The logic of limits

Willbefine left the following comment about yesterday's post (response to z0tl can be found at the end):

"What if either God or Infinity does not exist? For instance infinity might be in fact finite! Does that mean God does not exist too?"

Ah Willbefine, thank you for this... nothing more I love than an ongoing philosophical debate. Here are some of my viewpoints:

• If God or infinity does not exist then there exists only one option to explain the coming about of life on earth. Chance. Mathematical probability suggests this is very, very remote - about as remote as a monkey sitting at a typewriter and typing out Shakespeare's 4th sonnet. But yes, it could have happened by chance, otherwise it would not be a probability.
  
• "Infinity might be finite". Can't do I'm afraid. Mutually exclusive by definition. Either that or we don't speak the same language.
  
• Furthermore, arguing the non-existence of infinity is not logically possible. An All-encompassing Finity will always be undone by a process called "infinite regression". For example, if the universe is finite in dimension - then what's on the other side? And if the thing on the other side is finite - what's on the other side of that? Neverending...
• As to God's existence without infinity, yes, my argument may have had a hole in it. It depends totally on your definition of God. If I believed in a "God", I would maintain that a finite God would not be a "God". So for a God to exist, infinity must exist.
  

But does all of the above prove anything? Not neccessarily. Rather than proving the limits of God or infinity, it may just prove the limits of logical argument.

My personal take on the whole thing?
GOD IS IRRELEVANT

Nietzsche famously announced that "God is Dead"

BPG announces that "Dead or alive, finite or infinite, God's existence or non-existence is irrelevant."

And that is not out of synch with my "spiritual" beliefs. Although I refuse to be boxed into any "religion's" dogmatic category, I would probably be most aligned with Buddhist thought. Unlike other "religions" Buddhism's sole validation does not depend on the existence or non-existence of God. In fact, it's not a religion. Not even a philosophy. It is a METHODOLOGY.

A HOW to live your life.

A WAY, rather than a WHY.

And at the end of the day that's all that matters.

RESPONSE to z0tl

Hey Zaruthustra, sorry I'm only getting to you now, but the truth is I was so excited about the prospect of an ongoing metaphysics debate that I wrote the above before you had even commented.

You're saying: Because there was no time before the big bang infinite time does not exist.

Firstly, the Big Bang is also subject to infinite regression, no matter what Rog Penrose and mates have to say.*

Secondly: I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that because time had a beginning, infinity does not exist. What about if it doesn't have an ending? Does infinity have to have no ending AND no beginning to exist? where would that leave time with a beginning but no ending?? It is certainly not finite.

*The best synopsis of the Big Bang that I ever heard was given by the Dalai Lama. When asked if he believed in the Big Bang, he answered:
"Which one?"