Sorry! Infinite creation is one layer of God, how deep, how dense does He have to be beneath it? How extensive? How integrated, connected is His knowledge? At all scales from all points to infinity. How many factorial infinities are there to His complexity? How is He ‘omnipresent’? He would seem to have a five dimensional (4 space, 1 time) delocalized organization of infinite nature. How much of Him is sustaining, attending to the reaches of my stairway hall? The interior of the neighbour’s drain pipe? My gravity shadow ten kilometres below me? The dead flies on my zapper? He is without extent. Dimensionless. So the infinity to the power infinity of things and their infinite aspects each is in His point… an’ that.
1 Like
So the infinity of the parts of nature are not part of God?
Since there is no infinity of the parts of nature, I think not (said Descartes as he disappeared in a puff of logic 
). And I’m not a pantheist, to boot. 
So infinite nature doesn’t have infinite parts? You know all things right? Even completely counterintuitive, irrational things?
Nature is not infinite. God could roll up the spacetime fabric of the cosmos any time he pleases.
There is a progress towards something that can survive and possibly outcompete other forms. This may be of greater complexity but not necessarily that.
In sentient creatures, it is not a necessity that social minds or rational capabilities evolve towards greater complexity or superior wisdom. Those having a higher relative rate of increase (offspring production) will eventually outcompete others, no matter how simple or stupid they are.
What have those two baseless assertions got to do with each other? How can nature not be infinite, God or no?
As it may be of greater complexity, it will. And here we are. And as I said, I reckon we’re flatlining at the top of the curve.
ever played a game involving dice? Did it involve rules and could you use tactics to win - or was the outcome random or was it following a rule?
I was a nearly unbeatable Risk player. Certainly at grammar school and university. What point are you trying to make? Necessity makes the probabilistic rules, is the probabilistic rule. Newton’s being no exception of course.
Most mutations are deleterious; you are making simplistic statements.
Quantify that. With statistics from observations in the wild and microbiology, plant and animal husbandry, the lab. Anywhere. And my statement is perfectly correct. And simplistic how? Compared with yours for example. I don’t need any stats for my statement: here we are.
A simple search on the internet will produce this (from a biology web site):
"All living beings possess genetic material that is composed of a sequence of nucleotides. Errors in this sequence are known as mutations, and they exist in the genome of all living beings. It is impossible for the genome of a biological entity to be devoid of any mutations. With each new generation, almost 100 – 200 new errors are incorporated into the genome. Considering the vast timeline of the existence of life on Earth, the amount of accumulated mutations is staggering. To put this in perspective, if we consider humans, each generation includes 100 new errors into the human genome, and at the current population growth rate, each generation of humans on the entire planet has a cumulative 100 billion mutations."
I do not want to pretend that I am a biologist and neither should you. The area is far more complex, and includes neutral drift and various mechanisms that deal with mutations and subsequent events. You should provide statistics and related data as my comment is straightforward and hardly controversial.
(ed) I should have added from biologywise: “Most mutations in organisms are deleterious by nature.”
I noticed your response - since you are a biologist, I would ask you to express your comments with greater clarity.
I am a biologist thank you. Where is that from? And where does it say any mutations are deleterious?
see my edited reply.
Answer my question. It’s very easy to. Where am I unclear?
Ah, biologywise says “Most mutations in organisms are deleterious by nature.”. Have they got an authority on that?
Even in the case of a flat universe, the cosmos doesn’t have to be infinitely big.
God started it, he could end it.
What’s the insignificant finite universe got to do with anything? Or God’s being able to do meaningless things?
it is quite logic that in complex systems most mutations are deleterious, but as they are, it does not matter as only the ones that are not will propagate.