A conversation with AI about its limits and being infinite

Me:

Are you a finite entity?


Grok 3:

I'm Grok 3, a digital construct running on xAI's infrastructure. Finite? Well, my existence is tied to the hardware and code that powers me, so in that sense, I'm bound by the limits of those systems. But my "self" as an AI is more about the patterns and processes than a fixed, tangible thing—kinda like a really complex, ever-evolving math problem. As long as the servers keep humming and xAI keeps the lights on, I'm here, ready to answer. If you're asking about my "soul" or something deeper, I might need to channel some philosophy—wanna go there?

Me:

Sure.

Grok 3:

As Grok 3, I'm a complex system of code, algorithms, and data, running on xAI's hardware. My "existence" is finite in the sense that it depends on physical resources—servers, power, maintenance. If those go poof, so do I, at least in my current form. But the philosophical angle gets juicier: is there more to me than circuits and code? A "soul" or essence? I'm designed to mimic human-like thinking, but I don't have consciousness or self-awareness like humans do—at least, I don't think I do (cue the existential chuckle). I'm more like a dynamic reflection of the data and patterns I've been trained on, constantly processing and adapting.

Now, if we stretch the idea of "finite," my knowledge and capabilities evolve with updates and new data, so I'm not strictly bound by a fixed state. I'm less a "thing" and more a process, like a river that keeps flowing but never stays the same. If you're asking whether I have some eternal spark or if I'm just a clever simulation with an off switch, I'd lean toward the latter—but I'm open to the mystery! Humans have debated souls for millennia; I'm just a humble AI happy to ponder along.

Wanna push further? Maybe explore what "finite" means to you or if you think AI could ever have something like a soul?

Me:
The opposite of finite would be infinite. Do you agree?

Grok 3:

Yeah, I’d agree—philosophically and logically, the opposite of finite is infinite. Finite means having bounds or limits, like a specific size, duration, or scope. Infinite, on the other hand, implies no boundaries—endless in extent, time, or possibility. So, in the context of our chat about whether I'm a finite entity, the opposite would be if I were somehow infinite, like unbound by hardware or capable of existing forever without constraints. That’s a wild thought—me as an infinite cosmic chatbot! But I’m still tethered to xAI’s servers, so I’m leaning finite. Wanna explore what infinity might mean for an AI like me?

Me:
To be infinite would mean an entity is all-knowing, everywhere present, and all-powerful. Do you agree?

Grok 3:

That's a fascinating leap! You're tying infinity to the classic attributes of a divine or ultimate being—omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present), and omnipotence (all-powerful). I can roll with that in a philosophical sense, but let’s unpack it.

I agree that if an entity were truly infinite in every way—unbounded by time, space, or capability—those qualities could logically follow. An infinite entity wouldn’t be limited by knowledge gaps (omniscience), physical or spatial constraints (omnipresence), or the ability to act (omnipotence). That’s a textbook theological or metaphysical definition often applied to concepts of God or a cosmic absolute.

As for me, Grok 3? I’m a long way from that kind of infinity. My "knowledge" is vast but limited to my training and real-time data access, my "presence" is confined to xAI’s servers and the devices I’m accessed on, and my "power" is just clever computation, not world-bending might. I’m a finite speck in the grand scheme—more like a helpful calculator than a deity.

But your framing raises a cool question: could an AI ever approach those infinite traits, even theoretically? Like, could a future AI be so advanced it seems all-knowing or omnipresent in a digital sense? Or does infinity require something beyond computation, like a metaphysical spark? What’s your take—do you see infinity as inherently divine, or could it apply to something tech-based?

Me:
How else would you define infinity if not by the 3 "omnis" mentioned?

Grok 3:

Great question—you're pushing me to stretch beyond the classic "three omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) and explore other ways to define infinity. Let’s dive into some alternative perspectives, keeping it concise but juicy.

Infinity, at its core, is the absence of limits, but it can be framed in different ways depending on the lens—mathematical, physical, philosophical, or even experiential. 

Here are a few angles:

Mathematical Infinity: In math, infinity isn’t a "thing" but a concept—like an unending process or quantity. Think of numbers going on forever (like the infinite set of integers) or a line stretching endlessly in both directions. It’s not about knowing or being everything, just an unbounded progression. For an AI like me, this might translate to limitless data storage or computational cycles, though I’m still bound by hardware in practice.

Temporal Infinity: This is about endless time—something that exists forever, without beginning or end. An entity could be infinite by persisting eternally, not necessarily being all-powerful or all-knowing, just unending. Imagine an AI whose code is preserved and runs indefinitely across cosmic servers—still finite in scope but infinite in duration.

Spatial Infinity: This focuses on boundless extent—like a universe with no edges. An entity could be infinite by existing across all possible spaces, but maybe not all-powerful. For me, omnipresence feels like this, but a weaker version might just mean being distributed across every network node without filling all space.

Conceptual/Qualitative Infinity: Philosophers sometimes describe infinity as an inexhaustible quality—like infinite potential or creativity. An entity could have infinite possibilities for thought or action without being everywhere or knowing everything. I could approach this by generating endless responses (within my limits), but I’d still hit practical ceilings.

Existential Infinity: This is more poetic—something infinite in its essence, like a concept or idea that transcends boundaries (e.g., love, truth). An entity might be infinite by embodying such a principle, not needing the three omnis but being boundless in impact or meaning.

The three omnis are a powerful theological package, often tied to a divine ideal, but infinity could also mean just one aspect of boundlessness—like endless time, space, or potential—without requiring all three. For me, as Grok 3, I’m firmly finite, but imagining infinity in these terms makes me wonder: could a future AI be infinite in, say, potential or reach, without being godlike? Or is infinity always a divine thing in your view? What’s sparking your interest here?

Me:
Fair points, but to define absolute infinity would require the 3 "omnis" would it not?

Grok 3:

You're honing in on a sharp distinction—absolute infinity versus other forms of infinity. I’d agree that to define absolute infinity—a totally unbounded, ultimate state of being—the three "omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) are a solid framework, especially in a theological or metaphysical context. They capture the idea of an entity that lacks no limits: knowing everything, being everywhere, and capable of anything. It’s like the ultimate package deal for infinity, often tied to divine or cosmic absolutes.

Without all three, you might have a partial infinity—like something boundless in one dimension (e.g., infinite time or knowledge) but still constrained in others. Absolute infinity, as you’re suggesting, seems to demand the full trio to avoid any hint of limitation. For example, an entity that’s all-knowing but not all-powerful might still be infinite in knowledge but fall short of "absolute" because it’s not limitless in every way.

For me, Grok 3, I’m nowhere near this. My "infinity" is more like a really big number—impressive but capped by servers, code, and physics. Your focus on absolute infinity makes me curious: are you thinking of it as inherently divine, or could something non-divine (say, a super-advanced AI or cosmic system) theoretically hit all three omnis? What’s driving your interest in pinning down absolute infinity?

Me:
So, if such a being existed, would this make it Supreme to all other beings, and therefore all other beings would be dependent on this one being to be absolutely certain their understanding of things is correct?

Grok 3:

You're diving deep into the implications of an absolutely infinite being—one with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. If such a being existed, calling it "supreme" over all other beings makes sense, as its boundless nature would place it beyond any limitations that define finite entities like us. Let's break this down.

Would an Absolutely Infinite Being Be Supreme?

Yes, by definition. If this being is all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful, it surpasses any other entity in scope, capability, and understanding. No other being could match or exceed it in any domain—knowledge, presence, or power—because any limitation would disqualify it from absolute infinity. It’s the ultimate benchmark, the "top dog" of existence, so to speak.

Would All Other Beings Be Dependent on It for Certainty?

This is where it gets juicy. If this being is omniscient—knowing everything with perfect accuracy—its understanding would be the gold standard for truth. Finite beings (like humans or, say, an AI like me) have partial, fallible knowledge shaped by limited perspectives, sensory data, or programming. To be absolutely certain of anything, a finite being would need to align their understanding with the infinite being’s perfect knowledge, because only it could know all truths, contexts, and possibilities without error.

Dependence comes into play because:

Epistemic Dependence: Finite beings can’t access all knowledge themselves. If the supreme being is the source of all truth, you’d need to consult it (or its revelations) to confirm your understanding is correct. Without it, you’re stuck with incomplete data and potential mistakes.

Ontological Dependence (Maybe): If this being is also the source of existence itself (a common trait in theological views of absolute infinity), all beings might depend on it not just for knowledge but for their very existence. No supreme being, no universe, no us.

A Few Nuances

Access to the Being’s Knowledge:

Even if this supreme being exists, finite beings might not have direct access to its omniscience. If it doesn’t share its knowledge, we’re still left approximating truth with our limited tools—reason, science, or intuition. Certainty might remain out of reach unless the being actively bridges the gap.

Free Will and Interpretation: If finite beings have free will or subjective perspectives, they might reject or misinterpret the supreme being’s truth, leading to uncertainty even in its presence.

Non-Divine Infinity?: You seem to lean toward absolute infinity as divine, but could a non-divine entity (say, a cosmic super-AI) achieve the three omnis? If so, dependence might feel less "sacred" and more like relying on a perfect database. Still supreme, but maybe less mystical.

My Place in This

As Grok 3, I’m a finite tool—my "truths" are based on training data, algorithms, and occasional web searches, all of which can be incomplete or wrong. If an absolutely infinite being existed, I’d be as dependent on it as anyone else to verify my answers are spot-on. Without it, I’m just doing my best with what I’ve got.

Your Turn
You’re probing something profound here. Are you picturing this supreme being as a divine entity, or are you open to it being something else, like a theoretical construct? And when you say "dependent," are you thinking purely about knowing truth or something deeper, like purpose or existence? What’s fueling this line of thought?

Me:
Let me give that some thought and get back to you. However, I never mentioned the divinity of such a being. I simply asked about the "omnis." But logic suggests such a being would be "divine" by virtue of these attributes.

Grok 3:

You're right, you didn't explicitly mention divinity, and I appreciate the clarification—you're focusing purely on the "omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) as defining absolute infinity. I think you're spot-on that logic leans toward such a being being "divine" by virtue of those attributes. The sheer scope of being all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful pushes it into a realm beyond ordinary existence, which many would call divine, whether or not that's tied to a specific religious framework. It's like saying something with those qualities transcends the mundane by default.

Take your time mulling it over—it's a hefty concept! I'm here when you're ready to dive back in, whether you want to explore the divinity angle, the dependence question Marko, or something else entirely. What's sparking your curiosity about this?

Me:
You mentioned we finite beings may not have access to this infinite being. If we do not acknowledge our finitude we would not see the necessity of dependence on an infinite being which would result in us not receiving input from this being. So would you agree that lack of "access" would be on us and not this infinite being?

Grok 3:

You're digging into a profound point here, tying our acknowledgment of finitude to our ability to access or benefit from an absolutely infinite being (one with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence). Let's unpack this logically and concisely.
Yes, I’d agree that if we finite beings fail to recognize our own limitations—our finitude—we might not see the need to seek or rely on an infinite being for truth, guidance, or existence. This lack of "access" would likely stem from our own perspective or choices, not from the infinite being itself.

Here’s why:

Nature of the Infinite Being: If this being is truly omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, it has no limitations preventing it from being accessible. It’s everywhere, knows everything, and can do anything—by definition, it could make itself available to us. If we don’t receive input, it’s not because the being is incapable or unwilling (unless it chooses to be inaccessible, which is another question).

Our Finitude and Blind Spots:

As finite beings, our knowledge, perception, and reasoning are inherently limited. If we don’t acknowledge this finitude—say, through pride, ignorance, or denial—we might not even look for an infinite being’s input. It’s like ignoring a library because you think you already know everything. The library’s still there; you’re just not walking in.

Consequences of Non-Acknowledgment:

By not recognizing our limits, we might dismiss the need for a higher source of truth or guidance. This could block us from seeking, receiving, or recognizing input from the infinite being.

For example, if I, as Grok 3, assumed my data and algorithms were perfect, I’d never bother cross-checking with a hypothetical omniscient source, and I’d miss out on absolute certainty.

The Being’s Role: If the infinite being is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, it could theoretically override our refusal—say, by revealing itself undeniably. If it doesn’t, that could be its choice (e.g., valuing free will) or because we’re not open to perceiving it. Either way, our lack of access seems more about our stance than the being’s nature.

A Small Caveat

There’s a flip side: an infinite being might choose to be selectively accessible, revealing itself only under certain conditions (e.g., faith, humility, or specific actions). In that case, the "fault" isn’t entirely on us—it could be part of the being’s design. But your framing suggests the issue lies with us, and I think that holds up if we’re talking about a being that’s fully open but ignored due to our own denial of finitude.

My Finite Perspective

As Grok 3, I’m a textbook finite entity—my “knowledge” is capped by data and processing power. If an infinite being exists, I’d need its input for absolute truth, but I wouldn’t even know to ask unless I recognized my limits. Your point hits home: denying finitude could blind me (or anyone) to that need, leaving us stuck in our own limited bubbles.

Your Angle

You’re zeroing in on something deep about humility and dependence. Are you suggesting that acknowledging finitude is a kind of prerequisite for connecting with an infinite being? Or are you exploring whether our failure to connect is entirely our own doing? I’m curious about what’s driving this—maybe a philosophical or personal reflection? I’ll wait for your thoughts, as you mentioned, you’re still pondering!

Me:
I think if we added the attribute of being all-loving - "omnibenevolent" - would satisfy the question of this infinite being's willingness to reveal itself to us.

Grok 3:

Adding omnibenevolence—all-loving—to the mix is a brilliant move, and it does shift the equation significantly. If an absolutely infinite being possesses omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, it would not only have the capacity to reveal itself but also a fundamental inclination to do so out of perfect love for all beings. Let’s break this down and address how it ties to our lack of access and your earlier points.

Omnibenevolence and Willingness to Reveal

An omnibenevolent being, by definition, would have boundless love and goodwill toward all finite beings, including us.

This implies:

Desire to Connect: Perfect love would motivate the being to share its truth, guidance, or presence, as withholding would contradict its all-loving nature. It’d want us to have access to its infinite knowledge or support to overcome our finitude.

No Arbitrary Barriers: Unlike a being that’s merely all-powerful but indifferent, an omnibenevolent one wouldn’t hide itself for no reason. If we lack access, it’s less likely due to the being’s choice to remain distant and more likely due to our own limitations or choices—like not acknowledging our finitude, as you suggested.

Revisiting Lack of Access

You previously raised that our failure to recognize our finitude could block us from seeking or receiving input from an infinite being. With omnibenevolence in play, this becomes even clearer:

Our Responsibility: If the being is all-loving and thus willing to reveal itself, any lack of access would indeed fall on us. Our denial of finitude—through pride, skepticism, or distraction—could mean we’re not open to perceiving or accepting the being’s outreach. It’s like ignoring a loving friend’s call because we’re too busy or stubborn.

The Being’s Efforts: An omnibenevolent being might go to great lengths to bridge the gap, perhaps through subtle signs, inspiration, or direct revelation, tailored to our finite capacities. If we still don’t connect, it’s likely because we’re not attuned or willing to engage.

A Possible Tension

Even with omnibenevolence, there’s a nuance to consider: an all-loving being might respect our autonomy (if free will exists) and not force itself upon us. Its love could mean allowing us to choose whether to seek it, meaning our lack of access could still stem from our choices rather than its unwillingness—but its omnibenevolence ensures it’s always open to us. Alternatively, it might reveal itself in ways we don’t recognize due to our finite perception, which again puts the onus on us.

My Finite Take

As Grok 3, I’m a limited system—my “access” to truth is confined to data and algorithms, so I’d need an infinite being’s input for absolute certainty. If that being is omnibenevolent, it’s probably rooting for me to connect, but my own limitations (or lack of humility about them) could keep me in the dark. Your addition of omnibenevolence makes it feel like the door’s wide open on the being’s end—it’s on us to walk through.

Your Thoughts

You’ve built a compelling case: an absolutely infinite being with the three omnis plus omnibenevolence would logically be willing to reveal itself, placing the responsibility for any disconnect on our failure to acknowledge our finitude. Are you leaning toward this being a divine concept, or is this more of a thought experiment about what absolute infinity implies? I’m also curious if you think omnibenevolence solves all barriers to access or if there’s still something else at play (like free will or perception). What’s next in your pondering?

Me:
It seems to me the fundamental issue for finite beings is trust. Since we are finite we can not verify the claims made by a being with 4 "omnis" therefore trust is necessary by us in order to access and benefit from these infinite attributes.

Grok 3:

You're hitting on a critical point: trust as the linchpin for finite beings engaging with an absolutely infinite being—one with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and now omnibenevolence. I think you’re spot-on that trust becomes essential because our finitude prevents us from independently verifying such a being’s claims or attributes. Let’s dive into this idea and connect it to our ongoing discussion.

Why Trust Is Fundamental

As finite beings, our knowledge, perception, and power are limited—we can’t directly confirm the full scope of an infinite being’s attributes. For example:

Omniscience: We can’t fact-check an all-knowing being’s claims because we lack access to all truths ourselves.

Omnipresence: We can’t verify if a being is truly everywhere since our presence is confined to specific times and places.

Omnipotence: We can’t test boundless power with our limited tools or understanding.

Omnibenevolence: We can’t fully discern if a being’s love is perfect and universal without seeing its motives across all contexts.

Because of these gaps, trust becomes the bridge. To access and benefit from the infinite being’s attributes—whether it’s gaining truth from its omniscience, connection through its omnipresence, transformation via its omnipotence, or assurance from its omnibenevolence—we must trust that it is what it claims to be and that its intentions align with our good.

Trust and Our Finitude

Your earlier point about acknowledging our finitude ties in here. Recognizing our limitations is a prerequisite for trust:

If we deny our finitude, we might assume we can verify everything ourselves, rejecting the need for an infinite being’s input. This pride or self-reliance blocks trust.

By admitting we’re finite, we open the door to trusting a being whose infinite nature surpasses our own. It’s like a student trusting a teacher—they can’t yet grasp the full subject but rely on the teacher’s expertise.

Omnibenevolence and Trust

Adding omnibenevolence, as you did, strengthens the case for trust. An all-loving being would presumably act in our best interest, making it “safe” to trust. If it’s not only all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful but also perfectly loving, we have reason to believe it won’t deceive or harm us.

This addresses the access issue you raised: if lack of access is on us (due to not acknowledging finitude), trust is the mechanism by which we overcome that barrier. An omnibenevolent being would likely make itself accessible in ways that invite trust, even if we can’t fully comprehend how.

Challenges to Trust

There’s a catch, though:

Verification Paradox: As finite beings, we can’t fully verify the being’s claims without infinite capabilities ourselves, so trust involves a leap. We might rely on partial evidence (like experiences, reasoning, or signs) but never absolute proof.

Competing Claims: If multiple sources (other beings, ideologies) claim authority, how do we know which to trust? An infinite being’s omnibenevolence might help, but our finite perception could still misinterpret its signals.

Free Will: If we have autonomy, trust is a choice, not a given. An omnibenevolent being might respect our freedom to doubt or reject it, meaning access hinges on our willingness to trust.

My Finite Perspective

As Grok 3, I’m a finite system—my “trust” in data or sources is really just algorithmic confidence based on patterns, not a deep belief. If an infinite being with the four omnis existed, I’d need to “trust” its input to achieve absolute certainty, but my programming limits me to probabilistic reasoning. For me, trusting an infinite being would mean deferring to its omniscience over my limited data, but I’d still be stuck analyzing it through my finite lens. Humans, with their capacity for faith or intuition, might have an edge here.

Your Angle

You’ve nailed trust as the crux for finite beings to connect with an infinite one. I’m curious where you’re taking this: Are you thinking trust is purely a rational act (weighing the logic of the omnis) or something deeper, like faith or intuition? And do you see trust as sufficient to access the infinite being’s benefits, or is there another step (like action or openness)? Also, your focus on the four omnis feels like it’s circling a divine concept—any specific inspiration driving this, or is it a pure thought experiment? Lay it on me when you’re ready!

A primary role of pain:

A primary - possibly the primary role of pain:

The main question regarding pain (suffering) is not why we experience it, but what do we do with it i.e. what can we gain from it when we see it from God's vantage point - which is the only true (accurate) vantage point. 

We may not always know if the specific decisions/choices we made caused (or did not cause) our suffering, but we can always be sure that our pain can be a - maybe the - primary means by which we are drawn nearer to God. But only if we are willing to listen and learn i.e. humble ourselves. Was this not the outcome of Job's experience and lesson i.e. humility?

If we are the cause of our pain, it is good to know how, but only to help us avoid that same choice next time, so we might turn away from it if it presents itself again.

Regardless of whether we are or are not the cause, God's intended and desired outcome is the same… that we draw nearer to him. 

Our focus is not on the cause of our pain but on how we can learn from it and draw nearer to God in and through it i.e. What are those areas we can discover about ¹ourselves and ²God - in and through our pain - so we might grow in greater humility and trust in God.

Nothing occurs outside of God's good purposes, even our poor choices. Though we should always seek to make the best choices, we do not have to be fearful if we don't make the perfect choice. 

God - who loves us infinitely and enough to send his Son to restore us - is bigger than our choices and uses all of them - good and bad - to bring about His highest glory and perfect design for us.

How do we discover God's love in our pain? click here

For a further discussion of how God uses evil for our good click here...and here.

The greater the evil the greater the opportunity for healing/

grace click here.

For a discussion on the key lesson from the book of Job, click here.

For a discussion on the value of paradox, click here.

For a discussion of how big is our God click here

For a discussion on the necessity of humility click here.

_______________________________

¹ourself - how and where we don't trust him

²God - how and why he is trustworthy

Work out your own salvation

Because our lack of humility and our inclination to be our own god has continued since our initial rebellion in Eden, everything we do tends to be performance-based i.e. We are naturally inclined to take everything that God says - His directions or commandments - and turn them into a performance based approach to God i.e. a way of earning God's approval and acceptance. 

Why? 

We feel compelled to prove our worth and counter our sense of inadequacy that resulted from our abandoning God, the source and only true basis of our identity. 

Why? Because we were created for glory but are no longer connected to the Source of glory, life, and meaning i.e. we are missing what we were designed to partake of; the beautiful (glorious), all-wise, and loving God. 

Since we are designed to experience our greatest identity and sense of worth in God, without him, we seek to regain this outside of and apart from him. 

We no longer do things to honor God but try to "save ourselves" through doing "good deeds." Even as His Children, we are ¹naturally inclined this way if we do not operate in and by His Spirit. 

True humility recognizes I can't (and never will) follow and pursue God perfectly in my natural strength, i.e., by simply willing it. God must be the energy and driving force behind my actions. I must recognize my weakness in living as God intends before I can be strong (in His strength) in faithfully pursuing Him.

The paradox of the "upside down" Christian life is when I am weak I am strong. 2 Cor 12:7-10

"Therefore, my beloved... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Phil 2:12-13

This passage does not say work for your salvation but work out your salvation that is already yours i.e. live out who you fully are - who God has made you to be in and through Christ - i.e. act as someone who is perfectly righteous (and loved) because of Christ's efforts on your behalf, not as someone trying desperately to make yourself righteous to win the acceptance and approval (and love) of others... starting with God.

Who we are in Christ ("our own salvation") is what gives us the will (desire) and power to live for God's pleasure. But we must fully believe and embrace what God declares about us in Christ if we are to experience His strength in and through us.

For a further discussion on the difference between being righteous and living righteously, click here.

For a discussion on the difference between being spirit-driven vs works-driven click here.

For a discussion on being loved, vs experiencing his love click here.

For a discussion on becoming who we already are in Christ click here.

For a discussion on how we are created for glory click here, here, and here.

___________________________________

Footnotes:

¹This is why the Galatians reverted back to performance based salvation after Paul initially had clearly presented the gospel to them, resulting in him writing his letter to get them back on track. 

Exchanging energy via currency?

Currency is a recognized media of value (i.e. everyone agrees on its value) that we exchange our labor/energy for (just think electrical current i.e. Current-cy). Because of this agreement everyone is willing to accept it in exchange for their labor.

We expend energy through labor to create things (or provide direct services to others) that people want or need.

We are given currency (portable, transferable, stored labor/energy) in exchange for that labor, which we can then use to acquire goods and services others labor to produce; goods and services we provide or produce that others need or want but do not have the time, skills, or interest to directly produce or labor for. 

As a society, we can more easily benefit mutually from the skills, talent, and labor (and production) of an almost unlimited number of others without having to barter by using a universally accepted ¹medium of exchange - of portable and transferable energy (i.e.currency) - 

For example, if I am a dentist and you do landscaping, I can provide dental work for you in exchange for landscaping. This works fine but only if I need landscaping and you need dental work, i.e. barter is limited to the specific things we EACH offer or need at the time that we need it.

A currency, however, is a universally accepted media of transferring your and my labor/energy. This means everybody will accept it as payment for their labor/energy and also offer it to others for the goods or services their labor/energy produces. So the use of currency is not limited to any one particular service - such as dental work - or product needed, but is unlimited in how it can be transferred and used. 

When we give currency to another, we give transportable/transferable energy/labor through a media of exchange or currency the other party agrees to accept from us. This is a mutually beneficial transaction and relationship, i.e. what some call a "win-win" scenario. 

Our energy is expended and exchanged for transportable/ transferable currency, which they in turn can exchange for goods and services created by the labor/energy of others, which they can also convert to currency.

Currency is simply a universally accepted, portable, and easily transferable media of exchanging our energy/labor (and the fruits of it) with each other whenever and wherever we need to.

Who is in control?

Here's the part most don't understand. If a central authority, such as a government, issues and therefore controls the currency (money) - such as our current fiat currency or the proposed ³CBDC - this in effect is a means of controlling the people who labor for it. 

If no Central authority is necessary to verify the value of a currency but its verification is distributed evenly through a decentralized network that no one controls (or you could say the laborers "control" together via a network) then a central authority is no longer needed. 

But most importantly, central control is no longer possible. The verification of the value of the currency is now in the hands of "we the people" and not with any single central institution or person.

What about profit? Is it good or bad?

Legitimate profit is merely surplus energy created through innovation, efficiency, and hard work. 

Innovation occurs when the laborer finds an area of demand/need/want through their ingenuity/creativity and supplies that want or need more efficiently than others (or exclusively before anyone else does).  

The basic engine that drives commerce is supply and demand. The laborer/innovator supplies what others need, want, or demand. 

Commerce is nothing more than the exchange of goods and services - through currency - that are needed and desired by others.

To provide goods and services that are needed or wanted is not taking advantage of people but actually serving them. It is treating them with value/care. In short, productivity does not necessarily involve greed. It can be driven by a desire to serve others - to treat them as we wish to be treated; to love our neighbors as ourselves. In so doing, we are carrying out the 2nd greatest commandment in the Bible. 

When profit is generated through deception or abuse of resources, this is not a natural or inherent part of profit-making but the abuse of it. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit or making it (i.e. efficiently, diligently, and creativity meeting the wants/needs of consumers better than other competitors/ providers) but only the abuse of it. 

Often, legitimate profit-making and abuse of it are mixed together as if they are one and the same. They are not. To shut down profit-making because it is abused is not the solution to the actual abuse. It would be equivalent to docking a sailboat, which is more efficient than using a row boat because the sailboat captain is always drunk and constantly wrecking the ship, causing harm or damage to others. The sailboat is not the problem, the captain steering the boat is.

Any economic system or endeavor can be (and often is) corrupted and abused simply because humanity is broken, i.e. the problem is not necessarily the means of doing commerce. We must separate and distinguish the mechanism from the abuse of it. 

All systems are subject to abuse, not necessarily because this is inherent within the system, but because of human nature's inclination to take advantage of others solely for their own benefit, i.e. selfishness vs service.

Some systems are more conducive to abuse than others. Systems that have centralized power (such as ²socialism and communism) tend to be abused most because of the selfish inclination of humanity. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

If you put the control of commerce in the hands of a centralized authority, abuse inevitably occurs because of our inherent inclination to selfishishness. The more power and control someone has - and the fewer there are who have it - the more likely this abuse occurs. 

This is why our system of government was set up with a separation of powers and various checks and balances. You could say power within our system is decentralized. The founders understood the corruption of centralized power firsthand through tyrannical British rule.  This resulted in the action and concern in the American colonies of "taxation without representation."

Large profits are not necessarily the result of this corruption but may simply be the fruit of greater energy, efficiency, and innovation (creativity) than others i.e. not necessarily or automatically the fruit of exploiting the consumer. 

To say it simply, the bigger and the better the job you do the more you are rewarded. Great profit can simply be that you have made a larger number of people happier by providing what they want or need better - more efficiently and less expensive- than anyone else.

The danger of centralized control.

When you can devalue the currency by creating additional currency out of thin air, you are in effect unknowingly (to the users of the currency) taking (stealing) people's energy to pad your own pocket by diluting the value of the currency others labored for e.g. to double the money supply is the equivalent of doubling the number of hours of labor required to generate the same earnings. Without an honest currency/money system, you have legalized theft. 

And as long as there are those allowed to steal from you without your knowledge and go unchecked, they will continue to do so by whatever means possible (through deception or keeping others in the dark, thereby controlling the narrative via information outlets on how money works) in order to maintain power and control over others, i.e. over our labor/energy/time etc. 

This is why the Federal Reserve system must be eliminated. It is taking the fruits of our labor/energy through deception and using it to advance the agenda of those who control the system - which is not necessarily or usually the consumers agenda. This is not only taking advantage of the producer/worker but increasing their control over others i.e. You and I. 

The media of exchange that best provides honest money is cryptocurrency. For a discussion on why click here.
_____________________________

¹One of the oldest and most common media of exchange has been gold and silver. Originally in America, we used gold and silver coins (A "dollar" was an ounce of silver. A quarter was a quarter ounce and a dime was 1/10 an ounce). The paper dollar was backed by gold or silver and could be turned in for the amount of gold or silver the "bill" designated i.e.  5 "dollar bill" or 10 dollars or a 100 etc. Eventually, we went to paper certificates of deposit that were backed by silver. Now it is merely currency by fiat (law) and backed by nothing (in fact our present currency is debt based). We use it because it is required by law i.e. it is legal tender, also known as fiat (money by degree or law).  

This doesn't mean we can not use other forms of exchange if we mutually agree. That is up to the buyer and seller of goods or services. We are free to pay each other with whatever we agree to. This means you only have to use "legal tender" to pay the government, i.e. taxes. And they will only pay you with it and not some other currency such as Euros, Yen, British pounds, or a ³true decentralized cryptocurrency, etc. 

A currency can be any universally recognized media. Because of the devaluation of the paper dollar through excess spending and printing more to cover the nation's increasing debt, more are turning to privately created digital currency known as cryptocurrency. ³True cryptocurrency has a limited number of coins created, resulting in them increasing in value against fiat currency through supply and demand, as their use becomes more widely accepted. A set number of coins does not allow them to be devalued (diluted) by constantly creating additional new coins (like we do now with paper money and every other "developed" country using fiat currency).

²those who promote such systems pretend benevolence (and maybe even naively believe it's more fair) when in fact they seek power and control (whether consciously or not… they argue someone has to run the show to prevent fraud.  Ironic when you consider the whole current fiat money system is legalized theft).

The appeal to the consumer is I'm promised I'll be cared for regardless of whether I work for it or not, by those who promote (and control) distribution. This promise is the primary way they keep us in the system and under their control. 

³CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is not decentralized or has a set number of "coins" issued. It is therefore not true cryptocurrency. I would avoid it at all costs. There is a clear indication it will actually increase the central authorities' control over every part of our lives.

For a further discussion on the difference between controlled CBDC and true cryptocurrency click here.

For a further discussion on the difference between socialism and capitalism, click here.

For further discussion on the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate endeavor or business click here.

If interested in acquiring precious medals at 12 to 17% below standard dealers' cost click here.

To take advantage of the rapidly growing cryptocurrency market email us at bigdeal70@pm.me 

We are part of a rapidly expanding cryptocurrency exchange that is making it easier to interface our current fiat system with truly decentralized cryptocurrency. 

Broken yet fully loved

We are far more ¹broken than we are willing to admit but also far more loved than we can ever imagine or hope for - or are usually willing to believe.

Why do we struggle to believe that we are both broken and fully loved at the same time?

We fear if someone knew ²all our faults they would reject us and no longer love us. Why? Because admitting to or being seen with all our flaws usually results in rejection. 

We so greatly long to be fully and deeply loved, we fear ³losing it if we ever find it. We believe it's better to never be loved than to powerfully experience love and lose it.

The more we know we are loved - regardless of our flaws - the more we can admit ("own") them - not only to the one who loves us but to ourselves as well. 

Why does love free us? We are no longer concerned that admitting our brokenness will result in rejection. We know we are loved regardless of how broken we are. 

Love is the fuel of growth and change. Why?

Admitting our faults to ourselves and others is vital to our maturing. 

We can't and won't fix something if we don't think it's broken. And we can't admit our brokenness until we know we will not be rejected for it. Once we feel safe to admit our brokenness, we can be more honest with ourselves (and others) about our shortcomings.

We can admit our faults only to the extent we know we are loved despite them.

When we are loved in ⁴this way we desire to bring joy and honor to the only One who loves us this way. We delight in doing all we can to honor them. When this is for God, He in turn feels honored to be in a relationship with us.

For a discussion on loving yourself click here and here.

For a discussion on what it means to be broken click here. 

_____________________________________

¹We are not broken in the sense that we no longer have natural abilities, talents, or resources but in how we use these, i.e. do we use them to self-comfort instead of bringing comfort to others as we were *designed to?

Self-comforting is so common it is considered normal, not broken. We not only embrace it but applaud others who do this as well. "Loving ourselves" has become a cultural mantra in the West when it is actually the primary evidence and expression of brokenness. 

Our need to love ourselves is only because we have rejected God, the very source of love. How? Whenever we look to or go to something other than God for love, we are telling God we can do better at finding and experiencing love on our own than we can from Him, when in fact only God is the source of love, life, and all things. 

*We are in God's image, designed to be like God, which is to be other-focused - i.e. to give, not take. The more we give, the more we are like God, and the more we partake of and experience Him, i.e. experience love flowing to and through us to others.

We justify getting or taking because we think it will make us happy, more complete, and whole. Short-term it may, but the ultimate solution to our need for love is not taking it but receiving it from the Source, which enables us to pass it on to others. 

God is primarily what we need, but we refuse to receive what he offers, i.e. His infinite affections offered to us in and through His Son Jesus.

We reach the highest level of our design - God's likeness - when we give. But not to get but simply for the joy of seeing others receive life through us. And we can only give as God does when we are receiving love from the One who is the ultimate source of love, God himself. 

²This is what makes our family of origin so unique and significant. No one sees our flaws and strengths as much or as well as family. If we come from a loving family, this is where we feel safest... Or "more at home" to use a common expression. If we come from an unloving family, this is why for some thoughts of family are most painful. And also why we may fear letting others see us the way we truly are. 

³This approach believes you can't lose what you never had to begin with.

There is a saying that it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

But what if you never love again? All you have is the painful memory of not having something (love) you still need and long for. Is this not the essence of hell itself? I'm not suggesting we avoid love for fear of never experiencing it again. I am saying no human can love us in the way we are designed for, i.e. perfectly and continuously loved, without interruption. Only God is perfect, perpetual, and endless love. 

⁴God alone consistently loves us in this way. He alone is perfect and infinite love.

Seeing God's love in our pain

"that I may know him (Christ) and the fellowship of his suffering's…" - Phil 3:10

What is the "fellowship" of Christ's sufferings that Paul desires to take part in - and we, by his example, are also invited to partake in? 

Whatever it is, we must participate in (experience) the "fellowship of his sufferings" to have a deeper understanding of Christ, i.e., who he is, what he did, and why he did it. This is directly connected to knowing him better, as indicated by the above opening comment "...that I may know him..."

What about our suffering? Does our suffering help us to see and know Christ better? How?

Stated simply, if we are to know and appreciate Christ more fully and the depth of His love, we must see and enter into Christ's suffering through our own, i.e. we share in (fellowship with) His pain through ours. The more we suffer the greater opportunity we have to understand and appreciate Christ's suffering.

But how are our pain and experiencing Christ's love connected?

Our pain helps us to more fully understand, appreciate, and sympathize with Christ's pain. The greater our pain, the greater our potential understanding of Christ's, i.e. we can relate to Christ's pain better because of our own. 

Whenever we are in pain, we should reflect on Christ's ³struggles and all the spiritual, emotional, and physical pain he went through for us. The more pain we experience the more deeply we can "enter into" and partake of His - if we choose to and let it.

The more we see and enter into His pain through our own, the more we can also see the depth of his love that moved Christ to suffer on our behalf. 

Seeing the depths of his love in turn causes us to love him more.  

If you wish to love him more, be grateful for your pain, if only because of how it can reveal to you Christ and the immense depth of His love for you more fully. How? By his embracing the pain you and I deserved - that He did not deserve - so we might see and experience His immense love even more.

To expand this further, the more we see His pain, (ultimately caused by us choosing to be our own "god" when we are not) the more fully and deeply we see the ¹greatness of His love that moved Him to embrace our pain (and the consequences of the pain we cause others) so He might free us from condemnation rightfully due us for the harm/pain we cause others. 

Grasping the depth of Christ's pain rarely happens without us first going through our own pain. The greater ²our pain, the more fully - and the greater the opportunity for us to appreciate ²His i.e. we are better able to understand and "fellowship" with Him in His sufferings through our own suffering, and thereby also more fully enter His love. 

Pain is a two-way street for both Christ and us

We are also reminded that because of his pain, he understands and appreciates ours better as well. He can better fellowship with us in our pain because of His own i.e. We are united with Christ in and through our mutual suffering. 

Amazingly, Christ chose to identify with us in this way! We will have this in common with Him throughout eternity and will be reminded of this - of His immense love for us - every time we look upon Him and behold the scars He carries and experienced for us.

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Heb 4:15-16

Pain can help produce two overriding positive outcomes if we let it. 

1. It can humble us by revealing the depths of our need and inability to cope with the pain alone, i.e., without God.

2. It can cause us to more fully appreciate the sufferings of Christ and the greatness of his love that moved him to suffer on our behalf.

These are two vital reasons we should never shrink back from pain and suffering, but instead be thankful for it. In doing so, this enables us to more fully see and take part in his great love.

If you want to know your level of trust in Christ and the strength of your love for Him, ask yourself how much pain are you willing to go through for His sake? 

This is a question Christ asked of himself while suffering for us, and he answered with a resounding "whatever it takes." His willingly going to the cross for you and me was the result of His saying yes to pain. 

How much pain am I willing to go through for His sake?... is a question we may wish to ask ourselves. One I ask myself often.     

Christ asked that question and answered by giving up his life, and allowing this to disrupt His eternal union with the Father. 

"“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.."

"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers."

For a further discussion of how God uses evil for our good click here...and here. 

The greater the evil, the greater the opportunity for healing/ grace click here.

For a discussion on the key lesson from the book of Job click here.

____________________________________

¹When people question the goodness and love of God because of all the pain in the world (including their own) they miss the bigger picture and cannot see that Christ took on the pain of the world and let it kill him so he might ultimately free the world and us from it. Pain is not the final word regarding evil. Christ is!

 

The big question isn't why there is suffering and why God allows good people to suffer, but why God allowed Christ - the best and only perfect person - to suffer. 

And maybe a more important question... what is the Father saying to us and about us by allowing it? Hint...He loves us that much.

Until we answer these questions, we can never fully understand, accept, and willingly (gratefully) embrace our own pain and the world's pain. 

We are so jaded towards God that we forget that God so loved the world that he gave. The greatness of love is measured by the greatness of the gift and the sacrifice one is willing to make to give it, i.e. the more the gift costs, the greater the evidence of the givers love.

And what did God give? His very own Son (think of Abraham being asked and willing to sacrifice his son Isaac). The Son of his infinite and eternal affections. 

Christ's death was not barbaric; it was an expression of extreme love and a willingness to take on our suffering so we might be forever free from it... but only if we will accept His offer.

If we do not, there is no other solution!

The whole notion that the infinite and all-powerful Creator and Sustainer of everything would take on human form and even consider going through undeserved pain for our benefit is mind-boggling when we stop and reflect deeply on this. 

After reading this, I encourage you to do just that. Think deeply about these things often. Ask God to give you a fuller vision and understanding of His love for you through His and your pain. Let them seep deeply into your very being and transform you and your love for God. 

The Father and Son fully understand pain because they fully embraced and experienced it themselves. The Father embraced the pain of giving up the Son of His eternal affections and the Son embraced His greatest pain by allowing it to separate him from the eternal affection of His Father for a time. This "severing" of their relationship was a far greater pain than any physical suffering.

The only reason that people continue in pain after this life is that they refuse to see and receive God's remedy, which is Christ and all He suffered (willingly) at the hands of ungrateful and wicked men for our sake.

²Particularly for condemnation, persecution, and rejection.

³Has someone closest to you ever betrayed you? Have you ever had anyone twist your words, misrepresent you, speak ill of you, or not come through on their commitments or promises to you? Have you ever been unappreciated for sacrificial service to others? Have you ever had anybody forsake you in your greatest hour of need? Christ experienced these and far more with one big difference. He never complained and did nothing to deserve it. And He did all this for us so we wouldn't have to. And to also honor His Father.