consider the personality of God.
   • God Is a Personal Being
     • In chapter 3 we saw that God must be a personal being. The reasoning is as follows:
       • Knowing and loving are the principal operations of rational spirits as well as the essential elements of personal beings.
       • They are among the perfections found in creation.
       • The perfections found in creation must have their source in the Creator.
       • It follows that God must be a personal being.
     • As a personal being, God’s activity will be personal activity, the activity of infinitely knowing and infinitely loving (the principal operations of spirit) (70-1).
     • The question we need to ask is this: Whom will God be infinitely knowing and loving?
       • It will not be us. Our finitude cannot possibly be the primary object of God’s infinite knowledge and love. “We do not belong essentially to God’s life and activity at all” (70-1).
         • This is the “principle of adequate object”: The finite cannot be an adequate object of infinite activity. We will see it again on page 103.
         • If God depended on our existence to be able to love and know infinitely, He would not be capable of infinitely knowing and infinitely loving until after He had created us. But it is a contradiction to say that the being who knows and loves infinitely could only do so if He created a being to know and love, since there would have been a time when He could not do that.
       • “It is not mere crudity to say that running the universe is God’s hobby, not His real life” (70-1).
         • It is right to study God’s dealings with us (i.e., His Providence). However, in doing so we have a tendency to separate the study of God from the study of God’s Providence and to concentrate on the latter to the exclusion of the former (70-1).
         • This, in turn, inclines one to think of God’s activities as one’s own, and to seeing one’s own will as though it must also be God’s will with the result that he attempts to force his human will upon other persons (70-1).
         • “Nothing is so strong a safeguard against this silliness as a grasp of the nature of God in Himself” (70-1).
     • We will take up the question of what infinite knowing and infinite loving mean with respect to God’s interior life in chapter six. For now, we are considering these infinite operations “only in relation to our present problem, which is to see how infinite activity can be one thing in God [along] with His changelessness” (70-2).
     • Reformulating the mystery: infinite activity, utter changelessness.
       • God knows infinitely, and loves infinitely, with no shadow of change within Himself, for an infinite being must be immutable (71-1)
       • Nothing can be added to His knowing, nothing can be added to His loving, and nothing can be taken away from either operation, for both are the perfect expression of His own infinite perfection (71-1).
         • If something could be taken from or added to His knowing and loving, then they could not have been infinite operations to begin with (71-1).
         • Consequently, no change is possible in these infinite activities (71-1).
       • “Infinite knowledge and infinite [love] are [the expression or result of] infinite activities, and change can find no point of entry” (71-1).
       • Hence, God’s infinite activity must be consistent with His absolute immutability. We know this by way of logic, “but there remains the practical problem of seeing it so” (71-2).
   • An Exercise upon Infinity
     • Though we know what “infinite” means (without limit, unbounded), we have no direct experience of the infinite, and the reality is so far beyond our finitude that it is impossible for us to conceive the infinite as it is (72-1).
     • We can gain some insight into the problem of God’s infinite activity and immutability by observing the limits of our own being and activity, and considering what the absence of those limits must mean in God (72-1).
     • Let us consider our operation of knowing to see what knowing is in and of itself. Where there are limitations, we will try to see what knowing would be if those limitations are stripped away (72-1) .
       • Positively, we can say that we know a thing when it is present to our minds. Knowing cannot be less than that in God. Hence, we can say that “all things are present to the mind of God as what they are” (72-1, 2).
     • On the negative side, we can readily point to three obvious limitations of our knowing.
       • First: We know so little compared to the vast number of things that could be known (72-4).
       • Second: We come to knowledge of a thing through a step-by-step process. We don’t know a thing simply by looking at it (72-4).
       • Third: We cannot hold more than two or three things in our mind at one time (73-1).
     • There is no difficulty in seeing that God’s knowing will be free of these limitations, for there is nothing he does not know, and He knows what He knows in one infinite act of knowing (73-2).
     • However, there are other limitations to our knowing that are not so obvious, and “two of these will lead to very considerable advance in the knowledge of God” (73-3):
       • One: Our knowledge is dependent upon the object known. If the object is not present to us, we cannot know it (73-3).
         • What the absence of this limitation in God means, we cannot know, for we have no experience of knowing infinitely, but we do know that He does not have this limitation (73-3).
       • Two: There is an obscure limitation that may sound trivial, but will actually lead us to “a most profound truth about the nature of God”: our act of knowing is distinct from ourselves. “My knowing is something that I do, but it is not I” (73-4).
         • If my knowing were not distinct from who I am, there would be no effort required in my knowing. I would always be knowing all that I know (74-1).
         • As it is, I am sometimes knowing, sometimes not knowing, but when I am knowing there is always a distinct effort required (74-1).
       • Consider what this means with respect to God
         • God’s knowing cannot be subject to the limitation of His knowledge being distinct from Himself (74-1).
           • If there were a distinction between God and His knowledge, there would be something that God possesses but that His knowledge lacks, or vice versa (74-2).
           • Hence, His knowledge would not be infinite, which is impossible for He who is infinite existence (74-2).
         • It necessarily follows that God is His knowledge; His knowledge is God (74-1).
   • The Other Perfections of God
     • The same reasoning by which we discovered that there is no distinction between God and His knowledge leads to the realization that what is true of His knowledge is also true of His other perfections (74-2).
       • If God’s mercy were distinct from God there would be something that God possesses but that His mercy lacks; His mercy would not be infinite, which is impossible. Therefore, God’s mercy is God; God is mercy (74-2).
       • Similarly, God’s justice cannot be distinct from God. Therefore, God’s justice is God; God is justice (74-2).
       • It follows that because God’s justice is God and God’s mercy is God, God’s justice must be God’s mercy.
         • Contrary to what we are inclined to think, “infinite justice and infinite mercy are not two opposing tendencies in God: they are one [and the] same God (74-2).
     • “There is no distinction between [any of] God’s attributes and God, and therefore no difference between one of God’s attributes and another of His attributes (74-2).
       • We see each as a distinct attribute because of our limitations. We must see them as being distinct attributes in order to see them at all (75-1).
       • Though we cannot reconcile God’s mercy with His justice, we must accept both attributes at white heat and accept the tension between them as well (40-2), and we must do the same with all of God’s attributes.
       • With some effort on our part, the apparent distinction between the two will diminish, and we will come to see them as one, though we will never understand how they can be one (75-1).
     • In summary, “there is no real distinction between what God has and what God is. God is what He has” (75-1).
5. The Going Is Hard
   • The “Thinness” of Our Idea of God
     • This concludes our study of God by the way of philosophy. It has resulted in the stripping away of the anthropomorphic limitations we have placed on our concept of God.
     • It may seem as though we are left with “an intolerable sense of thinness about the idea of God” (76-1).
     • Reality as we know it has a kind of “thickness” or “solidity,” which is a stark contrast to the apparent “thinness” of infinite Spirit. But this solidity “results from the element of nothingness” that is mingled with the material reality that we know.
       • An analogy Sheed uses later in the book is appropriate here: A man who has spent his life drinking from a muddy stream might think that clear water seems a little thin – until he tastes it (345-2).
       • If we make the appropriate effort, we will come to see that the “thinness” of infinite spirit is much to be desired over the thickness of our anthropomorphic concept of God.
   • The God of Philosophy
     • However, the limitations we have stripped away were keeping us from seeing certain realities about God. In time, these realities will glow more intensely than the limitations we stripped away.
     • The understanding of God we have acquired thus far is the result of man’s quest for God. This is the God of philosophy. “If we had only the God of philosophy . . . most of us would probably always feel Him [to be] just too remote” (76-1).
     • But man’s quest for God is only part of the story, for “God has also sought man . . . [and this over] a long history that culminated when God became man and dwelt among us. Nothing could be less remote than Jesus Christ” (76-1).