Thanks for at least joining an argument even if your demand that namecalling be permitted remains in use. I have a little experience with mathematical infinity so I'm not sure the illustration will help you.

A set is not a set element.

A set does not go from zero to infinity as infinity is not a natural number.

Counting to infinity cannot be done in spacetime.

Physical objects do not have neatly assigned rank to compare them to countable numbers.

To try in all sincerity to make some meaning out of your illustration, in set theory a set either includes itself (recursively) or it doesn't. If it includes all things and even itself (i.e. the included "infinity" means the "set"), and it represents a God that knows Itself, then yes it would include something (Itself) that fully knows Itself, and it would include many other things that do not fully know themselves, but there is an unbridgeable gap between the infinite Itself and any finite thing (number or set). There is no point at which you can count from a number "to infinity" in the same way as you count from a number to the next number. There is nothing you can point to to represent a "becoming" between a finite number or set and an infinite number or set. Mathematicians do not speak of becoming infinite but of approaching infinity (infinitely): something is either infinite or it isn't, there's no bridge between them. Even if you approached an asymptote at a speed approaching infinity such that there's a finite time at which the function becomes undefined, there is still no becoming, either the value is finite or it's infinite but its remaining distance to infinity is always infinite no matter how close it gets. Further, our creation is quantized and granular, not infinitesimally divisible. So there's no infinite approach to infinity either, there are natural limits, like lightspeed; so you can't even use an asymptote.

Now, maybe you want to imagine a narration in which "counting to infinity" actually "gets to" "infinity", despite this betraying all math and logic. As I explained, "getting" somewhere is the same as "becoming" something; you envision it as a tertium-quid transition between two things, a finite number and an infinity. But the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, philosophers note. The transition between temporal and timeless cannot happen in spacetime as you propose. If it could possibly happen to somebody at a point in time from which the rest of the universe had a future, the somebody would disappear from the universe as a self, having become one with all being including all future; or, if it happened to the whole universe, there would be no more future but only an Omega Point at an end of time. However, this hypothetical is ultimately something we cannot experience except by being God, therefore by definition we cannot know for certain that it ever will happen or has happened; if it had happened to somebody there would be no way to prove it or describe it. We could not speak of "Me Becoming God", let alone "God Becoming Me", because a temporal subset (timeslice) of being is already present in all being and therefore its relation to that subset, which it already is, would not be "becoming". If we were to speak of all Other "becoming" Self, that might make more sense, because then Self remains Self but absorbs Other; but in that case the distinction, the Self-Other boundary, ceases to exist, including the boundary that separates the present from other times. And that would mean Other is not "becoming" Self at all (because the distinction between them ceases to exist) but both "become" One. And that's not a becoming at all, it's just a perspective or name change, and we could just as easily shift perspective in the opposite direction. That is, I could pick any Self at any instant and decree that I am perceiving that the Self and the Other are One and that I perceive that One to be God, and I could also decree in reverse that I am perceiving God to be delineated as a Self in a present, and all Other. But God always means the infinite, all being, and Self and Other always mean subsets of being. There's no bridge.

Any concept you propose as the meaning of "becoming God" cannot be proven because by definition it is beyond anyone's experience except God's. I could claim to have experienced any definition you propose, just as easily as I could claim that any definition you propose is impossible: because either way it's unprovable. I could say I end at infinity, I know myself, I have gotten to infinity, I count to infinity at any point in time, and you couldn't possibly contradict my statement of experience. You can only say it's unlikely because of your substantial rather than infinite knowledge of human behavior. And the fact that knowledge is substantial rather than infinite, and that Planck units are granular rather than infinitesimal, indicates that we should focus on the finite rather than pretend that we comprehend all infinities.

So: it's fun to try to interact with your poetry, but there comes a point where it's no longer useful. I try to redirect to what I find useful (choose either the changeable God or the changeless God but not both or neither), but that only works if two are playing. More important, the way you've always operated here has not led to real-world growth IMHO, such as the fact that you don't seem to find any path toward the morality of avoiding namecalling, nor any peace about the atrocities you see Israel committing, nor any power to call down fire yourself, etc. You're bowled over by these things but you don't connect yourself to any commitment. There will come a finite time at which you and I will be done discussing this, conclusively, and the conclusion will be binary, either we will agree or we will disagree, forever. My choice to respond is always based on whether I think some good exists in it, for you, me, or the audience. The degree to which you avoid direct questions and dance to sidelights without making any commitments will factor in heavily. Your proposal of all being having a becoming is by definition a Temporal Timeless and is a contradiction. I'm concerned that every day you amuse yourself with such contradictions is a day you avoid the commitments that matter. I've hung with you, often defended you, because I've believed you don't ultimately avoid. When your comments have the same general tenor one after another, the ability to comment ends after a finite number, it doesn't go on infinitely.