Yes, and I’ve also told you 30 times that your theory fails because you cannot explain how infinity distinguishes itself to create such discreteness. You cannot explain how infinity chooses to create one particular discreteness verse another hypothetical particular discreteness. Not to mention the other problems with your theory, such as assuming pure nothingness is in a struggle with reality and the problem that your theory creates a sardine can universe where nothing moves.
We distinguish infinity… we have sequences like +1, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12… etc the finite is necessary to abstract the infinite, no trick the of some super bring that needs to divide them. God could Give you Gods perspective, but just withold the power and that doesn’t contradict Gods omnipotence or prime mover status. This is why your theory fails, because even if God did this, we WOULDN’T BE GOD.
Your theory has no way of explaining why our particular universe exists and not another.
Also, God cannot make you God and cannot give you God’s perspective, because God cannot make another God because God cannot make the uncaused such as God, which is simple logic you can’t get around.
The simple logic you cannot get around is God is defined as MULTIPLE OMNI’S… so if God gives us all but one of those OMNI’s, we CANNOT BE GOD.
My theory explains that there are an infinite number of universes.
Those are not what defines God. Those are merely professed attributes. Any one or even all of them could be wrongly professed.
John would argue otherwise… John defines God as the one and only omni-creator.
It is a common mistake. Someone says that God wears pink panties and after a while God is defined as The being in pink panties. 
I think the nominal is not the issue here, we’re dealing with the concept of a highest order of infinity (which John asserts he’s not making a claim for) when it comes to making shit.
Then contrarily,we would need to argue the lowest order of nothingness.(finitude)
There is no “highest order of infinity”. The orders of infinity are themselves infinite, so there can’t be a highest, by definition (of “infinite”).
Good point orb! =)
I know and I keep trying to get John to admit he’s contradicting himself here, while also giving him the benefit of the doubt. He argues a supreme infinity, yet says he’s not arguing for a highest order, even though he says something like, “But the buck stops here.” That’s a highest order of infinity, but John hasn’t confessed to this yet.
Personally, I think Johns view is archaic and narrow, I’m perfectly able to accept that there are an infinite number of beings more powerful than the next. That’s mind expanding. John is stuck in some kind of dinosaur thought as I see it.
I just noticed that I said, “… so there can be …” when I meant, “… so there can’t be…”. But you got the message anyway.
There can be a “most powerful being”, depending on how one defines “power” and “being”. And that would be God, by definition.
I would amend this to say there MIGHT be a most powerful being, CAN implies a proof. It’s not as strong as IS a most powerful being, but it implies that you’ve proven there can be such a being… and I don’t think such a proof is forthcoming.
Just look at my infinitely more powerful being scenario as a counter example… if this were true, that would mean there was no God, just ascending orders of beings with more power that went forever.
You know John, I most certainly have a higher spatial IQ than you, but it brings a smile to my face everytime i see how squirrley you are, you’re a pretty smart person, sometimes I get flustered because you repeat yourself when my point disproved it, but mostly it just brings a smile to my face, and it’s not always the smartest person who is right about everything anyways. I’m looking forward to see what you have next.
James, Do you believe in God? I know you are critical of Johns disproofs, but i don’t see you offer your own proofs, and you have a God quote on your sig.
Infinity does not have a highest order mathematically speaking. However, even an infinity of infinities can never distinguish itself. It takes a power with God-like attributes to decide what becomes real and what does not. God is not THE HIGHEST INFINITY. For all I know, there is no higher infinity than our universe. But, let’s suppose there is, like Branes for example. Branes suffer the same problem, i.e. an infinity of Branes still cannot decide what Branes become real and what Branes do not become real.
God is needed to distinguish infinity regardless of how many orders of infinity may actually be real.
You cannot have any of the Omni’s without having all of the Omni’s. You can never be given any Omni’s, because you cannot be made into God, even by God Himself.
All the Omni’s are interrelated. Omnipotence is power over all powers that exist, but power of all requires knowledge and presence in ALL. Omniscience is knowledge of all, but knowledge of all requires power over all and presence in ALL. Omnipresence is presence in ALL, but to be present in ALL one must have knowledge of all and power over ALL.
That’s where I don’t follow you John… we can have the knowledge and the presence, but not the power. Just because I may know everything doesn’t mean I can do very much at all… just because I am diffuse through all things, doesn’t mean I can control them, I fact we have witnesses for that stuff… beings who view our lives with us, but not all witnesses can possess people. My experience of the spirit world is that power and knowledge are VERY different things. Knowledge may give you soft power, but it certainly doesn’t give you hard power.