A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[Belacqua]

Basically, first and foremost this is an abstract idea in my head... ie it including notions such as infinitely divisible, means it could never be faithfully represented if trying to put it into any external form, but at least simplified versions of the idea could in theory be made into 'art'... either as a picture or some sort of sculpture. I've never done that, but it's always been a possibility in the back of my mind. Would you [...] consider such a thing art?

[...]

So when you describe art as a 'fundamental integration of form and content', that's probably not anything like what I've described?

Yes, I'd certainly say it's art. 

And since you are clearly imagining the shape, and seeing how the shape and the combination of lines (which are form) are the way in which the content is expressed, then the form and content are indeed integrated. It's not as if you pick a random shape and then write the meaning on it in words -- the shape is a part of how the meaning is embodied. The fact that the physical object can't actually be infinite isn't a problem, I think -- suggesting or symbolizing that which isn't physically showable is a big part of what it's all about.

Naturally you'd get into questions which ALL artists deal with. For example, the object has a clear and specific meaning for you, but you have to think about to what extent a viewer would be able to pick up this meaning. (Long explanatory labels on the wall of the gallery are cheating.) But a lot of artists are fine with being quite obscure, and have no problem demanding research from the viewer, if their vision leads them that way. Journalism and science books have to be immediately readable on their faces, but art may pose puzzles that reveal themselves through time and effort. 

I also think that there is a strong personal value in imagining such a work. (Which might be somewhat greater if you made the object and kept it handy in your room for the next few decades.) Our ideas are fuzzy and fleeting, and making objects out of them is a way to get them into solid form. From there you have something to grasp and hold on to, and it can prompt in you further ideas that might not have come otherwise. I think of it as a ladder, and each work of art is a step you add at the top, which allows you to go a little higher and see a little further, and allows you to make the next one. 

I'm absolutely snobbish and elitist about art. I also believe that a person can enter at any point, and the reactions you have are valid and valuable, even in the absence of training and experience -- very much so. One way of keeping track of your growth is to look again and again at the same things, and notice how your reactions change over time. No reaction is wrong.

When I am emperor I will mandate some kind of school or institute where people read Proust every ten years, and record their personal growth by how their opinions of the characters change.