Can we really think the infinite? Or is thought itself necessarily finite?

Assuming that there was something infinite and eternal, would it be beyond our ability to calculate its power?

Friendly questions.

If it created, would it no longer be infinite and/or eternal?

If eternal means timeless, then I suppose it would no longer be eternal, because it would have a past different from its present.

There is also sempiternal, which suggests that something, once created, would not from that point change or be destroyed. It seems like some myths of the soul present this option. A beginning but never an end.

But that's not my position.

Can temporary exist inside timeless/eternal?
Can finite exist inside the infinite?

Well, I view the timeless eternal as basically a concept that exists within time, in the mind of man. I don't think the infinite is actually thinkable. The words "infinite" and "eternal" both depend on their negative prefixes, as human experience is never infinite or eternal, except that we can imagine the timeless, but not, IMO, the infinite. Not really. :Glasses:

correct me if not:
the only thing that is infinite is the void (timeless, eternity, nothingness and emptiness, darkness, etc.)

fullness is not infinite since it reach its limit
and we cannot make limited unlimited

but we cannot make things out of nothing , right?
so does it mean infinite fullness is impossible
there is only infinite emptiness...

How do you think anyone could know such a thing? On the basis of what information? And how could he get such information?

If we are talking about creating physical existence, then the best source of information would be physical existence. Somewhere within physical existence there must be a bread crumb trail leading to the source of the physical existence's existence.

Physics would ideally be the best source of information for identifying whether somethine eternal and infinite could create something temporal and finite.

In my own research, I have found a major error in modern physics... the notation of charge in the units is wrong. Instead of charge being notated with a single dimension of charge, charge should always be distributed.

This might sound like it is coming from left field, however, our deepest insights into the nature of reality comes through dimensional analysis. If our unit system is wrong, then our dimensional analyses may also wrong.

By correcting the charge notation error in units, we can develop a system of physics easily unifying the forces. And more important to metaphysicians, we can mathematically understand more subtle levels of creation.

Through dimensional analysis, we can see there is a powerful reciprocal force, which gives rise to all physical and non-material existence. I call this powerful reciprocal force "Gforce."

Molecules are collections of atoms, which means they are essentially the same thing. The difference is in the complexity of molecules. When atoms arrange in a particular complex form, the resulting molecule has properties not present in the atoms, alone.

The same thing can be said about lumber and houses. A house is a pile of lumber arranged in a particular form such that it takes on the complex property of a house.

The Gforce is the eterrnal, infinite Source, which gives rise to space (Aether), subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, and the rest of complex existence. The Gforce continually drives all physical and non-material structures. Without the Gforce, the Universe would cease to exist.

The complex structures within the physical Universe are temporal and finite, but each simpler level (or order) of reality is more "permanent" than its resulting complex structure. Back to the house example, if a house is crushed, there will still be a pile of lumber. The lumber's existence will outlive the existence of the house. If the lumber ceases to exist at any time (termites eating the lumber for example), the house will cease to exist, too.

Thus the most simplest structure in physics (Gforce) will outlast all the more complex structures (space-time, subatomic particles, etc.)

How should we know?

Creation does not necessarily negate eternity. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote of God, in relation to our existence in time, as not being completely unlike a man reading a story of events. While the man experiences time in a particular manner, the time line passes in a manner which is entirely separate from the reader and the reader may visit all points of the written time line at will.

Some time ago, I pondered on the relationship of God, man, and time. My studies in school revealed that the ancient Hebrews believed that man experienced time in two ways: past and future. I agree with this assessment, but have taken a few steps further. The problem is trying to wrap one's head around the Creator's eternity and how the Creator is affected by the event of creation.

From the standpoint of logic, I would say yes to both questions.

Temporary is a subset of timeless and a finite period of time is a subset of infinite time.

Cheers!