Ra said that on their level of knowledge there are no paradoxes: "Ra: I am Ra. We are humble messengers of the Law of One. To us there are no paradoxes." (73.14)

Here is an example of a paradox:

I resolve the paradox by saying that Intelligent Infinity manifests now, starting with a single difference between everything and nothing which explodes into more and more differences. And the differences are always finite.

Another thing I find crucial is that there is only one actual infinity! As Ra explained: "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." (1.7)

But then what about for example the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... isn't there an infinite number of numbers? My conclusion now is that no, the numbers are always finite. It's tricky since there is of course and infinite potential of numbers, yet that potential can never be fully exhausted.

Here is an example of a paradox:

Quote:"13.12 Questioner: Could you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with some of the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present."

I resolve the paradox by saying that Intelligent Infinity manifests now, starting with a single difference between everything and nothing which explodes into more and more differences. And the differences are always finite.

Another thing I find crucial is that there is only one actual infinity! As Ra explained: "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." (1.7)

But then what about for example the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... isn't there an infinite number of numbers? My conclusion now is that no, the numbers are always finite. It's tricky since there is of course and infinite potential of numbers, yet that potential can never be fully exhausted.