We hear theists make this claim all of the time, but most of the time, at least to me, it seems that the theist is simply trying to invoke feelings of mystery with it. While infinity may seem like some vast, mysterious and grand concept, it really isn't. It means something very specific. So, theists, I ask:

What does 'God is infinite' mean?

It means He takes up the entire hotel and the clerk can't come up with a room for the next customer.

I think it's meaningless. Having said that, pretty much nobody uses infinite or infinity correctly anyhow in everyday conversation so I don't think it's a great drama. If I were to try and impute meaning, I suppose it's intended to mean he is unbounded - as in his power/knowledge/love/wisdom/whatever is greater than anything which can possibly be conceived.

I'm only vaguely familiar with the analogy, but from my very limitend knowledge of it this example seems more like someone who doesn't understand what infinite means rather than an adequate explanation.

Well, I mentioned this in the "atoms" thread, but Spinoza has a workable concept as to what God being infinite would mean.

Again, theists hate Spinoza, but the guy actually did the spadework to come up with a reasonable idea of God.

It was a joke....A reference to Hilberts Hotel. If anyone wants to understand infinity a little better there are some good YouTube videos on Hilberts Hotel and Georg Cantor. I'll give you a more serious answer after I have thought about it some.

In the same way that atheists hate God?

St. Thomas Aquinas goes through God's existence, simplicity, goodness, perfection, infinity, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

That said, 'God is infinite' means precisely that he is immutable, eternal, not made of matter, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.

An infinite being cannot change

An infinite being cannot be made of matter - since matter is made finite by form and infinite matter would be formless and thus not perfect (as matter by nature is perfected by its form).

An infinite being cannot have potentiality and thus must be pure act, another reason why He cannot be made of matter.

An infinite being must be immutable (supremely) and as such supremely eternal (He is His own eternity).

Etc

Infinity doesn't mean any of that. In fact, this is exactly what I am talking about. None of this means anything, it's just supposed to sound mysterious. It's what's called 'woo woo.'

In fairness, Aquinas made these comments before mathematicians used the word for their concept. I agree with you that it doesn't mean that now but the fact that a perfect number (for example) is mathematically defined doesn't imply that nobody else can use the word perfect to mean something else.

If Aquinas defined infinite as "...immutable, eternal, not made of matter, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. " then it's true that "God is infinite" meant he's not made of matter, doesn't change, exists outside of time and "etc."

What do you mean, "none of this means anything?" This is basically the Catholic understanding of God, taken from thousands of years of religion and philosophy, and you say none of it means anything? It seems you have some explaining to do.

You claim that it evokes a mysterious, grand concept as if it is a bad thing, something invented by man. But infinity tends to do that. Try to comprehend the cosmos, which may not even be infinite, and it evokes a sense of wonder.

On that note, to be truly infinite by essence belongs only to God, but there are other forms of infinity that Aquinas calls relatively infinite. I think a series of infinite numbers would fall into this.

Without beginning or end. And I have never seen a theologian use the term infinite to invoke feelings of "mystery"

I am not sure what you mean by this.

Spinoza gets you to the infinite God, solves the substance problem, solves the problem of evil, and solves the "unmoved mover" issue. Theists don't like Spinoza because many of them want a personal presence who thinks they are special and will give them an afterlife.

But if what you want is a philosophically coherent God, Spinoza's work is invaluable.

I have seen it used in a multitude of ways on this forum...usually just for cheap rhetorics which I won't bother with.

The pièce de résistance so to speak are these three...often used by the same persons in the same argumentative chains:
a. "without need of a cause"
b. "a cause, because everything needs a cause"
c. "everything"

To which the commentary can only be:

(followed by the thud your head makes as it impacts with a nearby wall)

I can see how C could be "understood" as infinite, but how do they even pass off a and b?

I exaggarate a little for comedic effect, but it is fairly close to the truth...these "infinite" arguments are very often sloppy excuses not to dvelve into very tricky matters regarding stated conditions that supposedly prove God.

"The universe must come from somewhere, so God exists".
"Where does God come from?"
"He is infinite"

etc.

infinity = god

That's fine, we can use the term 'infinite' in that sense if we are discussing the writings of Aquinas. Outside of that, though, to use the term in that context is, from what I can tell, misleading for the sake of sounding awesome and mysterious, and most of the time the speaker or writer is being intentionally unclear.

What I mean is that statements like this:

are nonsensical. It's what is called 'woo woo.'

Yes, an intentionally unclear statement is a bad thing when you are trying to describe something.

No it doesn't, and that's the problem. You are turning something with a very specific definition into something without a clear definition to avoid describing something else.

Sure, but that's because of all we know and all we know we don't know about them, not because we use mysterious language to describe them.

This is more woo woo.

In what sense? Time? Then you mean he has existed for an infinite amount of time. Or do you mean he is infinitely large (physically)? Just saying, 'god is infinite' doesn't actually mean any of these things, but rather is often used to avoid making a specific claim.

It happens all the time. See Jerok's explanation above for an example. Apologists like Ray Comfort, Norman Geisler, and William Lane Craig use it a lot.

How amazing it is that what you complained about in the OP happened exactly the same way throughout the thread.

Yeah, I agree that's often how it is. Adopting mystic sounding language to avoid precise definition - then proceeding to use those terms within a deductive argument. I don't mind mysticism, but it isn't going to help much in a rational argument. If people wish to demonstrate something, I think precision of language is important and 'infinite' should be taken to mean what it usually means.

However if someone is speaking within catholic theology (or some other well defined 'school') the way Jerok tends to, then I think it's reasonable to grant them a little more slack.

In many senses. Depends on what context. And I have seen Craig use the term infinite many times and not once was it used to instill some sort of mystery. I don't have any idea what you are talking about.

I've begun to understand - you think all philosophy is woo woo.

Deorum thinks Jerok's explanation is unsatisfactory.

Therefore Deorum rejects the entire discipline of philosophy.