The Trial of Infinity: Argumentum ab Auctoritate Versus Argumentum ad Auctoritatem

CHARACTERS:
JUDGE
COURT REPORTER FOR SELF and FOR JUDGE
COURT ADVOCATE, from the Supreme Court
APPELLATE ADVOCATE, to the Supreme Court
WITNESSES

COURT REPORTER FOR SELF: I, a syncopate, will presume to speak, even praedicare, on behalf of the Judge during these proceedings by permission and as advisement.¹ I pray to reflect His temperament.²

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: It is confounding³ enough to have to respond to this unaccomplished poet posing as the court reporter but surely this would violate the hearsay rule.

COURT ADVOCATE: The court reporter speaks to the Judge and that is first hand communication, in the best of human terms,⁴ and violates no rules. The court is ready to proceed, Your Holiness.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: We are willing to entertain perceived admission against interest.

FOR JUDGE: Revel room, all of mankind has the ability to recognize distance and in time it is reasonable for most to ponder a distance beyond the stars that is without end. All of mankind has the ability to also recognize amounts and in time it is reasonable for most to wonder about a never-ending amount. We are going to allow witnesses to be presented by the court’s advocate and by the appellate advocate regarding the idea of infinity and its rational ramifications. The Judge is The Intercessor, The Mediator, The Advocate and can not, nor will not, recuse Himself in these proceedings for the government rests on His shoulders.⁵ At some point, He will have to end the evidentiary process. The individual juror’s purpose is to consider the arguments and render a formal decision for Him to then judge, moor lever.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Your honor, I have witnesses as You can see but fear I may not be able to make my final case because there is always something I may not know.

FOR JUDGE: Loot laid, true; HIC SVNT LEONES. The Judge is confident that you will make your best argument against this court and your case will not be dismissed untimely with or without prejudice. Advocate, you may present your first witness, dial tool.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Objection, Your honor, on the grounds of argumentum ad verecundiam. This appeal to an unqualified authority is shameful and is a fatacia ad verecundiam.

COURT ADVOCATE: Your Holiness, this is not a fallacy of authority. Before presenting expert witnesses, I believe it is necessary to present witnesses, of relatively known stature as a voir dire, to testify to their experience with this subject even though some may not be expert on the subject.

FOR JUDGE: Gulp liar, overruled. He will allow this to a point. The court’s advocate may proceed, rail plug.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I wish to cross-examine the witness, Your honor. Mr. Van Gogh, did you not cut off your ear in a mad rage?

VAN GOGH: I did. My struggles with life’s issues have overwhelmed me at times.

COURT ADVOCATE: The court will now look at what infinity includes. The court calls Georg Cantor…Mr. Cantor, please tells us the possible types or levels of infinity.

CANTOR: There is the physical material universe, there is a non-material mathematical expression contained in intellects, and there is an absolute infinity. One may hold to the existence or non-existence of each of those possibilities.

COURT ADVOCATE: Then one may accept or not an infinite material universe, or one may accept or not mathematical infinity, and one may either accept or not and absolute infinity.

CANTOR: Yes, those are the permutations. And I might add, the absolute infinity is God who instilled the concepts of both finite and infinite possibilities into the human mind to reflect His perfection.⁷ I have tried to explain how Galileo understood the nature of infinite sets where if something is removed it may still remain infinite.

COURT ADVOCATE: For example, if you have an infinite set of all whole numbers and remove the subset of even numbers, the remaining subset of odd numbers still extends into infinity.

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls Isaac Newton…In your laws of thermodynamics, Mr. Newton, you have observed that from a higher order or energy comes a lesser order or energy. That entropy would indicate at some point in the past the material universe was caused by something self-existent outside of the material and is moving toward a material end.

NEWTON: Yes. I would add “that since space is divisible in infinitum, and matter is not necessarily in all places, it may be allowed that God is able to create particles of matter of several sizes and figures, and in several densities and forces, and thereby to vary the laws of nature, and make worlds of several sorts in several parts of the universe.”⁸

COURT ADVOCATE: Not unlike the creation of a New Jerusalem as foretold in the New Testament.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Cross, Your honor. Mr. Newton, is it not true that you devoted yourself to looking for a mysterious Bible code?

COURT ADVOCATE: Re-direct, Your Holiness. Since the appellate advocate introduced the subject of biblical scriptures into our proceedings, I would like to continue this line of questioning. Mr. Newton, since the infinite Creator must have produced Scripture, it would be complete and behave as a living revelation to guide human understanding across time. It would not be possible to add to it or take away from it.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Henri Poincaré said “Logic sometimes makes us monsters.”⁹ This court has not proven God’s existence.

COURT ADVOCATE: Very well. The court calls Blaise Pascal…Mr. Pascal, does God exist?

PASCAL: We may believe in an existent God as existing, achieving infinite gain, or not, having a finite loss, or we may not believe in an existent God as existing and suffer infinite loss if He exists or have a finite gain if He does not exist.¹⁰

COURT ADVOCATE: Then, Mr. Pascal, it is only rational to believe in God as existing, a “double infinity.”

PASCAL: Of course. “We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that it is untrue that numbers are finite. Thus, it is true that there is an infinite number, but we do not know what it is.”¹¹ Hermann Weyl said “Mathematics is the science of the infinite.”¹² We must have a language to discuss concepts.¹³

COURT ADVOCATE: In that math language, there is equity in that there is a true outcome and possible untrue outcomes, with the true outcome being justly preferred.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: There are those that would disagree with binary true and false options of information. Your honor, that binary choice is a false dichotomy.

COURT ADVOCATE: Let the record show the appellate advocate supports the binary true and false options as indicated by describing the perceived dichotomy as false. Truth may be represented by 1 and untruth may be represented by 0. If the 1 and 0 were a circuit of information switches, at 0 truth is off and at 1 truth is on. Either a person accepts infinite realities and is switched on to 1 or does not and is switched off to 0. There is a profusion of energy into the lowest state of entropy of 0,¹⁴ which indicates there must be an extra-natural source of that untruth. Like humans, this being of untruth must be finite and so must have been created by the pre-existent Creator God.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Objection, Your honor. The court’s advocate is making a speech.

FOR JUDGE: Sleep deer, the court’s advocate should complete the point, reed peels.

COURT ADVOCATE: The Scriptures say that the embodiment of untruth is called Satan—the father of lies. Thus, the pride he emulates to mankind leads to idolatry and is proof of human freewill to reject truth and accept untruth. Moreover, the false religions of the idolatry cause an unbalanced view of justice, love, mercy, and redemption etc., which is easily disproven mathematically.

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls John Milton…Mr. Milton, please explain to the court your views on infinity.

MILTON: The apostle Peter warned us to not be ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.¹⁵ There is a God of the past, future and present. Thusly, He is eternal and infinite, and so is omnipotent, and omniscient etc. Furthermore, he has created a finite being of evil, known as Satan, who must be resisted for God’s glory.¹⁶

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls William Blake…Mr. Blake, you included Satan when making drawings based on Milton’s work.

BLAKE: Yes. It was integral in portraying Milton’s work and the realities of infinity. Oh “To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour.”¹⁷

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls Isaiah…As a prophet, Isaiah, explain your views of God regarding omnipotence and omniscience.

ISAIAH: God inhabits eternity. His name is Holy.¹⁸ As the biblical psalmist indicated long ago, God has infinite power and understanding.¹⁹ The prophet Nahum told of God’s omnipotence.²⁰ I wrote of the Messiah that would come and redeem the sins of man,²¹ as did Moses.

The 11” x 14” oil on canvas painting by Dallas F. Bell Jr. is titled “The Passover Branch of the Melchizedek Order.”²²

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls Moses…Moses, you are known as God’s lawgiver.²³ Please tell us about the God of the Bible.

MOSES: Before mountains were brought forth, or ever He formed the earth and the world even from everlasting to everlasting, He was God.²⁴ He would send the ultimate Prophet.²⁵

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls Solomon…Solomon, explain the nature of the Messianic Christ.

SOLOMON: He would be from everlasting from the beginning.²⁶ Fearing Him is the beginning of knowledge,²⁷ and wisdom as Job²⁸ and the psalmist²⁹ said.

COURT ADVOCATE: The apostle John will be the next witness…Tell us, John, about the person called Christ Jesus.

JOHN: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God³⁰…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”³¹ He said He was the way, the truth, and the life.³² He is the beginning and the end.³³ He said Moses spoke of Me.³⁴ He is judge of the living and the dead.³⁵ God is love and perfect love cast out fear.³⁶ If you don’t love, you don’t know God, which is why He sent His son, Christ Jesus, as a propitiation for our sins so that we might live.³⁷ Salvation is based on an infinite God and can not change.³⁸ The apostle Paul called Him the righteous Judge.³⁹

COURT ADVOCATE: Yes, the Chinese might express this as yi equals Yáng over wǒ.⁴⁰ The court calls the apostle Paul…Paul, tell us about Christ.

PAUL: Righteousness comes from God on the basis of faith in Christ, that we know Him and power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His suffering, being conformed to His death on the cross; in order that we might attain to the resurrection from the dead.⁴¹ The foolishness of God is better than the wisdom of man.⁴²

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls Jonathan Edwards…Mr. Edwards, you led a Great Awakening in America based on your sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,”⁴³ which changed the future of the United States. Please tell the court about Christ.

EDWARDS: He is the infinitely just Highway of Holiness.⁴⁴ Martin Luther was known to describe God as omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign. John Calvin knew the knowledge of God was in the hearts of man.⁴⁵

COURT ADVOCATE: The court calls Isaac Watts…Mr. Watts, you have written many hymns. Please tell us your view of infinity.

WATTS: The most obvious hymn was titled “The Infinity of God,”⁴⁶ which I based on Moses’ writings⁴⁷ and the Psalms.⁴⁸ Carl Boberg wrote “How Great Thou Art.”⁴⁹ The most famous hymn’s, “Amazing Grace” by John Newton, last line added anonymously states it best, “When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the Sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise Than when we’d first begun.”⁵⁰

COURT ADVOCATE: While John Newton was on house arrest for falsely being accused of stealing, he read a volume of Isaac Barrow’s Euclid. The study of mathematics helped him overcome his sorrows, but he gave up his mathematical interest when he was converted to Christianity thinking it was a useless treasure.⁵¹

COURT ADVOCATE: King David asked to “fall into the hands of the LORD because His mercies are great”⁵² while the writer of Hebrews indicated “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”⁵³ Pascal said “the eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me.”⁵⁴ Tom Stoppard wrote that “Eternity’s a terrible thing.”⁵⁵ The reality of infinity effects many people in different ways for many reasons. I have tried to present to this court God’s immutable position as efficient a case as is possible. The foundation ideas have been touched on either directly or indirectly. Your servant⁵⁶ rests, Your Holiness, with the request to recall past witnesses, if necessary, and to engage in a vigorous cross-examination of the appellate advocate’s witnesses.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I do not plan to cross at this time. I will address the contradictory, if not outright hypocritical, court’s evidence later and also requests the option of recalling past witnesses, if necessary.

FOR JUDGE: Live gut, the appellate advocate may begin its case against this court, tug evil.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Plato…Plato, explain your view of the universe as it relates to infinity.

PLATO: The universe extends into infinity, but infinity may only exist in perception.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Immanuel Kant…Would you say the universe is infinite, Mr. Kant?

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: We call Nicholas of Cusa…Nicholas, do you agree with Kant?

COURT ADVOCATE: Let the record show the appellate advocate’s witnesses fail to separate the universe with infinity, which was shown to be true earlier. Aristotelian, Stoic, and Epicurean models of this universe of entropy correctly indicate its finiteness within an enclosure of infinity.

LAOZI: In my “Tao Te Ching,” I explain how it is boundless as Xun Kuang’s “Xunzi” and Lie Yukou’s “Liezi.”

COURT ADVOCATE: Let the record show those three writers have Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucianist beliefs that fail to separate the universe from infinity, as with Hindi beliefs, which again has been proven to be incorrect. Their untrue beliefs mean they can accept no God, no Satan, no pride, no justice, no love, no mercy etc., nevertheless accept the reality of entropy that prevents a yin and yang energy equivalence or multi-life reincarnations—pron a fortiori.

COURT ADVOCATE: Let the record show the departing witness’ Zen Buddhist observation is only of consequence if there is an Infinite Intellect of love and justice etc., which makes an infinite path worthy of pursuit. James said count it all joy when you meet trials because the testing of one’s faith produces endurance, and so let endurance have its full effect that one may be perfect, complete, and lack nothing.⁵⁷ Paul said suffering produces perseverance, and perseverance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given us. God’s power is made perfect in our weakness.⁵⁸ The Lord will fight for His people while they keep silent.⁵⁹ Nehemiah was troubled because Jerusalem was in ruins. After prayer to God, this caused him to act and rebuild the city, the effect.⁶⁰ God said when your countenance falls for doing wrong, a causing obstacle, the effective path is to do well.⁶¹

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Yes, yes, Jerome Bruner wrote “You are more likely to act yourself into feeling than feel yourself into action.”^⁶² We call Muhammad ibn Mūsa Al-Khwārizmī as the next witness…Al-Khwārizmī, in your development of algorithms, did you come to have an understanding about infinity?

AL-KHWARIZMI: From the infinite Allah, we have been given the Qur’an. From this we know that infinite God can not become a finite man, like the prophet Jesus, and then return to being an infinite God.

COURT ADVOCATE: Cross. John told us earlier that biblical theanthropos, Christ Jesus, is called the Word. Al-Khwārizmī, as you just indicated, you believe infinite Allah gave his infinite word in the Qur’an. It is presented in the finite physical form of the Qur’an to be knowable to finite beings like yourself. Isn’t it?

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Maimonides…Maimonides, what is your view of infinity?

MAIMONIDES: Every corporeal thing is finite with finite power so there must have been power from the infinite, which is an existent being that is not bodily. This is much what Moses correctly wrote as God creating ex nihilo.⁶³

COURT ADVOCATE: Cross, Your Holiness. Maimonides, you mentioned Moses’ biblical writings. Do you believe the Bible to be true?

MAIMONIDES: The Bible can not be taken literally; it is only parables. God is beyond the material and His omniscience can not be interpreted by humans. That would be idolatry.⁶⁴

COURT ADVOCATE: Let the record show the witness has made contradictory statements.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Baruch Spinoza…Spinoza, don’t you agree with Maimonides?

SPINOZA: I agree with Descartes that there are different kinds of infinity. The one existing substance is God.⁶⁵ I agree with Georg Hegel that there is no distinction between God and the physical universe. The totality is infinite or God must be infinite or He would be limited by something about the universe that is infinite.

RUSSELL: In my “The First Cause Argument,” I am not a Christian because “If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just be the world as God.” God is not omnipotent because He can not create Himself, even Thomas Aquinas did not believe in mathematical, physical or absolute infinity.

COURT ADVOCATE: Cross. Do you not understand that a pre-existent infinite God is not an effect. In His infinity, He is perfectly complete and neither should or could be added to or subtracted from, as you noted in your famous example of an infinite set.

COURT ADVOCATE: I know. The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. The mouth of the wise use knowledge correctly but the mouth of fools pours out foolishness.⁶⁶

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I would like to thank the court’s advocate for impeaching Augustine for his hypocrisy.

COURT ADVOCATE: William Shakespeare wrote “The will is infinite and the execution confined. The desire is boundless and the act is a slave to limit.”⁶⁸ The appellate advocate’s own witness, Kant, was known to conclude that that our minds have holes and it is impossible to know anything about the ultimate nature of things or answer philosophical questions about the existence of God and the meaning of life. The edge of a near infinite circle would incorrectly appear parallel with a straight line to a finite observer.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: The appellate advocate stipulates that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.⁶⁹ I call an actual man of science, Roger Penrose…Mr. Penrose can humans really know things?

COURT ADVOCATE: For the record, this is not a new subject. Job wrote God does great things and unsearchable marvelous things without number to set on high the lowly and exalt to safety those that mourn.⁷¹ Solomon wrote God has set the world in man’s heart so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end.⁷² Paul said O the depth of the riches both of wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements, and He is past finding out!⁷³

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call David Hilbert to clarify…Mr. Hilbert, doesn’t your Infinite Hotel indicate the possibility of infinite self-creating universes or multi-universes?

HILBERT: I envisioned a hotel where an infinite number of guests could check-in and that could be applied to the universe and infinite universes out of which this universe could have arisen. Heinrich Heine thought that an infinite recurrence relies on the eternity of time rather than the infinity of space.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: We call Friedrich Nietzsche…Mr. Nietzsche, are there possible multi-universes?

NIETZSCHE: If time is infinite but concrete bodies are finite, the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence.⁷⁴ Epicurus believed there was no obstacle to the infinite number of worlds.⁷⁵

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Your honor, I now call David Hume…Mr. Hume, what could be the realities of many universes?

HUME: There would be a host of gods with varying degrees of competence creating universes of differing quality.⁷⁶

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Thomas Paine…Mr. Paine, what are the ramifications of many universes?

PAINE: Obviously, there must be life elsewhere and therefore, the crucifixion of Christ did not occur or at least could not have had its claimed effects. Even Augustine said the Earth must be unique or the crucifixion would have occurred on other worlds as well. We may add it would not have occurred on still other worlds.

COURT ADVOCATE: Cross. Mr. Paine, I would like for you to testify to what the ethics of your belief of infinity is, since there are infinite numbers and by extension an eternal equation or justice system.

PAINE: God would not be in control of an infinite universe. We could do what we want as Fyodor Dostoevsky suggested in his writings and others assert that “we are the law.”⁷⁷

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: For the record the Christian Dostoevsky was a degenerate gambler.

COURT ADVOCATE: For the record Augustine knew that Christ’s incarnation includes His death once for sinners and could not have occurred elsewhere. There could be no good or evil in an infinite universe or uncountable infinite universes. In the Cantor sense, no one could add to it or subtract from it. Genesis makes no mention of God creating other worlds after creating the Earth etc. in seven days and then resting.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: We call James Clerk Maxwell…Mr. Maxwell, you did a famous thought-experiment about a chamber with a trap door where a demon could manipulate the passing of molecules.

COURT ADVOCATE: Cross. It in fact did not disprove thermodynamics, did it, Mr. Maxwell?

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Maxwell is a known Christian and provably created this dybbuk⁷⁸ hoax on purpose. I would like to call Moliére regarding hypocrisy…Moliére, did you write about the wickedness of hypocrisy?

MOLIERE: Yes. Especially in “The Hypochondriac,” “Tartuffe, or, The Imposter” and “Don Juan,” or “The Stone Guest,” I address common hypocrisy.⁷⁹

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Alexei Pyeshkov…Alexei, did you write about the hypocrisy of the religious?

ALEXEI: Yes. In my play The Lower Depths, I discuss the reality of society and what part the religious have to play. The religious character, Luka, of course is a hypocrite, who flees when things grow dark. The cry by me and the other “creatures that once were men” could be summed up as being to the spirit of humanity and not to any supernatural agency.

COURT ADVOCATE: For the record, Alexei’s pseudonym is Maxim Gorki, which means Maxim the Bitter, and he grew up as a starving homeless orphan.

ALEXEI: People need to know a desperate and beaten prostitute mothered me when I needed it most.⁸⁰

COURT ADVOCATE: I would add Francis Thompson, Christian writer of The Hound of Heaven, was also nursed by a destitute prostitute.⁸¹ In his Tortured for Christ, Reverend Richard Wurmbrand wrote of two daughters of a Christian martyr who prostituted themselves for a time to keep their younger brothers and sick mother from starving to death.⁸² Rahab was a Jericho prostitute that famously risk her life to help the Israeli spies and became part of Jesus’ lineage.⁸³ A woman who was a great sinner, perhaps a prostitute, wet Jesus’ feet with her tears and washed them with her hair. Jesus forgave her sins after seeing her love and faith.⁸⁴ Those examples of sexual moral failings reflect, among other things, the human recognition of the reality of transcendent mercy.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: When the court’s advocate stops the speech making, we request Giordano Bruno take the stand…Bruno, what did the church do to you?

BRUNO: I was a Dominican monk at Naples and began to teach God’s universe was infinite.⁸⁵ The Catholic hierarchy lured me to Venice under false pretenses and burned me alive at the stake. They also wanted to murder Galileo.⁸⁶

COURT ADVOCATE: So, they lied to you, Bruno, and stole your life by murdering you? Isn’t unrighteous lying, stealing, and murder wrong?

COURT ADVOCATE: Let the records show this lying, theft, and murder is often the natural course for people with extra-biblical views or else the Bible would suffice as their Divine guide. Conversely, the scriptures show king David righteously deceived his enemies,⁸⁷ took consecrated bread that was not his,⁸⁸ and sawed people in two.⁸⁹

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: We call Niccoló Machiavelli to testify...Machiavelli, did you write about the corruption of the clergy?

MACHIAVELLI: I wrote “The Mandragola” about that very subject. I expose the hypocrisy of clergy. This is not unique to church leaders but is common to all bureaucracies. Ludovico Arisosto also wrote of this corruption in “Lena.”⁹⁰

COURT ADVOCATE: Agreed. For the record, Solomon said a hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor; but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.⁹¹ He also said luxury is not seemly for a fool nor is their ruling over others.⁹² The lack of harmony and symmetry of a fool and grand surroundings is as obvious as a monkey in a tailored suit waddling around on the hand-carved marble floors of a mansion.

COURT ADVOCATE: Solomon also said the conclusion is for all to fear God and keep His commandments because He will bring every act to judgement, everything that is hidden, whether it is good or evil.⁹⁴

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: There is an agreed limit to arguments via negative. I call Antony Flew…Mr. Flew, is there a problem with negative arguments or what something is not as opposed to saying what something is?

FLEW: Yes. Kant noticed this⁹⁵ and Kurt Gödel fell into the trap with his ontological “Proof’ of God’s existence.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Gregory of Nyssa…Gregory, is it possible to know God’s divine nature with negative theology?

GREGORY: The Russian Orthodox theological system is known as the apophatic way derived from the Greek word apophatikos meaning negative. John said no one has seen God at any time,⁹⁶ which means that negates the knowledge of God’s nature.⁹⁷

COURT ADVOCATE: Cross. Doesn’t John go on to say “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him?”

GREGORY: Yes. However, John Eriugena argued a negative argument may be as effective as an affirmative path. Solomon said “it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out the matter.”⁹⁸

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I call Nicodemus…Nicodemus, tell us about your dialogue with Jesus.

NICODEMUS: I said to Jesus, You do signs because God is with you. He said, unless you are born again you can not see the kingdom of God. I asked how can I be born a second time. Jesus continued, unless you are born of water and the Spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. How can these things be, I asked. He asked me if I was a teacher and did not understand these things. He continued, if you do not believe earthly things how can you believe heavenly things and concluded, for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son and whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.⁹⁹

COURT ADVOCATE: To clarify for the court, God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, the infinite cause, and whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life, the infinite effect. This is a gift of God, the eternal cause, and not of works lest any man can boast, an incongruitous finite self-effect of idolatrous pride.¹⁰⁰ Additionally, salvation, an eternal cause, has assurance, an eternal effect,¹⁰¹ and human works, a finite cause, can have no assurance, a congruous finite effect. “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!”¹⁰²

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Did not Jesus say to prayerfully ask the Father anything in His name, He will answer it?¹⁰³ If this is so why don’t prayers produce different outcomes than we know they do?

COURT ADVOCATE: You are confusing cause, ask the Father, and effect, answered, as if the infinite God would behave like a fictional Moslem magic jinni.¹⁰⁴ There is a mutual relationship between the variables of asking the Father and an answer or correlation. For example, if a fool is answered, variable 1, the fool increases in his conceit, variable 2—positive correlation,¹⁰⁵ and if a fool is answered, variable 1, the questioner decreases in wisdom, variable 2—negative correlation.¹⁰⁶ That is not to say some correlations are causal. It is reasonable for two believers in Christ to justly pray for different outcomes for the same situation, such as to each get the same job each has applied for. Understanding God is infinite means He has a plan for everyone but some intentionally and unintentionally choose to reject it causing things like disease. This is the root of pain and suffering for this fallen world in the entropy of sin. Prayers different from His will would cause bad effects if answered as requested. He still works all things together for good to those who love Him, to those who are called according to His purpose.¹⁰⁷ For those He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. Those whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.¹⁰⁸ We are to remember He is love and to be content in all situations.¹⁰⁹

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Why does He not simply do signs and wonders to prove His deity?

COURT ADVOCATE: There are naturalists, to the exclusion of most everything else, that seek no sign, such as those that reject the reality of our universe separate from infinity and want to make their own Babel¹¹⁰ infinity. There are also supernaturalists, to the exclusion of most everything else, that want signs and wonders in order to cause infinity to dance¹¹¹ for them as the appellate advocate just demonstrated.¹¹² Jesus famously healed a blind man but the religious leaders of the day refused to accept it.¹¹³ There is no wisdom of men that has the power to save mankind. The wisdom of God through Christ Jesus has the proven power by His blood to save mankind naturally and supernaturally. This is not complicated but is accomplished by denying one’s self and accepting the truth of Christ as a child. Where is the eternal power of the philosophers, the writers, and the debaters of this age?¹¹⁴ Cantor said, “Christian philosophy offered for the first time the true theory of the infinite.”¹¹⁵

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: Paul said Jesus is the righteous Judge,¹¹⁶ John said Jesus did not come into the world to judge the world but to save it,¹¹⁷ and Peter said Jesus was appointed by the Father to judge the quick and the dead.¹¹⁸ Which is it?

COURT ADVOCATE: You have confused His redemptive mission on earth with His Second Coming, when He will come to judge the earth as the rightful King.¹¹⁹

ACT III
(The jury makes its decision to either accept the court’s position or reject it.)

FOR JUDGE: Pit peek, it is now time for all onlooking jurors to make an individual decision, keep tip.

COURT ADVOCATE: Your Holiness, thank You for the wisdom of Your stare decisis¹²⁰ and for extending Your mercy to a watchman like me by allowing me to represent my grievous vision in Your court.

COURT REPORTER FOR SELF: Idem. I do not know man’s heart as God does and so I confess to reacting to my perception of man’s behavior.¹²¹

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: I am going to howl my disagreement¹²² with Your structural proceedings in the streets. I could have called Albert Einstein to discuss the curvature of space and dark matter or inflationary universe theory etc.,¹²³ and brought to the attention of this court its own advocate’s and reporter’s less than stellar past.¹²⁴

FOR JUDGE: Now bard, the Judge is not the author of confusion and disorder but of peace,¹²⁵ so rules and proceedings are necessary, largely to govern contentious unrighteous behavior.¹²⁶ Have you not also heard “there is none that does good, no not one?”¹²⁷ However, it has been noted “Liberty is the souls right to breath, and when it cannot breathe laws are girded too tight,¹²⁸ drab won.

FOR JUDGE: Flow big, HIC SVNT DRACONES.¹²⁹ The list of your possible evidence is endless¹³⁰ for this idempotent operation.¹³¹ Everything you have said was an unsatiated closing argument¹³² going to and fro in the earth,¹³³ gib wolf.

APPELLATE ADVOCATE: You are the One that gave me, the I am, standing in this court.¹³⁴

FOR JUDGE: Part war, you think there is none beside you. In eternal reality, you lacked locus standi, raw trap.

69 The often quoted line to Horatio was by Hamlet in Shakespeare’s Hamlet (Act 1, Scene 5, 187-188), Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 1992, p. 67. The evolving of group philosophy from new knowledge (for the mathematics see Bayes’ theorem) can be seen by the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) 1971 meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, where a resolution to work for legislation to legalize abortion in the U.S. was passed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled abortion legal with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The SBC reaffirmed their position and approval of the Roe decision in 1974 and 1976. However, in 1977, the SBC restated their position to disapprove of the Roe decision to legalize the murder babies. See the records at https://www.SBC.net

An individual example of adjusting philosophy to new knowledge is W. A. Criswell, a former pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, and president of the SBC 1968-1970, who said a child was only an individual after it was born and so he supported the Roe decision. Criswell eventually reversed his support for the murder of babies. See Randall Balmer’s 2006 book Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical’s Lament. Balmer, a biblical heretic, is professor of religion at Dartmouth College.

Finite observation(s) of adjusting to increases of new knowledge, especially with scientific advancements which must be made from discoveries of pre-existent reality, often intentional and/or unintentionally incorrectly fosters the illusion of the nature of truth as evolving in the present and therefore being relative (delusions from God, I Kings 22:19-23; Isaiah 66:4; II Thess. 2:9-12). Actually, the recognition of the reality of finite understanding evolving to greater understanding is proof of the wholeness of the infinite complete immutable nature of truth and the Being that, by necessity, must possess it—omniscient first Causer of all effects. Failure to recognize the illusion of truth relativity leads to epistemological and subsequent individual and group structural and behavioral violations of eternal immutable moral standards and enforcement (see endnote 126 on systematic political science).

77 See Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment etc. Zack Smith, legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, observed the chalk phrase on the sidewalk “we are the law” written by Yale Law School students in response to the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft to overturn the Roe v. Wade legalization of child murder (18 May, 2022, [from Smith’s original 10 May, 2022, article] “Law Students are not OK: The Legal Profession’s Leftward Lean,” The Washington Times). Everyone doing what is right in their own eyes is not new (Judges 21:25) and is abhorred by God (Deut. 12:8).

97 Gregory of Nyssa, Opera Omnia, Migne ed., Paris, 1863, p. 376, and A. Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, Routledge, London, 1999. See the absolution entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia at https://www.newadvent.org to see the rational for finite Catholic priests and finite priests of other religious denominations to proclaim they have the infinite ability to forgive sins and to infinitely personally absorb them. The Council of Trent declared “But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead. He breathed upon His disciples saying, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism” (Sess. XIV, i). The biblical passages of John 20:19-23 and Matthew 16:19 etc. must be understood in the context of Matthew 18:15-18, which indicates church leaders are to declare judgement for sin not absolve sin. To absolve sin is to absorb sin. If anyone declares they have the Divine power of the Apostles (II Cor. 12:12) then they should be able to raise the dead as did the Apostles (Peter, Acts 9:36-42, and Paul, Acts 20:9-10).

123 Genesis 2:17. The writings of the Hebrew evolutionist and therefore atheist Ethan Siegel, a former astrophysics professor at Lewis and Clark College, indicate that, today, the universe appears flat when it is measured as the sides of a triangle where the interior angles equal 180 degrees and not more (as with the positive curve of a sphere) or less (as with the negative curve in a saddle). This 1-part-in-400 measurement needs to be more than 1-part-in-10,000 to confirm an actual shape from the perceived effect of cosmic inflation. The perfect balance between the universe’s expansion rate and total density could not have differed in either direction by 0.00000000001% or it would have been inhospitable at all times to any life, stars, or potential molecules.

126 Prideful contention (Proverbs 13:10); unrighteous necessity (Mark 2:27; I Timothy 1:9) and righteous necessity (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:24-25). Comparative law studies nation-state’s basic systems and combinations of civil law, common law, statutory law, and religious law. For a comparative analysis of the Chinese and American philosophies of courts and law structures see Huai Ming Wang’s 1956 “Chinese and American Criminal Law: Some Comparisons” in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Vol. 46, Issue 6, Article 6). Wang was a former Justice of the Appellate Court of Shansi Province and former Judge in its Criminal Court. He was also professor of law and President in National University. The American judicial system is based on the Christian religion founded by the Bible, with common law codified in Blackstone’s Commentaries (pp. 815-816), and the Chinese system (p. 799) is based on relativist Confucianism and Taoism hearsay (pp. 801-808, 812). This means there is a difference in basic legal terms (p. 797) and concepts (pp. 816-831). Chinese courts do not use jurors because they are perceived as too unskilled and unlearned to be given any legal authority (pp. 797-798). Chinese witnesses do not take oaths as in American courts but they make a binding statement (p. 799). Chinese courts do not often refer to settled law as is common in American courts (p. 800). Chinese leaders often impose their own virtue and morality on the legal system, e.g. criminal punishment etc. (p. 803), as self-appointed gods. Hindu courts are based on their relativist religious texts of thousands of conflicting deities and so largely do not use case law or common law (see Donald Davis’ 2010 The Spirit of Hindu Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-16, 166-179 etc.). (See endnote 69 on the destructive illusion of relative truth.) For an analysis of the Islamic philosophy of legal systems see Asasriwarnia and M. Jandra’s 2018 “Comparison of Legal System: Islamic Law System, Civil Law, and Common Law” in the International Journal of Islamic and Civilization Studies (5, 2-1). Atheists create socialist/communist legal systems based on Marxist-Leninist ideologies. Generally, a few elites control all law and its enforcement systems making all oppositional beliefs and behavior criminal (see J. Quigley’s 1989 “Socialist Law and the Civil Law Tradition” in The American Journal of Comparative Law (37, 4), pp. 781-808 etc.). This is but another example of how theological choice produces epistemological rationality which dictates individual behavior which dictates the collective behavior of the four societal institutions (family, church, business, and government, of which the court system is obviously part of the government), which is bounded by eschatological beliefs. They compose pure and applied systematic political science.

127 Romans 3:12. If you have told a lie, you are a liar. If you have taken something that did not belong to you, you are a thief. If you have lusted, you are an adulterer. After death on judgement day, you are only worthy of eternity separate from infinite holy God in hell unless you have accepted His redemptive plan of grace and live with Him in eternal heaven (John 3:16). Before death the world admits, “false in one, false in all” (biblically based on Deut. 19:22), “there is no honor among thieves” (biblically based on Proverbs 1:11-16), and an adulterous person destroys themselves (biblically based on Proverbs 6:32).

131 Idempotent was used by Benjamin Peirce. It refers to an operation that produces the same results if done once or a thousand times, e.g. an elevator button moves the elevator to the selected floor over and over again without change. Professor of mathematics at Harvard University, Peirce said God shapes nature, and mathematics is the study of God’s work by God’s creatures. See the entry for him at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Peirce, “Address of Professor Benjamin Peirce, President of the American Association for the Year 1853,” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Eighth Meeting (Volume 8), held at Washington D.C., May of 1854, published in 1855, pp. 1-17.

The Trial of Infinity: Argumentum ab Auctoritate Versus Argumentum ad Auctoritatem

by Dallas F. Bell, Jr.

The Trial of Infinity:
Argumentum ab Auctoritate
Versus
Argumentum ad Auctoritatem

by
Dallas F. Bell, Jr.