Is the Universe Infinite? Or is only God Infinite?

[LadyCalvinist]

Hello,

I recently heard someone say that the Universe cannot be infinite because only God is truly infinite. Is this true?

 

[Miss Marple]

I always thought, draw a line around the universe, well, something's on the other side of the line. So it's infinite, like numbers. You can always add "one."

But I may not be thinking it through well enough, I don't know.

 

[Loopie]

I suppose a distinction also should be made between infinite and eternal. Certainly the universe is not eternal, and only God himself is eternal. As for the actual 'size' of the universe, that I cannot speak on.

 

[Romans922]

The universe is not infinite. It is created and thus cannot be infinite.

 

[Mushroom]

Since space and time are equivalencies, wouldn't that make infinite space and eternal time equivalencies? And if so, since only the triune God is eternal, wouldn't that mean that only God could be infinite?

If that is so, then no, the physical universe is not infinite in space.

 

[Skyler]

The universe is not infinite. It is created and thus cannot be infinite.

Our lifespan is infinite, and yet we are created.

Since the heavens and earth will exist forever, in their recreated form, in that sense we can say that the universe is infinite into the future. (Whether that applies to the current universe or whether there will be a disconnect of destruction and recreation is a valid question.)

Whether the universe is infinite in space is another question. For philosophical reasons, I do not believe it is. Hilbert's Hotel paradox, among others, seems to obviate the possibility of an actually infinite set (as opposed to the "potentially infinite" of the created but undying universe).

 

[littlepeople]

Modern science indicates that the universe is not infinite. It's a peculiar proof of the existence of God that we have an idea of "infinite" that is fixed in our minds, yet outside of God, it doesn't exist in the real world. This is true of the infinitely large, and the infinitely small. Space comes in defined packets or quanta - so there is no such thing as the infinitely small point; you do reach a point at which you cannot subdivide any smaller.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I suppose a distinction also should be made between infinite and eternal. Certainly the universe is not eternal, and only God himself is eternal. As for the actual 'size' of the universe, that I cannot speak on.

I think infinite and eternal imply each other. If you are one then you are the other or if you are not one then you cannot be the other.

CT

 

[SolaScriptura]

The universe is not infinite. It is created and thus cannot be infinite.

Our lifespan is infinite, and yet we are created.

Actually, our lifespan is not infinite. For something to be infinite it must be endless in every direction. But our lifespan is only endless in one direction. In geometric terms, a line is infinite because it goes, endlessly, in both directions. Our lives are more appropriately compared to a ray - which has a definite starting point, and goes endlessly in one direction proceeding from that point.

Concerning the universe, I've always considered that the universe may be so massive that from our perspective it may seem infinitely large, yet our Lord is so infinitely greater that he holds all of the created order in his hand.

 

[Paul1976]

Science has shown in a number of ways that the universe cannot be infinite. One of the simpler ones is the fact that the night sky is black. If you work out how light spreads out from galaxies (things get dimmer as they get farther away), and how light would build up from more and more galaxies at progressively farther distances, the sky should be white in an infinite universe. Not just white, but blindingly, searingly white from an infinite amount of light. Thankfully, this is not the case, as is possible only for a finite universe. Anyone wanting more details could find them I'm sure - I remember seeing the math and there is nothing beyond high school algebra to convince yourself of this.

A finite universe brings up an interesting quandry. What's at the end of the universe? If the universe ended at, say, a brick wall, we would wonder what was on the other side of it. It doesn't work that way. While I cannot prove this as easily with words, hopefully this picture will give you an idea how we can have a finite universe without any brick walls with nothing on the other side of them. The four dimensional nature of space time means space can be bent. This was predicted by Einstein with his general theory of relativlity. The curvature of space not only makes sense if you take enough university physics classes on the subject, but it's been verified by a number of experiments for nearly 100 years now.

Here is a picture that will help. Planet Earth is a 3D object of finite size. We live on the surface of it, where it appears flat and two-dimensional. Yet, we can go as far as we like in any direction, and never hit any brick walls (minus the ones we build, of course). We might eventually go around and end up at the same point we started from, but there is no end. Moving around in 3D in a 4D universe yields the same results. We can go as far as we like, but the curvature of space restricts us to a finite volume of space. There are more formal and convincing explanations (not all of which I understand!), but hopefully this is a good picture.

 

[KMK]

Has no one read, "Horton Hears A Who"?

 

[Paul1976]

Has no one read, "Horton Hears A Who"?

No. Who is it by?

 

[Skyler]

The universe is not infinite. It is created and thus cannot be infinite.

Our lifespan is infinite, and yet we are created.

Actually, our lifespan is not infinite. For something to be infinite it must be endless in every direction. But our lifespan is only endless in one direction. In geometric terms, a line is infinite because it goes, endlessly, in both directions. Our lives are more appropriately compared to a ray - which has a definite starting point, and goes endlessly in one direction proceeding from that point.

To pick an abstract example, that would mean that the set of positive integers is not infinite (because it is endless in only one direction, but has an end at 0). But the set of positive and negative integers would be infinite, because it is endless in both directions. Unless I'm misremembering my math both of the above sets are technically "infinite".

The difference between the two is that, for a ray, any point on the ray is a finite distance from the beginning - yet the ray still continues on indefinitely. This is analogous to our lifespan within the context of time - at any given moment (point) in time, we have existed for a finite amount of time, yet taken as a whole our lifespan reaches on infinitely into the future.

 

[Skyler]

Has no one read, "Horton Hears A Who"?

No. Who is it by?

Dr. Seuss. It's a good read.

 

[ZackF]

Thomas Aquinas made the helpful distinction between the eternal and aveternal. God (eternal) creates angels (aveternal), men (aveternal) and places/relationships like Hell (aveternal). He also creates completely finite things like worms and cigarettes.

 

[Steve Paynter]

To pick an abstract example, that would mean that the set of positive integers is not infinite (because it is endless in only one direction, but has an end at 0). But the set of positive and negative integers would be infinite, because it is endless in both directions. Unless I'm misremembering my math both of the above sets are technically "infinite".

You are not misremembering your maths. A set is defined to be infinite if it can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. Hence, to continue your example, the set of natural numbers is infinite because it can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the set of even natural numbers. E.g.

0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 ....
.|...|....|...|....|
0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 ....

(Furthermore, the rule relating them can be expressed in a finite way - no axiom of choice is needed.) Hence both the set of natural numbers is infinite. Furthermore, so is the set of even natural numbers. In fact the fact that the two sets can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with each other shows that
they are the same size .... the first infinity, omega.

(Most) Mathematicians, of course, deal with completed infinities, and with power-sets (sets of all the subsets of a set) of any set, including infinite ones. This leads to transfinite numbers ... sets bigger than infinite sets, and hence to all the wonder of transfinite numbers.

If Cantor's diagonalization argument is accepted, there are more real numbers (between 0 and 1, say) than there are integers.

Anyway, your point remains ... something doesn't have to be infinite in more than one way to be infinite. In fact, mathematicians do not accept that there are more integers than naturals, as again it is a simple matter to define a rule which places them in one-to-one correspondence.

0 -- 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 ....
.| .. | .... | .. | .... | .. | .... | .. |
0 .. 1 .. -1 .. 2 .. -2 .. 3 .. -3 .. 4 ....

 

[Steve Paynter]

I have toyed with the idea that the universe cannot be infinite because in an infinite universe everything happens somewhere, and this would be incompatible with God's righteousness. However, I have come to reject it, because it does not follow that in an infinite universe, everything happens somewhere. The infinite universe may simply repeat itself ... over and over and over ... again.

I personally am unclear whether being infinite in space is a uncommunicable attribute of God. It may be, but I can't see the argument why it must be. However, I agree that the scientific evidence seems to be that we do not in fact live in an infinite universe.

 

[Rangerus]

it is infinity and beyond

 

[a mere housewife]

'. . . who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in . . . '
Isaiah 40:22

 

[Claudiu]

Ah, eternity and infinity. Concepts we don't much understand!

 

[Steve Paynter]

Science has shown in a number of ways that the universe cannot be infinite. One of the simpler ones is the fact that the night sky is black. If you work out how light spreads out from galaxies (things get dimmer as they get farther away), and how light would build up from more and more galaxies at progressively farther distances, the sky should be white in an infinite universe. Not just white, but blindingly, searingly white from an infinite amount of light. Thankfully, this is not the case, as is possible only for a finite universe.

Does this argument only work if the infinite universe has existed for an infinite amount of time? If it had a beginning (as we believe that it does), then there will be parts of the universe that contains light sources (suns) which have not yet reached us. Maybe there are only a finite number of suns in the part of the universe that has had time to impact our night sky. Of course, for science, this would raise the problem of how we would know it was there.

 

[a mere housewife]

I like to think camels are infinite. In my own mind, numbers are symbols for trains of camels. And the negative numbers are symbols for camel trains going the other way. So if the camels start at a single point and go in both directions forever, they could fill all of space. And if they reach a brick wall they could jump off. And even if there is only really a single small, little camel, and it's only that the rope which might tie it to another imaginary camel could be tied endlessly in repetitive motions forever, I can still cross my eyes and see another camel, and pretend they are both joined by friends, and so on, until they are all jumping off of brick walls at the end of a donut. . .

I'm not math minded, but thanks to camels, I do have a conceptual framework for some of these things.

 

[Skyler]

Science has shown in a number of ways that the universe cannot be infinite. One of the simpler ones is the fact that the night sky is black. If you work out how light spreads out from galaxies (things get dimmer as they get farther away), and how light would build up from more and more galaxies at progressively farther distances, the sky should be white in an infinite universe. Not just white, but blindingly, searingly white from an infinite amount of light. Thankfully, this is not the case, as is possible only for a finite universe.

Does this argument only work if the infinite universe has existed for an infinite amount of time? If it had a beginning (as we believe that it does), then there will be parts of the universe that contains light sources (suns) which have not yet reached us. Maybe there are only a finite number of suns in the part of the universe that has had time to impact our night sky. Of course, for science, this would raise the problem of how we would know it was there.

That, and then there's the fact (as mentioned) that light gets dimmer as it gets further away. Even if there is an infinite number of galaxies, if they are distributed evenly, the light from them would have an average finite peak because each of those galaxies emits a finite number of photons. If you assume that photons from all galaxies would eventually reach ours, you could still have infinite light - but what's to keep photons from colliding with galaxies, space dust, etc. in between? For any given direction, there will be some object at some finite distance from us that is sufficient to block or divert light particles from further in that direction. Therefore, only a finite number of photons can reach us at any given time.

Am I off here?

 

[SRoper]

Science has shown in a number of ways that the universe cannot be infinite. One of the simpler ones is the fact that the night sky is black. If you work out how light spreads out from galaxies (things get dimmer as they get farther away), and how light would build up from more and more galaxies at progressively farther distances, the sky should be white in an infinite universe. Not just white, but blindingly, searingly white from an infinite amount of light. Thankfully, this is not the case, as is possible only for a finite universe.

Does this argument only work if the infinite universe has existed for an infinite amount of time? If it had a beginning (as we believe that it does), then there will be parts of the universe that contains light sources (suns) which have not yet reached us. Maybe there are only a finite number of suns in the part of the universe that has had time to impact our night sky. Of course, for science, this would raise the problem of how we would know it was there.

That, and then there's the fact (as mentioned) that light gets dimmer as it gets further away. Even if there is an infinite number of galaxies, if they are distributed evenly, the light from them would have an average finite peak because each of those galaxies emits a finite number of photons. If you assume that photons from all galaxies would eventually reach ours, you could still have infinite light - but what's to keep photons from colliding with galaxies, space dust, etc. in between? For any given direction, there will be some object at some finite distance from us that is sufficient to block or divert light particles from further in that direction. Therefore, only a finite number of photons can reach us at any given time.

Am I off here?

Steve,
If the universe was infinite in extent but had a starting point in time we would expect the radiation (light) reaching us to increase with each year.

Jonathan,
You are right that radiation received falls off with the square of distance, but with an infinite number of stars you would still get radiation from every point in the sky. Occultation by dark objects would not be sufficient as any radiation absorbed by such objects would necessarily have to be re-radiated by that object at some point due to conservation of energy.

 

[Steve Paynter]

Steve,
If the universe was infinite in extent but had a starting point in time we would expect the radiation (light) reaching us to increase with each year.

This is an interesting observation. Does the argument also apply to universes which are finite but simply much bigger than what we have seen so far ... because of perhaps, inflation during the early moments?

(For those who don't know, some scientists have hypothesised that for a brief moment of time soon after the big bang, the universe underwent a period of "inflation", when it grew much faster than the speed of light. They suggest that not only is this theoretically possible, but that it would explain the "flat" nature of space - suggesting that it is much bigger than we have yet seen.)

I wonder if this argument fails because it also makes assumptions about the density of light sources in a possible infinite universe. In other words, perhaps this is happening, but we haven't been taking careful measure of the light reaching us for long enough for it to be noticeable, given the relatively low density of the universe.

 

[earl40]

Are angels and demons in our universe? If so can we say they are supernatural? I think of them as being in time like us thus they are supernatural beings in our universe from our preception but natural beings in our universe from the perspective of God.

Thoughts?

 

[Skyler]

Are angels and demons in our universe? If so can we say they are supernatural? I think of them as being in time like us thus they are supernatural beings in our universe from our preception but natural being in our universe from the perspective of God.

Thoughts?

Angels are described as moving between heaven and earth, from God's throne to man and back again. I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" extends beyond our universe.

 

[earl40]

Angels are described as moving between heaven and earth, from God's throne to man and back again. I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" extends beyond our universe.

I would extend a few more " "....I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" "extends" "beyond" our universe.

 

[Skyler]

Angels are described as moving between heaven and earth, from God's throne to man and back again. I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" extends beyond our universe.

I would extend a few more " "....I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" "extends" "beyond" our universe.

I was speaking conceptually, not spatially... but yes.

 

[earl40]

Angels are described as moving between heaven and earth, from God's throne to man and back again. I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" extends beyond our universe.

I would extend a few more " "....I think it's safe to say that God's "cosmos" "extends" "beyond" our universe.

I was speaking conceptually, not spatially... but yes.

Thus the universe has limits, in that only God alone can or be outside of time and space. This is why the incarnation was not only necessary but glorious in that Jesus chose to connect with us in time and space.