Why religion could be true

[Jason]

The problem with metaphysics, and probably why there is not a great body of literature addressing it directly, is that it has to be approached apophatically, meaning by discussing it in terms of that which it is not. No one knows what infinity is. They just know its not finite. No one knows what eternity is, they just know its not time bound etc. No matter what you believe, we all know no one can describe it for what it actually is.

Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga will use alternate world models found in quantum mechanics to try to get at it. At that point, I personally check out as its beyond me and my philosophical curiosity/ability when discussions about things I already barely understand extend to whether we could have had the exact same conversation that I barely understand yesterday. However, the issue with alternate world theories is that people will still want their metaphysical system to be non-negotiable. A theist will not allow a model that does not pre-suppose the existence of God into the equation and a materialist will not allow one that does. So its just kind of re-arranging the deck furniture on the Titanic to the one who opposes that metaphysical system. Or at least the ones I've heard.

[fiby41]

No one knows what infinity is. They just know its not finite. No one knows what eternity is, they just know its not time bound etc. No matter what you believe, we all know no one can describe it for what it actually is.

It is not necessary to "know" infinity to study or even define its properties.

All this is infinite. All that is infinite.
From infinity, infinity comes.
When infinity is taken from infinity,
Infinity still remains.
Om shanti shanti shanti

Shaante Mantra in the Isha Upanishad

This defines the infinite by giving it's properties.

∞+∞=∞
All operation, except division in which infinity is in denominator, in which infinity gets involved results in infinity.

∞-∞ is still equal to ∞ only, and not zero, as you correctly noted we don't know what number/value that infinity is, and the first infinity might very well be greater than the second infinity.

One could say the same about zero that no one knows what zero is. But if one knows the commutative, associative, additive identity and distributive properties of zero, then they can use it all the same.

[Jason]

All this is infinite. All that is infinite.
From infinity, infinity comes.
When infinity is taken from infinity,
Infinity still remains.
Om shanti shanti shanti

Shaante Mantra in the Isha Upanishad

That's a pantheistic metaphysical definition of infinity.

The theist will say that infinity is created (distinct substance from the deity), contingent, distinct from eternity (existing only in time, not eternity) and completely known by its creator.

The materialist will say infinity is non-contingent, an expression of time (therefore potentially destructible), not self-emanating nor self-perpetuating.

So although its agreed infinity is not throughly knowable, one's worldview conditions how one will frame the discussion and process the "facts." That's why there are no "brute" facts. People can't help but process data according to the pre-suppositions that they have either knowingly or unknowingly committed themselves to. That's how I was defining "religious." We are all interpreting the universe through such commitments. And essentially, there are really only three of them.

[fiby41]

At the hazard of sounding monotheistic- there is only one true definition of infinity- the mathematically correct one.

[Jason]

Yes, you are sounding monotheistic. But you are also sounding materialistic. And while we are at it, you are also sounding pantheistic.

That's because no one is arguing that infinity is not a mathematical concept. The issue is that people have different views of where the laws of mathematics are "found."

The monotheistic is actually saying that because metaphysically, the laws of mathematics originated in the mind of the divine being, epistemologically, He is the only one that has archetypal knowledge of them i.e. infinite knowledge of infinity. We though only have ectypal knowledge of infinity - limited knowledge. True yet not exhaustive knowledge. Einstein said something to the extent that he was chasing the mind of God (I understand that does not by default make him a theist). The theist will agree that the materialist and the pantheistic can understand mathematics as well as the theist, Possibly even better. He will say, yes they can count, but he will also say that they cannot "account for counting" because they have a faulty metaphysical view of the universe that does not accurately explain where/how the laws of mathematics are found and came to be i.e. in a randomly generated universe with no divine origin, how do you explain the existence such an intricate system of laws.

Of course the materialists have an argument, I'm not saying they don't. Its just that's its a point of disagreement. From a practical standpoint, we can all take the same math course. It's just that when you probe deeper, there are different systems operating beneath it.

[fiby41]

Einstein said something to the extent that he was chasing the mind of God (I understand that does not by default make him a theist).

Why not?

If God has a brain, then He also has a face, hands, body.

God is a Person-- not a cloud of dust, or a ball of energy or a speaking-bush on fire.

[Jason]

I did not mean what God actually is, but how Einstein conceived him. Deists believe in God, but don't imbue him with personal attributes that make them morally responsible to him. They give him creative ability but not providential ability, especially in a moral sense. That's is the why the deists use the imagery of the watchmaker winding up the watch and letting it wind. It was the defining definition of God during the enlightenment period and one I believe Einstein worked with.

I was historically contextualizing the argument in deference to Einstein's statements. But I'm sure your superficial renderings of what you think God is would have brought him to whatever version of truth you are comfortable with.