Infinity debate with Harlequin...

[Demon]

Harlequin agreed to have a debate with me... So without further ado...

You have to be simple to understand God.

Accepting infinity doesn't bring you closer to God, because infinity adds in an element of complexity which doesn't need to be there.

So... if Harlequin agrees that God is just, then he should try to prove that infinity leads to being just. If infinity is complex, and the truth is simple, then infinity is no longer truth.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Hey, I'll jump on here and give a few words.

Infinity,, is default. It takes a concept of time to place finite.

Infinity is not an element of being just.

Well// that's about it actually

 

[Shu]

The only thing that explains Finite and Infinite is a god period. If space is Finite then there must be an origin in which we declare god.

It is neither Just or whatever other adjective it is, it just is.. what it is.

Hence the theory of Cause and Effect.

 

[der Astronom]

I think it should be important to define god before starting a debate like this. So if the person asserting that infinity brings us closer to god (Harlequin, I presume?), then he should define god, and explain why.

So far as I know, I don't see any reason why an abstract concept brings us closer to a being we know almost nothing about, nor does it make anyone more just; justice is a human defined convention. It has nothing to do with abstract concepts that describe an unknowably large quantity of something.

 

[Harlequin]

Oh look I'm in the title.

Accepting infinity doesn't bring you closer to God, because infinity adds in an element of complexity which doesn't need to be there.

So... if Harlequin agrees that God is just, then he should try to prove that infinity leads to being just. If infinity is complex, and the truth is simple, then infinity is no longer truth.

Maybe I should start by saying that I don't actually intend to prove my point, but more provide reference as to how I've come to my opinion. This isn't me trying to fool proof my rebuttals, only to set the precedent from which I'm arguing. I don't pretend to know these things, I merely believe them.

I think it should be important to define god before starting a debate like this.

The God I'm referring to is the God described in the Bible as omnipotent and just. Now, in my opinion our senses and our interpretations give us the authority to believe in that which is around us, but not to know.

To know one would have to have the scope of infinity to be able to provide a whole reference and discern everything within itself. To know justice, without merely providing an interpretation one would have to encompass all.

For example, it would be perfectly resonable to assume that you exist as you are. However, if tomorrow you were to die and it turns out your existence wasn't as you had imagined and you were in fact dreaming your existence as another being, you couldn't have possibly known anything of yourself or indeed the world around you.

Whilst the obvious retort would be how on Earth I came to provide such a convoluted example with no reference whatsoever, there isn't a need to provide reference for a hypothetical. I don't believe this hypothetical to be the case, but it doesn't stop it from being a possible truth seeing as none of us have any proof whatsoever to rule it out.

justice is a human defined convention. It has nothing to do with abstract concepts that describe an unknowably large quantity of something.

Justice is a human interpretation, but it doesn't mean it can't nor won't be defined or indeed enforced by a higher being.

You have to be simple to understand God.

I disagree. In fact I don't believe anyone fully understands God. The concept of a God perhaps, but not God. To fully understand you would have to know and the God I speak of can only ever be believed in (in this life at least).

 

[Demon]

it would be perfectly resonable to assume that you exist as you are. However, if tomorrow you were to die and it turns out your existence wasn't as you had imagined and you were in fact dreaming your existence as another being, you couldn't have possibly known anything of yourself or indeed the world around you.

The problem with this interpretation is that it can go full-circle. If everything that we know might be silly according to a concept (infinity), how do we know that that concept isn't silly as well?

I don't believe anyone fully understands God. The concept of a God perhaps, but not God. To fully understand you would have to know and the God I speak of can only ever be believed in (in this life at least).

This is where I might disagree. I think that believing in God and understanding God are the same thing.

Although, it might very well be possible that our understanding of God on Earth might be different than our understanding of God in heaven.

 

[der Astronom]

The God I'm referring to is the God described in the Bible as omnipotent and just. Now, in my opinion our senses and our interpretations give us the authority to believe in that which is around us, but not to know.

To know one would have to have the scope of infinity to be able to provide a whole reference and discern everything within itself. To know justice, without merely providing an interpretation one would have to encompass all.

And there are things that do not have the status of being knowable, either because they are not facts or because we don't have any evidence (and then it's only a temporal issue). In the former case, opinions are not facts because they are neither true nor false; we call them subjective.
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality, and therefore, justice is not falsifiable. According to what standard do we determine something is just or unjust, and why is such a standard justified over all other possible standards? There's just too many ways of looking at this, and quite frankly, I don't think there's a definite answer for it.

For example, it would be perfectly resonable to assume that you exist as you are. However, if tomorrow you were to die and it turns out your existence wasn't as you had imagined and you were in fact dreaming your existence as another being, you couldn't have possibly known anything of yourself or indeed the world around you.

Then I don't; I admit the possibility exists, but without any evidence, I have no reason to act as if they did exist. Otherwise, how do I decide between acting as if I were dreaming or acting as if heaven and hell existed? I believe there is equally as much evidence for us living a dream as there is the existence of heaven and hell (ie, not much), so I am unconvinced that they exist.

Whilst the obvious retort would be how on Earth I came to provide such a convoluted example with no reference whatsoever, there isn't a need to provide reference for a hypothetical. I don't believe this hypothetical to be the case, but it doesn't stop it from being a possible truth seeing as none of us have any proof whatsoever to rule it out.

But the problem is that there's no evidence for it, so we can't say anything about it. We could sit here forever, talking about any number of possibilities that could exist, but have no evidence, and in the end, we'd be none the wiser. Whether or not Xenu, god or the flying spaghetti monster exist makes no difference; they're all as equally as likely to exist as the other quite simply because we have no evidence for any of them.

Justice is a human interpretation, but it doesn't mean it can't nor won't be defined or indeed enforced by a higher being.

I happen not to think there's a particularly good reason why an absolute justice has to be enforced by a higher being. Care to explain?

I disagree. In fact I don't believe anyone fully understands God. The concept of a God perhaps, but not God. To fully understand you would have to know and the God I speak of can only ever be believed in (in this life at least).

If you're saying we can't understand the character of god, then why do you believe (if you do) that he has every right to enforce justice upon us? If we can't understand his character, how do we know he's good for us?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

For example, it would be perfectly resonable to assume that you exist as you are. However, if tomorrow you were to die and it turns out your existence wasn't as you had imagined and you were in fact dreaming your existence as another being, you couldn't have possibly known anything of yourself or indeed the world around you.

Whether this is a dream or not is irrelevant with holy intrigue, really. It is part of reality, even if it is perceptive hallucination. We feel and live in it, and are judged upon what we do within it as well. It also Lucifer's domain.
The Bible states what awaits us at the end of this 'dream', if that is in fact what we are in. Sure we may not know the dimensional and visual constructs, but it is known that there are only two places we can go.

Personally, I believe the Bible indicates God pretty well for any who study the constructs of sin, evil, duality and such. I've been explaining my take of this concept in the 'Problem of Evil' thread.
I don't want to explain it on this thread because it's a whole lot to re-post, honestly
But if anyones interested..

Anyways, without the conception of the Bible, then I guess we are at a loss in knowledge if we are to awake to something else. And if the Bible is unknown to be true, then alas!
Agnosticism

 

[Harlequin]

The problem with this interpretation is that it can go full-circle. If everything that we know might be silly according to a concept (infinity), how do we know that that concept isn't silly as well?

Well... we don't. The point is that we can't know, that we only have our senses with which to work with rather than being able to discern something as an absolute truth. Infinity hasn't been discovered only theorised - and perhaps not even correctly.

This is where I might disagree. I think that believing in God and understanding God are the same thing.

Although, it might very well be possible that our understanding of God on Earth might be different than our understanding of God in heaven.

Fair enough, although I'd disagree. You might have to understand the concept of a God to believe in one, but to understand a God is another subject entirely. How much can we genuinely claim to understand about the Christian God when all we have is interpretation from reference?

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality, and therefore, justice is not falsifiable. According to what standard do we determine something is just or unjust, and why is such a standard justified over all other possible standards? There's just too many ways of looking at this, and quite frankly, I don't think there's a definite answer for it.

It's not about justice on Earth that's what I mean. When you speak of so many ways of looking at justice I presume you're speaking solely of how we humans perceive justice. I wasn't speaking of humans and our cultures, but a higher being with an infinite scope to perceive - and discern accurately - justice.

But the problem is that there's no evidence for it, so we can't say anything about it. We could sit here forever, talking about any number of possibilities that could exist, but have no evidence, and in the end, we'd be none the wiser. Whether or not Xenu, god or the flying spaghetti monster exist makes no difference; they're all as equally as likely to exist as the other quite simply because we have no evidence for any of them.

And another problem is that there is no evidence against it. That's the problem with philosophy, it's not so much about finding answers as it is training yourself to make your own answers which is all we have the capacity to do. As much as this admission may undermine my point entirely, a spaghetti monster could indeed exist as a deity, I have no idea what exists in the beyond.

I happen not to think there's a particularly good reason why an absolute justice has to be enforced by a higher being. Care to explain?

I don't know of any reasons, I only believe it to be the case. Do you have any reasons as to why we're alive? You don't, you only believe it to be the case.

If you're saying we can't understand the character of god, then why do you believe (if you do) that he has every right to enforce justice upon us? If we can't understand his character, how do we know he's good for us?

It's not that we can't come to a conclusion on God's character as either punative or caring, but rather that we can't know his character and that our interpretations aren't based on knowledge but rather belief.

Whether this is a dream or not is irrelevant with holy intrigue, really. It is part of reality, even if it is perceptive hallucination. We feel and live in it, and are judged upon what we do within it as well.

The 'dream' I was referring to as was a more ethereal concept than you may have understood. I meant it as an entirely different reality. I don't believe it to be the case, but certainly have no proof to suggest otherwise.

 

[Demon]

Well... we don't. The point is that we can't know, that we only have our senses with which to work with rather than being able to discern something as an absolute truth. Infinity hasn't been discovered only theorised - and perhaps not even correctly.

You might have to understand the concept of a God to believe in one, but to understand a God is another subject entirely. How much can we genuinely claim to understand about the Christian God when all we have is interpretation from reference?

If you claim to have even a little understanding of infinity, which is only a theory, why then can you not understand a Christian God? You have yet to prove how infinity helps you understand God, but good luck with that, because you'll first have to prove infinity.

Also, I'd say it's easier to prove that we have more than interpretation from reference, than it is to prove that infinity is real and helps you down the path of understanding in a way that simply saying "there is more than interpretation from reference" doesn't.

 

[der Astronom]

It's not about justice on Earth that's what I mean. When you speak of so many ways of looking at justice I presume you're speaking solely of how we humans perceive justice. I wasn't speaking of humans and our cultures, but a higher being with an infinite scope to perceive - and discern accurately - justice.

Ja, and that's what I want to know--how do you know that this higher being with infinite scope of perception exists, or for that matter, that an absolute justice even exists? Either one of our interpretations of justice is right, and everyone else is wrong, nobody has it right, or nobody is right or wrong because an absolute justice does not exist. Either way, I don't have any convincing evidence that would persuade me as to whether or not absolute justice exists.

And another problem is that there is no evidence against it. That's the problem with philosophy, it's not so much about finding answers as it is training yourself to make your own answers which is all we have the capacity to do. As much as this admission may undermine my point entirely, a spaghetti monster could indeed exist as a deity, I have no idea what exists in the beyond.

And I wouldn't assert that I know for sure that no gods exist; I just hold a default position in lack of evidence because it would be absurd to believe in things for which no evidence exists (eg, that would mean you'd have to believe Xenu, the flying spaghetti monster, god and a whole lot more all exist just because you can't find any evidence that they don't exist). I think we should instead cater our philosophy based on the fact that we don't know anything for sure. Instead of pretending that we know a god or several exist, we should just make do with a philosophy based on not believing them for the time being.

I don't know of any reasons, I only believe it to be the case. Do you have any reasons as to why we're alive? You don't, you only believe it to be the case.

So you are believing an assertion that has no solid basis whatsoever, and which may be unconvincing to other people.

If I make any assertions over whether or not I'm alive, it's not based on no reason at all. There is evidence that suggests that I am alive. I might still be wrong, but I can make do with what seems reasonable rather than asserting something for no good reason at all.

It's not that we can't come to a conclusion on God's character as either punative or caring, but rather that we can't know his character and that our interpretations aren't based on knowledge but rather belief.

Right, but what I'm asking is if you believe we can't know god's character, why do you believe he has any good intentions for us when he enforces justice on us? Or any intentions you think he has for that matter? If you can't know his character with any amount of evidence (I take it that's what you mean; if not, I'd like to know what it is), what's the point in speculating?

 

[Hera Ledro]

Something that has arisen several times in this debate is the concept of doxastic practices, or 'belief-forming' practices. The two main ones that I have identified here are sensory belief-forming practices (SP; beliefs formed through sensory information) and mystical belief-forming practice based in Christian concepts (CMP; beliefs formed through experience beyond the senses and interpreted as a connection with God). We should be very careful when addressing these, as something else that I've noticed is the assumption that the criteria with which we evaluate and verify SP are the same criteria with which we evaluate and verify CMP, and the two are wholly different. We cannot mix them because they are fundamentally at odds, and if we are to discuss them they must be treated as such.

If you claim to have even a little understanding of infinity, which is only a theory, why then can you not understand a Christian God? You have yet to prove how infinity helps you understand God, but good luck with that, because you'll first have to prove infinity.

Also, I'd say it's easier to prove that we have more than interpretation from reference, than it is to prove that infinity is real and helps you down the path of understanding in a way that simply saying "there is more than interpretation from reference" doesn't.

Something you are falling into here is the false analogy fallacy; just because God is infinite does not mean that we can liken him to infinity. Just because we can understand that something is endless - that, for example, you can always add 1 to any number and get another - that does not mean that we can understand everything that endlessness entails. If God is infinite, it is only one of his Fundamental aspects (capitalized due to being 'official' in the composition of the Christian God). There are others, others which are beyond our understanding as humans simply because we cannot place ourselves in the same position as He is because of His status as the ultimate divine reality.

All cultures - not only those whose focus is on CMP, but on Hindu mystical practice, Buddhist mystical practice, Taoist mystical practice, etc. - seem to draw root in a single unidentifiable goal: ultimate salvation, often seen in terms of a connection with the ultimate divine reality as postulated by John Hick. But out of all the cultures, none of them can entirely define what this Salvation - or what it entails - is precisely. They can identify certain human aspects of it, such as ultimate justice or a the culmination of communal practice with the ultimate divine reality, but there are aspects of them that remain beyond our reach.

Something I notice a lot of fellow atheists relying on is the idea that science is infallible, or that the concept of God is fallible. I agree that religion is fallible (otherwise I would believe in it), but the problem arises when we try to 'prove' it in ways external to the faith being addressed. Just as practitioners of SP (of which we are all a part) cannot extricate themselves from the 'infallibility' of their senses (all people rely primarily on sensory perception), so too are 'true' Christians unable to remove themselves entirely from CMP and view their own life through non-CMP-based eyes.

So we arrive at a conclusion: our analyses must necessarily be addressed through the eyes of our analytical subject, else we cannot hope to fully understand their position and come to a conclusion about its veridicality.

 

[Demon]

Something you are falling into here is the false analogy fallacy; just because God is infinite does not mean that we can liken him to infinity. Just because we can understand that something is endless - that, for example, you can always add 1 to any number and get another - that does not mean that we can understand everything that endlessness entails. If God is infinite, it is only one of his Fundamental aspects (capitalized due to being 'official' in the composition of the Christian God). There are others, others which are beyond our understanding as humans simply because we cannot place ourselves in the same position as He is because of His status as the ultimate divine reality.

Perhaps, and true. Although if one argues that you have to understand infinity to understand God (or something along that line), it comes into question.

My understanding is that the person who I'm debating with has a slightly different view of infinity than most. It's possible that my side might actually agree with you to some extent.

 

[Hera Ledro]

Accepting infinity doesn't bring you closer to God, because infinity adds in an element of complexity which doesn't need to be there.

So... if Harlequin agrees that God is just, then he should try to prove that infinity leads to being just. If infinity is complex, and the truth is simple, then infinity is no longer truth.

According to the original post, however, you are arguing that the Fundamental aspect of Infinity (that god has existed forever and has endless capacities, to put it in laymen's terms) leads to being just. This does not follow; how does being just - implied through the Fundamental aspect of Perfect Moral Goodness (a.k.a. Omnibenevolence) - come from having infinite capacities? There has been very little in this thread which feasibly connects the two, and none of it directly answers your question.

One of the posts that I think comes closest to this is the following quote (post #6)

This is where I might disagree. I think that believing in God and understanding God are the same thing.

Although, it might very well be possible that our understanding of God on Earth might be different than our understanding of God in heaven.

I actually strongly disagree with this on grounds in both SP and CMP as I have previously defined. In CMP, a Christian cannot comprehend exactly what Heaven is, only that it is effectively better than anything we could possibly have in the mortal realm. In SP, we have instances where we cannot fully understand what we know or believe to be true (it is important that we differentiate between knowing and believing). An instance of belief: a proper vacuum can be created in laboratory conditions. Theoretically we believe it is possible, but we have yet to prove it or understand how to do it, much less understand the specifics and properties of a vacuum. An instance of knowledge: you know 2+2 = 4, but can you understand why it is true that 2+2 = 11, 2+2 = 10, and 2+2 = 100?

These are simply analogies that I believe hold up very well, as they contradict the point you have made: that believing in something that has been defined very early on as unknowable is the same thing as knowing it. You can believe in something without ever knowing if it is true or not. I could believe that I am typing on a schroozledoo, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Demon]

According to the original post, however, you are arguing that the Fundamental aspect of Infinity (that god has existed forever and has endless capacities, to put it in laymen's terms) leads to being just. This does not follow; how does being just - implied through the Fundamental aspect of Perfect Moral Goodness (a.k.a. Omnibenevolence) - come from having infinite capacities? There has been very little in this thread which feasibly connects the two, and none of it directly answers your question.

I don't believe that infinity leads to being just. I'd argue that infinity actually leads to the opposite, and I actually took that argument. It's me who's saying that infinity actually leads to the opposite of being just, because I take the side that you have to be simple to understand God and truth. So technically, with a little rewording of your argument, you can ask "Why is it that you believe that infinity leads to not being just?"

 

[Hera Ledro]

Rewording the question does not change its fundamental meaning: how does God's Fundamental aspect of infinite capacities relate to the nature you presume to be unjust (which can be worded either as just or unjust)?

The hub of my question can apply to either justice or injustice; I imply the opposite of justice when I ask for infinity's relation to it. Right now you're hitting the strawman and missing the point, and therefore have not answered the issue. If you want to be finicky about wording, then fine: how does God's fundamental aspect of infinite capacities relate to your interpretation that He is an unjust God?

My main problem arises from the fact that the posts in this thread do nothing to connect the two traits (infinite capacities and justice rooting from Omnibenevolence), and so I fear we've been falling out of topic. The original positions intrigue me, so while I am trying to engage in intellectual debate I am also trying to return this topic to its original thread, which in its essence seems to be a non sequitur.

 

[Harlequin]

If you claim to have even a little understanding of infinity, which is only a theory, why then can you not understand a Christian God? You have yet to prove how infinity helps you understand God, but good luck with that, because you'll first have to prove infinity.

Well I feel that coming to an understanding on exactly what infinity could mean as a God or rather, vice versa, would adequately explain exactly how a God could be omnipresent and omnipotent.

Also, I'd say it's easier to prove that we have more than interpretation from reference, than it is to prove that infinity is real and helps you down the path of understanding in a way that simply saying "there is more than interpretation from reference" doesn't.

But what I meant was that we only have our own existence from which to perceive the world. You and I could both look at an apple and agree it's an apple, but how do I know you're not a figment of my imagination? I don't, nor can I, which means all you and I have to work with is the reference we provide ourselves, whether you wish to believe you know so or otherwise.

I'll get back to dA in abit but yeah..

 

[Demon]

Rewording the question does not change its fundamental meaning: how does God's Fundamental aspect of infinite capacities relate to the nature you presume to be unjust (which can be worded either as just or unjust)?

The hub of my question can apply to either justice or injustice; I imply the opposite of justice when I ask for infinity's relation to it. Right now you're hitting the strawman and missing the point, and therefore have not answered the issue. If you want to be finicky about wording, then fine: how does God's fundamental aspect of infinite capacities relate to your interpretation that He is an unjust God?

My main problem arises from the fact that the posts in this thread do nothing to connect the two traits (infinite capacities and justice rooting from Omnibenevolence), and so I fear we've been falling out of topic. The original positions intrigue me, so while I am trying to engage in intellectual debate I am also trying to return this topic to its original thread, which in its essence seems to be a non sequitur.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respect all of your points, but I also think that while some logical disagreements may apply, the quality of an argument can in some cases be pretty subjective.

For example, I think Harlequin and I both actually agree on things that you might not, even though we may be taking different sides. Right now I'm kind of lost as to where to start answering your questions at, since I haven't really got that far, but I might have to tackle some of these difficult positions and questions eventually.

I think one of the problems is that you're looking at this from a logical or scientific point of view, and I'm looking at it from a religious point of view. When speaking in religious terms, I'd argue that a lot of things are actually pretty possible that might not normally be so.

I never said that God was unjust, so perhaps I might have missed something. I simply said that you have to be simple to understand God and truth. Accepting that you have to understand infinity to understand God, if infinity leads you to the opposite of that, makes you unjust. It's a very simple argument that I'm saying, but... perhaps too simple.

But what I meant was that we only have our own existence from which to perceive the world. You and I could both look at an apple and agree it's an apple, but how do I know you're not a figment of my imagination? I don't, nor can I, which means all you and I have to work with is the reference we provide ourselves, whether you wish to believe you know so or otherwise.

I'd simply go by likelihood here. From my persepective, it's "likely" that you and I are both real, and that if we're both real, that we exist in the same world and universe. There's a slight possibility that you or I aren't real, whatever the explanation may be, but you can't really factor in these things 50-50 or as a large part of your beliefs, because well, it doesn't show much use. Or if we talk in terms of things that might actually be more certain, I'd ask, why would you want to deny 99% of everything that is there to be correct 1% of the time?

 

[Harlequin]

Ja, and that's what I want to know--how do you know that this higher being with infinite scope of perception exists, or for that matter, that an absolute justice even exists? Either one of our interpretations of justice is right, and everyone else is wrong, nobody has it right, or nobody is right or wrong because an absolute justice does not exist. Either way, I don't have any convincing evidence that would persuade me as to whether or not absolute justice exists.

I never said I knew nor did I say I would provide proof. In fact, in my first point I actually said I wouldn't provide proof, for it would undermine my argument entirely. I only felt that logically as an omnipotent and omnipresent being God would exist as infinity.

And I wouldn't assert that I know for sure that no gods exist; I just hold a default position in lack of evidence because it would be absurd to believe in things for which no evidence exists (eg, that would mean you'd have to believe Xenu, the flying spaghetti monster, god and a whole lot more all exist just because you can't find any evidence that they don't exist). I think we should instead cater our philosophy based on the fact that we don't know anything for sure. Instead of pretending that we know a god or several exist, we should just make do with a philosophy based on not believing them for the time being.

I think you're misunderstanding my position. I haven't made the assertion that I know a God exists and the default position would be Agnosticism as we understand it, for Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

So you are believing an assertion that has no solid basis whatsoever, and which may be unconvincing to other people.

If I make any assertions over whether or not I'm alive, it's not based on no reason at all. There is evidence that suggests that I am alive. I might still be wrong, but I can make do with what seems reasonable rather than asserting something for no good reason at all.

Well ok. I believe Jesus Christ existed and performed miracles. That is what separates my belief in his teachings to whatever it is you want to come up with.

Right, but what I'm asking is if you believe we can't know god's character, why do you believe he has any good intentions for us when he enforces justice on us? Or any intentions you think he has for that matter? If you can't know his character with any amount of evidence (I take it that's what you mean; if not, I'd like to know what it is), what's the point in speculating?

I don't believe we can come across any evidence for that matter. All we have is reference, from which I've chosen to interpret his character. As for the speculation, what else do we have to work with? We're born, we die - either way we're in the same boat. The only difference between you and I is that you've resigned yourself to going down with the ship.

I'd simply go by likelihood here. From my persepective, it's "likely" that you and I are both real, and that if we're both real, that we exist in the same world and universe. There's a slight possibility that you or I aren't real, whatever the explanation may be, but you can't really factor in these things 50-50 or as a large part of your beliefs, because well, it doesn't show much use. Or if we talk in terms of things that might actually be more certain, I'd ask, why would you want to deny 99% of everything that is there to be correct 1% of the time?

Well you're right it would be ridiculously impractical to treat our day to day lives with such ambiguity, but the problem with ignoring this theory is that we grow lazy and start treating every concept with such rigid logic - even those we can't possibly fathom, like the beyond, simply because we train ourselves to 'know', rather than believe in our surroundings.

 

[Demon]

Well you're right it would be ridiculously impractical to treat our day to day lives with such ambiguity, but the problem with ignoring this theory is that we grow lazy and start treating every concept with such rigid logic - even those we can't possibly fathom, like the beyond, simply because we train ourselves to 'know', rather than believe in our surroundings.

Having Imagination (what I believe you to be describing) [x]
Believing in Infinity (your position) [y]
Not Believing in Infinity (the position I'm taking) [z]

The possibilities are:
[x] [y]
[x] [z]

And I see [x] [y] and [x] [z] as being equal so far. Reason? I don't know what makes [x] [y] go together but not [x] [z].

Some might have to excuse my wording a little bit, since I'm speaking from a religious perspective.