You fail to distinguish between the immaterial and material, again… God is more than just the potential for the material infinite. God is the immaterial which distinguishes the infinitely material because infinity cannot distinguish itself.
Word salad again. For one, otherness and sequence is material… there is no such thing as an immaterial realm, an immaterial realm would be nothing at all. Many people have stated that if the two realms are separate, they can’t interact with each other, which you’ve chosen to ignore many times. I never made this point but a couple other have… so they’re sitting here thinking you’re just ignoring them. And as I said before, if God is not the “embodiment” of infinity than God doesn’t exist as the being which never began and never ends… but you yourself said that infinity cannot distinguish itself, which means if God is infinity embodied, God cannot distinguish Gods self. What’s that you say? God is SEPARATE from infinity? Is God separate from the finite too!!! Oh my!!! now this is getting fun!!! Well… you have yourself nothing at all! Nice disproof John! You’re getting better at disproving yourself each post!
false.
Next…
There is the immaterial. Has to be, because the infinite material cannot distinguish itself. The immaterial acts upon the material immaterially. Mystery as to how that works, but nonetheless must be true. Let me repeat myself, again… God is the “embodiment” of the inherent immaterial nature of the universe to create. God is not the “embodiment” of material infinity. God is the “embodiment” of that which distinguishes the material infinity, because the materially infinite cannot distinguish itself. While it is true that the material realm is also part of God, God is also the immaterial realm. Hence, God is not separate from the material realm, but ALL IS GOD. The material realm is simply God creating the materially real out of the infinitely possible by distinguishing infinity through His creation.
P.S. You better jump to step 10, because your arguments are way too easy to get out of. 
So, what universe do you propose that lasts forever and is not capable of an infinite number of permutations?
The existence of the immaterial is merely a question of ontological choice/declaration of definitions.
In my Affectance Ontology, there are two distinct realms of existence;
- Physical (“the universe”)
- Ideal/Divine/Conceptual/Mental (often mistakenly referred to as “The Spiritual Realm”).
Interestingly the “Real God” is on the border between those two.
But such is merely a choice and declaration. It is pointless to argue truth before one knows of what truth is constructed (ontological declarations and the subsequent logic).
One truth is quite simple, actually. Infinity cannot distinguish itself. Therefore, there must be something immaterial that distinguishes material infinity. The word “immaterial” is just an arbitrary label to describe that which must be real in order to distinguish material infinity. Physicists, like Hawking, instead call it “the laws of physics”. But, where are these laws in material reality? Nowhere. They are immaterial. If the “laws of physics” were materially real, we wouldn’t need physicists to go look for them.
I get a kick out of these atheists denying the immaterial, when the “laws of physics” themselves must be real and yet are undeniably also immaterial. I guess you could say “the laws of physics” exist only in our brains. But, then, how come these same laws work so well in predicting natural phenomenon? These laws are obviously inherent in matter, and yet, completely immaterial. You can’t look at an atom and say, “yes, there it is! I see the laws of physics! Now, stop bothering me as I read away!”
And then, you’ve got the atheists who say something is nothing, when the nothing they are referring to is clearly a low density form of something. Pure nothingness is the only nothing. And almost all of them have no clue what I mean by “pure nothingness”.
The laws are aspects of materiality, without which there would be no laws. And your analogy of needing to go look for them is absurd… I know there is gold, I have to go look for it to find it.
I’m afraid the opposite of that is true. Without the laws, there would be no materiality. The material is made of the changing of the situation. And the only reason the situation changes is because of those laws that do not allow the situation to be what it is and also remain as it is.
If that were true, then one need only examine a point of empty space to know everything there is about the laws of physics. When one examines a point of empty space, what does one see? Nothing. Better yet, why not examine some dark matter or dark energy? Under your belief, you should be able to derive all the laws of physics from examining dark energy and dark matter. But, you can’t see either. Good luck on your hunt! 
Correct. And this is why I find it hilarious and contradictory for an atheist to disclaim a belief in the immaterial, when at the same time the atheist posits the existence of the obviously immaterial “laws of physics”.
The atheist should be suffering from cognitive dissonance over the immaterial. LOL!
I don’t see it that way. If there were no otherness, there’d be no laws. What is a law without otherness? Nothing at all. Which is precisely what an immaterial realm is as well. Maybe we don’t have the technology to find dark matter.
Your zingers get annoying after you think you’ve proven your point John… though I suppose I do that a bit as well. Laws are extracted from otherness.
Emmmm… actually one can do exactly that.
If there were no laws, you couldn’t deduce what you just said … or anything else.
Nothing is possible until something is impossible - a law. Whatever it is that makes something either possible or impossible is a “law”.
So James, we’re at an impasse… perhaps otherness and laws emerge together, or perhaps you can’t have laws without otherness… I don’t believe in the immaterial, that’s for damn sure. Let’s take an abstraction like the numbers… we see three things (otherness) and abstract an equality between them and call it “3”. Three is a very physical thing, as are the abstraction of equalities for our rudimentary uses.
“Everything must be whatever it is.”
How does otherness precede that law? Whether only oneness exists or otherness exists, the law is the same.
That law is not physically material. Laws are non-material principles, “immaterial”. Nothing material is required to exist for that law to exist. A perfect circle is a perfect circle, whether one physically exists or not. And if a law is true, it exists.
A law can only be discerned through the material, so they must be mutual. And by your own signature, I know you’re aware of the paradox that runs the engine of existence, which I’ve stated before… it’s not really a paradox it’s reality, and it’s not God, it’s just reality… “Something must necessarily be something other than what it necessarily is”, otherwise motion cannot occur. And motion requires otherness.
So, at this point in the debate, both you and John are wrong about this subject.
So actually the statement, “everything must be whatever it is is” is false, it must be what it is and not what it is.
Damn 3 embedded quotes thingy!!! Hmmm… which one to delete??? argh… I’ll delete my own last comment.
That is a new-age myth. The Law of Identity does not require observation for it to be known. In fact, the entire make of the universe requires no observation at all to be known if one is extremely intelligent.
That is NOT what my signature implies.
“Nothing can be what it is and remain as it is.”
All things are changing at all times. But at any one time, everything is exactly what it is and nothing that it is not.
Anything contrary to that is direct mental nihilation into total blind mindlessness … easy prey for social engineers to manipulate.
Nah… The law of identity requires something to exist, and the only way something can exist is if something else exists… otherwise everything is exactly the same and it is nothing at all. Everything is partly something else through quantum imposition… a part of you is a part of me, though we are also separate. One cannot be “intelligent” if there’s no otherness, because they wouldn’t exist.
You lost this debate James, you just haven’t figured it out yet.
Then A=-A, and the law of identity would resolve in the law of contradiction, within that instance, and that would be the instance of existence. Right? So, Parmenides would be right, but only in that instance. Heraclitus, would be right in the ‘other’, the instance of existence.
A is only approximately equal to A, in order to write the equation, one A needs to be slightly different than the other A.