May we say that God exists in the same manner that 'an infinitude' of primes are said to exist?

Why or why not?

(If you are uncomfortable with 'God' replace with 'I')

God exists.

God is dead.

But on another note.. what do you mean? I do not understand your question.

If I am going to participate I guess I am going to have to assume the existance of God :rolleyes: I am about 50/50 on the whole thing. And assuming he DOES exist, I claim he is deistic (that is, set everything in motion and since, has not and will not interfer).

May we say that God exists in the same manner that 'an infinitude' of primes are said to exist?

Why or why not?

(If you are uncomfortable with 'God' replace with 'I')
You mean like a Platonic existence? No sex. So sad.

Yes, it may be said in such a way... with regard to the fact that there is no actuality in the sense of space-time to such an existence. An "infinitude" is a concept that leads to a conclusion that can never be actualized. "god" is a similar concept, of only intellectual substance. The idea of god exists. In the same way the value of the topmost number of an infinutude is forever elusive, so is the notion of god.

What is wrong with the infinite. Is it too absurd for your minds to handle? ;)

What is wrong with the infinite. Is it too absurd for your minds to handle? ;)

Give me the value of the topmost prime number then, fool.

SS,

You've made a category mistake. While both concepts 'god' and 'an infinitude of primes' are artificial constructions with no ontological correlate, the latter is functional, while the former is not.
So no, they do not exist in the same 'manner'.

Give me the value of the topmost prime number then, fool.
That's just a measurement, fool. :rolleyes:

I still do not understand what he means by comparing "God" or "I" with the "number" of primes. Anyone care to explain?

That's just a measurement, fool. :rolleyes:

No, it isn't. It's not a measurement of any kind. It's a number that doesn't exist. That's why there's a fancy symbol to show that such a number doesn't exist. Clueless little bitch.

No, it isn't. It's not a measurement of any kind. It's a number that doesn't exist. That's why there's a fancy symbol to show that such a number doesn't exist. Clueless little bitch.

Well said Wes.

SS,

You've made a category mistake. While both concepts 'god' and 'an infinitude of primes' are artificial constructions with no ontological correlate, the latter is functional, while the former is not.
So no, they do not exist in the same 'manner'.

Unless you're being quite specific with your use of the term "functional", and have not clarified... you're obviously mistaken.

"god" as an artificial construct with no ontological correlate (love that phrase by the way) serves a significant function in human affairs. It has also served the function of the success of our species to a very, very large degree IMO. Without bullshit to bond us in purpose, I'm pretty sure we would have gone extinct long ago.

Well said Wes.

Hehe, unfortunatley the notion of god also lends to the continued existence of smug, clueless little cunts. (by people calling upon its divinity to invoke rule of law and such)

What is wrong with the infinite. Is it too absurd for your minds to handle? ;)

Since you can't even demonstrate a clear understanding of what "infinity" means, it would show some class (for a huge fucking change) for you to kindly retract your absurd stupidity.

No, it isn't. It's not a measurement of any kind. It's a number that doesn't exist. That's why there's a fancy symbol to show that such a number doesn't exist. Clueless little bitch.

Given basic axioms, such as a + b = b + a, 1 != 0, and 0 is the identity element of addition, and some others, show 1+1 cannot be 1 or 0.

Basically the point of it is to show we need to invent a new symbol for 1+1...

Sorry.

Unless you're being quite specific with your use of the term "functional", and have not clarified... you're obviously mistaken.


You're correct; I failed to qualify my usage of 'functional'. What I meant here is functional in the more architectural sense: a conceit that serves as a foundational basis to assist in the development of an applicable system. The function of an 'infinity' within the mathematical system (as you pointed out) is a necessary one; without it, there can be no cardinal numbers, no irrationals, etc. I would argue that the concept 'god' has no such similar function. At best, it could be argued that it has served as a basis for a number of ethical systems, but if this line of thought were pursued, I would rebut that those ethical systems have failed miserably, moreover, that the role of the 'god' concept within them is superfluous to a great extent.


...
It has also served the function of the success of our species to a very, very large degree IMO.


I couldn't disagree more. Assuming we're both referring to the Western monotheistic concept here, the representative ethical systems involved have been responsible for more physical and mental harm than any other social structure we have devised.



Without bullshit to bond us in purpose, I'm pretty sure we would have gone extinct long ago.


Now, with this, I am in complete agreement. In my opinion however, the effective 'bonding bullshit' has been those elements of cultural systems rather than religious ones.

Given basic axioms, such as a + b = b + a, 1 != 0, and 0 is the identity element of addition, and some others, show 1+1 cannot be 1 or 0.

Basically the point of it is to show we need to invent a new symbol for 1+1...

Sorry.

you didn't define your number system.

in the one you use, the answer could be expressed in the symbols provide.

"10"

Given basic axioms, such as a + b = b + a, 1 != 0, and 0 is the identity element of addition, and some others, show 1+1 cannot be 1 or 0.

Basically the point of it is to show we need to invent a new symbol for 1+1...

Sorry.

Nice tangent here...

I don't know Absane... wouldn't that simply be evidence to the fact that there really are only 2 numbers : 1 and 0 ???

In any case, as I'm sure you're aware, 2 is simply a symbol to represent the class of 2-membered classes.

You're correct; I failed to qualify my usage of 'functional'. What I meant here is functional in the more architectural sense: a conceit that serves as a foundational basis to assist in the development of an applicable system. The function of an 'infinity' within the mathematical system (as you pointed out) is a necessary one; without it, there can be no cardinal numbers, no irrationals, etc.

Okay...

I would argue that the concept 'god' has no such similar function.

Ah, now this is interesting. Me likey. I will argue to refute this, because in the past few years my understanding has changed to reflect it. Let the game begin. :) It may already be over though, as I'll explain.

At best, it could be argued that it has served as a basis for a number of ethical systems, but if this line of thought were pursued, I would rebut that those ethical systems have failed miserably, moreover, that the role of the 'god' concept within them is superfluous to a great extent.

No no no, you're completley ignoring the tribe. I'll get to it in a second. We need to clarify first though...

I couldn't disagree more. Assuming we're both referring to the Western monotheistic concept here, the representative ethical systems involved have been responsible for more physical and mental harm than any other social structure we have devised.

Okay before I bother putting much effort into this, I must specify. I did not mean the western monotheistic concept. I mean it, and every other stinking god ever invented - and the non-stinky ones, were they actually conceived. If your objection can be expanded to this scope, we have a debate. Gonna gitcha. :) (lol)

Now, with this, I am in complete agreement. In my opinion however, the effective 'bonding bullshit' has been those elements of cultural systems rather than religious ones.

And from where do you presume those cultural elements to be derived? I think it's largely through god(s). I'll await your reply regarding scope before drivelling onward.

(oh and I must agree that absane had a nice tangent)

Okay before I bother putting much effort into this, I must specify. I did not mean the western monotheistic concept. I mean it, and every other stinking god ever invented - and the non-stinky ones, were they actually conceived. If your objection can be expanded to this scope, we have a debate. Gonna gitcha. :) (lol)

Aaaah. Well then, I'm afraid we have no debate Wes. I am in agreement with you. The purely spiritual concept 'deity' I would say, does indeed function in exactly the way you speak of.



And from where do you presume those cultural elements to be derived? I think it's largely through god(s). I'll await your reply before drivelling onward.



Exactly. It all flows from thence.

Interesting thought however: assuming we're currently experiencing a rapid decline in this 'upward-looking' cultural phenomenon, what happens then? What does (if anything) replace the deity notion, with respect to its functional aspect?

I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear yours...

Glaucon: You might find this a somewhat interesting discussion regarding the potential debate. Good god (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49907)! In fact, if you reject what's there you can obviously just revive the thread. I'd like to hear your reaction to it either way.

Glaucon: You might find this a somewhat interesting discussion regarding the potential debate. Good god (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49907)! In fact, if you reject what's there you can obviously just revive the thread. I'd like to hear your reaction to it either way.

Cool.
I'm off to check it out.
I won't be able to reply 'till later on though... I'm off to the beach...

p.s. Isn't it strange how the thread-starters so rarely stay on top of their threads?
'We hates it."

Damn you man! I can't get you to argue. Godamned like-minded bastard. :)

Hmm... oh, and in regard to your final sentence above...

Wellsir, I think we've got a ways to go before this cultural phenomenon of which you speak purges itself. I don't think it's a safe assumption to say it is. We are complicated apes my friend, and to be frank, most people don't have something it takes to abandon such notions. I'm not sure if they were to, that the world would be "better" either.

There is the issue of "the singularity" that comes to mind as an x-factor that complicates the issue absurdly. I should however, be a gentleman and accept your assumption for the purposes of my further response.

Okay, it's my opinion that percieved economic welfare is the first candidate to replace this. By this I mean "that to which I have become accustomed, I deserve". I think there is a strong pursuasive argument to be made by the charismatic manipulators to this end. I think it's already in play, some with "god says it's okay" and some without. Perhaps though, this does not bond us enough to really serve the same purpose.

I suppose I have a hard time accepting the assumption. Sorry, but I don't see it happening, ever, amongst humanity. When and if we evolve into something else I do see it as a possibility. In that possibility, it seems to me that the search for superior comprehension and knowledge may suffice in the same role, but I'm not sure of course... if it is viable. As a human who is not in the presence of what humans may become, or "birth" I have difficulty relating to it.

Sometimes I think the function of humanity was nailed by the matrix movies to some degree at least, in that we are to create intelligent machines and become extinct by their will. For real. It seems logical to me in the flow of evolution. I doubt however, if indeed such a thing were to come to pass... that the matrix would ever be built, or that there would be "one" to save us all.

Of course that's just crazy talk. There's no way to know how conscious machines will relate to us, or if they'll even acknowledge us, or anything of the sort. I'm quite convinced however, that they're coming.

God who?
I what?

Tell me what you believe and I’ll tell you what you lack.

Wait.

Okay I got this one.

I believe uh... hmm.

Wait I had it...

Yeah. I believe some stuff that's inconsequential for the most part if you're not me. I believe I have a family. I believe I love them and that they are cool. I believe I can read. I believe I can usually fix a broken computer. I believe I'm basically a hedonist. I believe this is air I'm breathing. I believe I like cigars to mix with that air. I believe that 1+1=2.

What do I lack?

SS,

You've made a category mistake. While both concepts 'god' and 'an infinitude of primes' are artificial constructions with no ontological correlate, the latter is functional, while the former is not.
So no, they do not exist in the same 'manner'.

So you are saying that there are types of existence?

Also could you explain a little more what this difference is and what you mean by the prime numbers not having an "ontological correlate"? Do you mean God is given 'value' but primes are not?

p.s. Isn't it strange how the thread-starters so rarely stay on top of their threads?
'We hates it."

Sorry glaucon. I'm here now. Better late than.. never.

The prompt was inspired by this paragraph:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#2

However I'd advise you not to visit the first link under a Google search for 'god prime numbers'.

I'm curious to know how your responses to the prompt can lead to resolutions of whether logic can be used to disprove the existence of God, and as a consequence, may be used to prove/disprove existence in general.

So you are saying that there are types of existence?


Indeed I am. A unicorn shares a different type of existence from a tree, as it does from Oliver Twist.



Also could you explain a little more what this difference is and what you mean by the prime numbers not having an "ontological correlate"? Do you mean God is given 'value' but primes are not?


By 'ontological correlate' I mean that it is impossible to encounter these things in our everyday life. No one can point to 'god' or a prime number. Furthermore, no one can find evidence of them. They are pure creations.
Valuation has nothing to do with it; that would be to move into the ethical realm.


Sorry glaucon. I'm here now. Better late than.. never.

No need.
I was simply making a trite observation. And again, I do thank you for an interesting thread.


I'm curious to know how your responses to the prompt can lead to resolutions of whether logic can be used to disprove the existence of God, and as a consequence, may be used to prove/disprove existence in general.

Interesting stuff.
Again however, as is all too often the case, we tread into ethics here.
Logic cannot prove/disprove the existence of anything that is beyond its scope. Remember, logic is a formal system based upon axioms that have been deemed to be necessary. As such, logic is strictly limited to post hoc reasoning: we can only deduce and elucidate that which is understood already. Concepts like god, or existence 'in general' are as artificial as 'unicorn', and therefore do not render themselves to the use of logic.

No, it isn't. It's not a measurement of any kind. It's a number that doesn't exist. That's why there's a fancy symbol to show that such a number doesn't exist. Clueless little bitch.
No numbers exist, you idiot.

Nice tangent here...

I don't know Absane... wouldn't that simply be evidence to the fact that there really are only 2 numbers : 1 and 0 ???

In any case, as I'm sure you're aware, 2 is simply a symbol to represent the class of 2-membered classes.

Well, and this goes to Wes, too.

I didn't really post all the axioms I am aware of, or not aware of. I could if I felt like it. There are about 22 or so in the book "Mathematical Thinking and Writing." They are the assumptions of R.

It's rather cool though.. proving a*0=0, for example. The book works up from the axioms up to group theory and basic calculus.

I cannot find the exact problem about 1+1 but if I ever do, I'll say something about it somewhere someday.

Oh well, back on topic.

By 'ontological correlate' I mean that it is impossible to encounter these things in our everyday life. No one can point to 'god' or a prime number. Furthermore, no one can find evidence of them. They are pure creations.
Valuation has nothing to do with it; that would be to move into the ethical realm.

I am assuming from your previous admission that this assertion ("they are pure creations) is not based in logic. One interesting thing here is the empirical statement "Furthermore, no one can find evidence of them. They are pure creations." I presume you mean for the second sentence to proceed from the first but it is not clear how this is possible if logic is inadmissible in these circumstances. Also, given that the types of existence between God and the primes are not the same, why do you think it is justifiable to use an empirical foundation as a basis for your blanket conclusion?

Logic cannot prove/disprove the existence of anything that is beyond its scope. Remember, logic is a formal system based upon axioms that have been deemed to be necessary. As such, logic is strictly limited to post hoc reasoning: we can only deduce and elucidate that which is understood already. Concepts like god, or existence 'in general' are as artificial as 'unicorn', and therefore do not render themselves to the use of logic.

Before you answer my questions above, maybe it will be beneficial to explain how we can know what is and is not beyond the scope of logic's ability to provide ontological deductions? (How can we say that God, which is "artificial" as are the primes, is "beyond" the scope of logic?) I am sure theologians are able to organize their faiths into axioms from which all else proceeds 'logically' and that these systems are similarly useful for reaching ontological conclusions.

You are right in the sense that in the same way mathematics is not used to prove the existence of primes (this is a matter of definition), a theology may not be used to prove the existence of God. But what can be the basis then for saying 'I exist' or 'Look at that tree' or 'God does not exist'? From your response I think you have full confidence in the empirical tradition but I'm prodding to see how a rationalist might respond to these kinds of questions. An empirical prejudice, I think, can leave such questions with a sort-of 'Empiricism is true so ..... is false'. But in the case of our world where a theist, for example, might not rest as fully as you do on empiricism alone ("the universe is here but God effected it"), you can see how simply saying 'my axioms are obviously true therefore yours are not' stifles philosophy's flexibility.

However I'd advise you not to visit the first link under a Google search for 'god prime numbers'.
I HAD to, of course.

http://66619.org/prmeno.htm

WOW! :eek:

I wonder how some people manage to simply survive day to day.

Regarding the question of whether we will ever evolve past the need for deities (paraphrased, of course)...
Until and unless science can offer irrefutable proof of what happens after death, whether or not there is a soul, how, exactly abiogeneis occurred (occurrs) and exactly how the universe formed, there will always be a need for deities.
As long as there are still mysteries, there will be God(s).
Interestingly enough, you could say the same about science and discovery.
So, until we evolve into beings that are either omniscient, or blissfully ignorant we will need science and God(s).

Without bullshit to bond us in purpose, I'm pretty sure we would have gone extinct long ago.

Wow, great statement! So great, I am going to plagiarize the hell out of it. Hope ya' don't mind my dear overlord :m:

Doesn't seem to matter eh? :bugeye:

Lol. that's plagirific!

You are right in the sense that in the same way mathematics is not used to prove the existence of primes (this is a matter of definition), a theology may not be used to prove the existence of God. But what can be the basis then for saying 'I exist' or 'Look at that tree' or 'God does not exist'? From your response I think you have full confidence in the empirical tradition but I'm prodding to see how a rationalist might respond to these kinds of questions. An empirical prejudice, I think, can leave such questions with a sort-of 'Empiricism is true so ..... is false'. But in the case of our world where a theist, for example, might not rest as fully as you do on empiricism alone ("the universe is here but God effected it"), you can see how simply saying 'my axioms are obviously true therefore yours are not' stifles philosophy's flexibility.


I agree with you with respect to the flexibility concern, but I can't say that I'm sure we need to be excessively flexible. At least not to the point where we make concessions to theists. The problem being, that a theist behaves primarily based upon belief (by necessity..), to the exception of any empirical argument. And therein lies my concern: those who fail to recognize the merit of empirical data cannot be taken seriously.

As to how a rationalist might respond, I cannot say (although, they do share a great similarity with the theists, at least in the structural sense..).



Before you answer my questions above, maybe it will be beneficial to explain how we can know what is and is not beyond the scope of logic's ability to provide ontological deductions? (How can we say that God, which is "artificial" as are the primes, is "beyond" the scope of logic?) I am sure theologians are able to organize their faiths into axioms from which all else proceeds 'logically' and that these systems are similarly useful for reaching ontological conclusions.

I'm sure they can as well. Just as I'm sure their logic, while perhaps valid, is unsound. The problem arises from the 'nature' (sic) of their axiom: namely, it is not natural, nor is there not only any empirical data to make use of, but there is also no sound ontological case to be made for it. I refer here to the one axiom a theist needs: 'god'. Unlike the axioms of logic, or of mathematics, the god axiom enjoys no ontological corrrelate (as I've said before). We can readily observe the law of non-contradiction: my hand cannot both be at my side and in my pocket; similarly, we can observe the multiplicative law: 2 groups of 2 apples = 2+2=4, so, 2x2=4. We can, and indeed do make use of these operations throughout our daily lives, but at no point whatsoever am I led to make use of the idea of an 'all powerful, invisible, eternal creature'.


I am assuming from your previous admission that this assertion ("they are pure creations) is not based in logic. One interesting thing here is the empirical statement "Furthermore, no one can find evidence of them. They are pure creations." I presume you mean for the second sentence to proceed from the first but it is not clear how this is possible if logic is inadmissible in these circumstances. Also, given that the types of existence between God and the primes are not the same, why do you think it is justifiable to use an empirical foundation as a basis for your blanket conclusion?

You presume incorrectly. From my point of view, the 2 statements are synonymous. My assertion(s) are indeed based upon logic. Admittedly in this case, I'm making use of induction: given the facticity of the existence of these axioms, while finding no derived source of them, I must conclude that they are creations. I find it quite justifiable to conclude in this way because of Ockham's Razor: it is the simplest solution. While I have no empirical data to support the concept of 'unicorn', I can of course devise an empirical argument as to how their existence might have come about, or have been (if they did exist they must have been a sort of horse - narwhal hybrid...). I see no reason to make use of anything but an empirical foundation when dealing with any sort of question. In fact, it would be illogical not to: we have an established history of empirical reasoning that performs very well for us, much better than any other basis. Given that, why would one discard hundreds of years of dividends simply because one is confronted by something that may not fit into the system? The greatest power of our empirical history is its ability to be revised. And yet, the method does not suffer, but only becomes a more powerful explanatory device.

:-)

I HAD to, of course.

http://66619.org/prmeno.htm

WOW! :eek:

I wonder how some people manage to simply survive day to day.

I say WOW, too. Perhaps he has a mental disorder.

Perhaps?

I agree with you with respect to the flexibility concern, but I can't say that I'm sure we need to be excessively flexible. At least not to the point where we make concessions to theists. The problem being, that a theist behaves primarily based upon belief (by necessity..), to the exception of any empirical argument. And therein lies my concern: those who fail to recognize the merit of empirical data cannot be taken seriously.

As to how a rationalist might respond, I cannot say (although, they do share a great similarity with the theists, at least in the structural sense..).

I think your generalization is a bit hasty. There are theists out there who claim that the empirical data serves to reinforce (or even inspires) their belief. I don't want to comment on whether they are mistaken or not but the fact that this brand of believers (those who do not 'fail to recognize' the merit of empirical arguments, but merely interpret them differently) exists makes your own claims (even those about you being an empiricist ;) ) questionable.

I also notice that after I point out that using the 'my axioms are obviously true therefore yours are not' argument is pointless, you still maintain that 'those who fail to recognize the merit of empirical data cannot be taken seriously.'

I'm sure they can as well. Just as I'm sure their logic, while perhaps valid, is unsound. The problem arises from the 'nature' (sic) of their axiom: namely, it is not natural, nor is there not only any empirical data to make use of, but there is also no sound ontological case to be made for it. I refer here to the one axiom a theist needs: 'god'. Unlike the axioms of logic, or of mathematics, the god axiom enjoys no ontological corrrelate (as I've said before). We can readily observe the law of non-contradiction: my hand cannot both be at my side and in my pocket; similarly, we can observe the multiplicative law: 2 groups of 2 apples = 2+2=4, so, 2x2=4. We can, and indeed do make use of these operations throughout our daily lives, but at no point whatsoever am I led to make use of the idea of an 'all powerful, invisible, eternal creature'.

Most assuredly, no man has ever measured, in your 'empirical' sense, any hypotenuse or circumference of length sqrt 2, or pi.

Do you accept that using the argument you have provided above, I can discount the existence of any object with properties measurable in irrational/infinitely repeating numbers? Shall we then say that circles (or circular objects) do not exist?

In fact, I challenge you to derive the existence of these numbers ("the[ir] ontological correlate") from 'our daily lives'. If you say only the whole numbers are applicable in such cases, then you are equivocating.

I believe you have also skirted the issue. Since we have accepted God as an axiom it is useless to speak of being led to make use of 'it' since that implies that God is a 'theorem' (that God follows from certain empirical observations, whatever they may be to you). In fact, a great many things (electric fields and the infinity concept, for example) are nullified by your argument.

I must also note that if you continue to circularly assume that the 'God' axiom is unobservable (and therefore unnecessary) simply because your own axioms are necessary/true (or whatever adjective), then the theist is also very much justified in making the same counterargument from the premise that his own axiom is true.

You presume incorrectly. From my point of view, the 2 statements are synonymous. My assertion(s) are indeed based upon logic. Admittedly in this case, I'm making use of induction: given the facticity of the existence of these axioms, while finding no derived source of them, I must conclude that they are creations. I find it quite justifiable to conclude in this way because of Ockham's Razor: it is the simplest solution. While I have no empirical data to support the concept of 'unicorn', I can of course devise an empirical argument as to how their existence might have come about, or have been (if they did exist they must have been a sort of horse - narwhal hybrid...). I see no reason to make use of anything but an empirical foundation when dealing with any sort of question. In fact, it would be illogical not to: we have an established history of empirical reasoning that performs very well for us, much better than any other basis. Given that, why would one discard hundreds of years of dividends simply because one is confronted by something that may not fit into the system? The greatest power of our empirical history is its ability to be revised. And yet, the method does not suffer, but only becomes a more powerful explanatory device.

:-)

Here's the problem again. You are making a sweeping generalization by saying theists discount empirical evidence when all they do (or at least most of them) is interpret it differently. You think a 'God' axiom is unnecessary because of the strength of empiricism but you must remember also that you are circularly assuming that empiricism is true because it has been.. gasp.. observed to be true. This might be fine for real life (and it is I'm sure) but we are still speaking in terms of philosophy. Circular reasoning cannot here lend credence to the argument.

Consider this: a human, blind from birth, claims using your logic that light/colors/images (or whatever noun) does not exist and is simply a fanciful creation. Do you then "disprove" him by saying that you can see/observe light? Of course not! That would be very circular.

In the same way, a 'pure empircist' and a theist might also see things differently.

Sorry for the delay. I'm getting busier and busier but I'll be free after next week. I'll come back with some interesting proofs from Godel(?) that I found.

God is like the wind, you can't see him . But you can see his effects.

Can we really say that there are different types of existence? I'd say that there are no different types of existence, except in our endless conceptualizations of what is. And I doubt that the mind can grasp what is.

What is just is, despite all attemps to describe, categorize, analyse, etc. What do we know of the world? We know nothing. All that we know are our own conceptual constructions of it, our own mind reflected.

If what you seek to know is what is, just stand still, let go striving, just be. Always you are bathing in the sea of what is, as what is. What you seek to know, you won't know by trying to grasp the nature of things with your mind, but by living and feeling it in your whole being.

just my two cents

Generally in the history of Philosophy numerical infinity (like the kind we see in infinite series of numbers) is not ascribed to God. Usually philosophers who argued for God's existence or the existence of some kind of super-reality (i.e. the One of Plotinus) had a qualitative idea of infinity, in that this infinity was above and beyond any kind of mathematical, conceptual or physical infinity. The exception may be George Cantor, who produced a weird argument for the 'Absolute Infinite' based on his work on set theory.

In our time most seem to accept the idea of a mathematical or physical infinity either actually existing or possibly existing (no philosopher seems to have an issue with the universe being infinite, if general relativity predicted it) but there are strong issues which can't be verified by mathematical or logical concepts, such as God's infinity (if God exists). Such statements about the nature of 'God' seem to be meaningless, because they talk about an entity which can't be defined, understood or measured.