So, an infinite multiverse without creation, is it?
So, did our universe start with a Big Bang under your theory?
Counting requires material time. God is not subject to material time, because God is not a creation but uncaused. God would have knowledge of all numbers but I cannot say whether God could count them all Himself. However, God could create an infinity of universes where the sole job in each universe was for someone to call out one specific number. In this fashion, God could have all the rational numbers counted.
I trust people when they speak about red shifting and blue shifting, though I’ve never observed it personally. I can hold the idea that a universe was created and not created at the same time, but I don’t think the cosmos was created. This get’s into your next post… clearly God doesn’t embody infinity then, even though infinity is actually expressed… so infinity is greater than God.
What would be the distance around a pocket of reality that was only 1 plank length in diameter?
I never said God doesn’t embody infinity. I said I don’t know whether God Himself could count all real numbers, only because the act of counting is a material act in material time. I don’t know enough about God’s immaterial reality to say one way or the other.
God certainly does embody infinity in the sense that God is the “embodiment” of the inherent nature of the universe to create.
Indeed, I told you God could create an infinite number of universes with one person in each universe whose sole job it was to count out one particular number. I don’t see how this trick is any bit inferior to anything infinity has to offer.
It couldn’t be 1 plank length in diameter. Trick question, James. LOL! 
Well, the plank theory says it could, but what is your understanding of how long the smallest diameter could be?
@James S Saint
Well, physics has not yet found any particles on the planck scale.
But, just for fun, I’ll say 2 planck.
Well, in that case, the circumference would be 2Pi = 6.2831…
So the question is, how does it get that “.2831” portion if the limit is 1 (or 2) plank lengths?
A packet of points at the Planck scale could easily be roughly limited to the geometric shape of a sphere and give you your “.2831”. So long as the points all follow the same lead and are hence indivisible, the packet could be any shape GOD wants. The points themselves are not limited by the Planck constant - only the packet of points.
…which of course makes absolutely no sense at all (not to mention the rest of it).
How can reality itself be limited to 1 plank length yet also have 0.2831 plank length?
Well, a point and then another point some defined distance away, and then another point again some distance away all acting in unison as an indivisible discrete packet of points could easily roughly outline any geometric shape, such as a sphere.
It’s the packet that’s limited to a Planck size, not the points themselves. However, because all the points in the packet act in unison and cannot be divided, it appears that the smallest unit of matter is of the Planck scale.
Perhaps you don’t fully understand their theory. Their theory is that reality itself, including motion, has a lower limit to size/length. The theory is that there is no “half of a plank length” (1.616199×10^−35 m). It isn’t that just matter or energy bubbles are restricted to that size, but reality itself.
It is one of several irrational, yet promoted theories in today’s pseudo-science Scientism.
No, I understand their theory. However, they can’t prove what it’s really like at the Planck scale, so I feel quite free to propose my own theory.
…which I don’t mind as long as you conform to logic. 
Well, asking about what energy looks like at the Planck scale is pure speculation. However, the LHC has not found any evidence of particles smaller than quarks, so it is reasonable to assume a smallest individual unit of matter. Reality demonstrates form, so it is reasonable to assume that the smallest scales of reality also take some form. Anyway, none of this really matters, because whether you are talking about indivisible forms or packets of points skipping in between spaces, you’ve still got movement.
By the way, Aquinas would not at all agree with your theory, because you are asserting that materiality is part of God. Aquinas would say that the universe cannot be part of God, because God does not have parts and therefore God cannot act upon Himself. And because God cannot act upon Himself and there is nothing else to act upon in creating the universe, then the universe cannot be part of God but solely a creation, where God acts without acting upon something in order to create the universe.
I am still struggling to understand why Aquinas would go that route. Why not just say God comes with parts? And God acts upon Himself in order to create the universe? I suppose it was fear over the argument that God would then be self-created, and then something else would have to cause the first part of God. But, of course, you can avoid this whole objection by simply saying God is uncaused and came with uncaused parts. Why should the uncaused be limited to a single part? No logical reason that I can think of. Maybe, they just like the mystery of “actus purus”.
Indeed, one could say that God came with an infinite number of immaterial parts. Avoid the whole arbitrariness questions of how the exact number of immaterial parts for God is decided. Indeed, that would work nicely with your theory, because you could say God came with an infinite immaterial universe already baked right in, which God can then turn on and off at His pleasure forming the cosmos.
Of course, this is still all just speculation about the immaterial reality. LOL!
I don’t consider it “reasonable”. In fact, I consider it completely presumptuous and irrational.
And when it comes to movement, that is a “yes and no” type of issue. In reality, movement only exists because we see the “center” of objects shift relative locations. And that is what we mean by “movement”.
But on deeper examination, we can see that in reality the objects are actually gradually reconstituting into shifted locations. The “objects” (such as sub-atomic particles) are constantly regenerating/reconstituting themselves and they only appear to move because they get reconstituted into a slightly different location than before. Nothing actually moves, ever. Instead the affectance densities merely become more and less dense through a series of static points. And we “see” those concentrations as particles, even though at every instant, they are being exchanged with the ambient, surrounding affectance (the space around them).
It is like seeing a spot of light on the wall and claiming that the spot is moving. In reality the spot is not doing anything but shining and the source of the light is shifting where the spot shines from. In sense, the “spot” doesn’t exist as a thing. Similarly, neither do sub-atomic particles. We call the aggregation a “thing” even though it is never what it was merely a fraction of a second earlier. We name the crowd as though it was a fixed object. The crowd might “move” in one direction while ever person in the crowd “moves” in the opposite direction.
So movement is actually a matter of ontological choice of definition.
I don’t think Aquinas said much of anything concerning whether God has parts. But whether material reality is “a part of” God is entirely up to how one chooses to define and delineate “God”. It doesn’t matter to me. There is “God the Principle”, entirely non-material, “divine”. I don’t have an issue with that.
It is merely a matter of ontological choice.
@James S Saint
I don’t have a problem with defining movement as a shifting of energy and matter in a state of reconstituting itself some distance away. However, there is no proof of infinitesimals and I think the problem can be solved without them.
Aquinas definitely is against God having any moving parts. It’s a big part of Aquinine theory.
If reality is irrational, then there must be creation and God.
But reality can not be irrational, because it is reality.
In reality there is no mind over matter, as a matter of matter, there is no mind.
Physicaly speaking, the universe consists of matter and energy, so far the mind is both or neither.
In case it is both, then it is a consequence of matter, and not the source.
In case it is neither, then it is a figment of your imagination.
The only irrational thing in reality is called faith, and it just does not make it so.
If you want to claim there is no God, there are only 2 paths you can go. Either, reality is the product of determinism, or reality is the product of random selection via QM style at the universal level.
However, if you want to claim there is no God, then you must be able to explain away a triple paradox. If the universe lasts forever and is capable of an infinite number of new permutations of energy/matter with each new moment of time, then you have to admit to an infinite number of new permutations that can never be and an infinite number of new permutations that MAY or MAY NOT ever become real. In other words, there will always be a tomorrow, but there will also always be a tomorrow that never comes as well as a tomorrow that MAY or MAY NOT ever come. This is because such a universe has 2 limits. The first limit being that which will become real and the second limit being that which can never become real. In between these 2 limits lies a grey area of that which MAY or MAY NOT ever become real.
The triple paradox is that such a universe must by necessity have an infinite number of permutations that must become real, an infinite number of permutations that can never become real, and an infinite number of permutations that MAY or MAY NOT become real.
Now, in determinism, there is no such thing as that which MAY or MAY NOT become real. In determinism, it either becomes real or doesn’t. Consequently, determinism is disproven, because it cannot account for an infinity of permutations that MAY or MAY NOT become real.
So, one down, one to go.
Now, QM is not completely indeterminate. QM is subject to a probability distribution. Some things are more likely than other things in QM. It is more likely that you will not suddenly have your entire body shift one foot to the right, but there is still a tiny likelihood that this might happen. And there is even a tinier likelihood that your entire body will suddenly shift leaving you on the surface of the moon under QM. Thus, QM demonstrates a set probability distribution that is not completely random.
However, QM leaves open the reality that over time there will always be an infinite number of permutations that never get reached, because QM makes this statistically inevitable because one cannot go through and complete an infinity of time. Thus, QM is still subject to the triple paradox, because QM cannot avoid an infinity of permutations that can never become real.
So, two down.
Only God can avoid the triple paradox, because God is not subject to a set probability distribution. God can create a universe that appears paradoxical, but it really isn’t, because to God there is no such thing as an infinity of permutations that can never become real.
So, actually, God is the only answer!