The cosmic regional block

[WinterHold]

When I personally judge the design; consistency is what impresses me.

This is what to expect in an existence that is logical. If existence were not logical, it wouldn't make sense to exist. So it's not just that something has to exist, but something logical has to exist.

It's not an indicator of design. You see design because of the way you are wired, but it doesn't mean intended cosmic design is a thing.

Logic has different types; if something "makes sense", then something is "logical"; the "sense" though differs from one definition to the other.
There is no criteria to validate the best logical model. Something might exist under different "logical approaches" that we know nothing about.

Science's accuracy in measuring the variables around us, is not an indication that it will be accurate when applied to "different" variable types. Quantum Mechanics are my example: physical laws failed in that dimension.

I don't know about whether physical laws do fail at the quantum level. I think it's more like there's a gap in knowledge there, which is better left to the proper scientists to fill using the proper means to attain reasonable math-based or evidence-based knowledge.

Particles proved to exist in two locations at the same time at a quantum level.

[GrandizerII]

This is what to expect in an existence that is logical. If existence were not logical, it wouldn't make sense to exist. So it's not just that something has to exist, but something logical has to exist.

It's not an indicator of design. You see design because of the way you are wired, but it doesn't mean intended cosmic design is a thing.

Logic has different types; if something "makes sense", then something is "logical"; the "sense" though differs from one definition to the other.
There is no criteria to validate the best logical model. Something might exist under different "logical approaches" that we know nothing about.

You can make a logical argument based on whatever model that's reasonable, and then analyze it to see if the premises lead to conclusion and the argument is sound/unsound or leads to exactly true/false conclusions.

Particles proved to exist in two locations at the same time at a quantum level.

Depends on how you're defining "particles". Don't be misled.

[Brian37]

Until this moment in time; infinity has been a concept, moreover a mere thought on paper.
Most assume it's there; but nobody can ever grasp it.

From a philosophical perspective; it's not possible to measure infinite quantities using finite methods and tools.

But doesn't that put forth the "why" question? Why is everything limited and everything has a limit?
It's literally a cosmic regional block: we are stuck on this dimension; with trillions of values to keep us busy, while infinity is beyond our reach, metaphorically and literally.

What a constraint; if you think about it !

The why is not the primary question scientific method focuses on, but "how" and does not need a "who" as a starting point gap answer.

And no, the idea of the infinite and finite overlapping is simple middle school math. You can LITERALLY draw a finite line on a piece of paper and have an infinite number of integers between.

"Who" as claimed by religious people really is NOTHING MORE than our species protecting it's own qualities in the form of non existent super heros.

Our species was not put here by a super hero. Our plant, our sun, our galaxy nor the universe are a product of a sky wizard by any name.

[WinterHold]

Until this moment in time; infinity has been a concept, moreover a mere thought on paper.
Most assume it's there; but nobody can ever grasp it.

From a philosophical perspective; it's not possible to measure infinite quantities using finite methods and tools.

But doesn't that put forth the "why" question? Why is everything limited and everything has a limit?
It's literally a cosmic regional block: we are stuck on this dimension; with trillions of values to keep us busy, while infinity is beyond our reach, metaphorically and literally.

What a constraint; if you think about it !

The why is not the primary question scientific method focuses on, but "how" and does not need a "who" as a starting point gap answer.

And no, the idea of the infinite and finite overlapping is simple middle school math. You can LITERALLY draw a finite line on a piece of paper and have an infinite number of integers between.

"Who" as claimed by religious people really is NOTHING MORE than our species protecting it's own qualities in the form of non existent super heros.

Our species was not put here by a super hero. Our plant, our sun, our galaxy nor the universe are a product of a sky wizard by any name.

Not if you took the problem to "spacetime": or this dimension.

The line will never extend past time. Unless we assume that dimensions are loose -with ability to be removed or taken away when wanted-.
Time never stops; as far as science and humans know.

From here; the question asks the thinker: "if time never stops; what prevents infinity from existing"?
God is thought about the same, books like the Quran and religions like Islam strengthen that belief furthermore.

[GrandizerII]

The why is not the primary question scientific method focuses on, but "how" and does not need a "who" as a starting point gap answer.

And no, the idea of the infinite and finite overlapping is simple middle school math. You can LITERALLY draw a finite line on a piece of paper and have an infinite number of integers between.

"Who" as claimed by religious people really is NOTHING MORE than our species protecting it's own qualities in the form of non existent super heros.

Our species was not put here by a super hero. Our plant, our sun, our galaxy nor the universe are a product of a sky wizard by any name.

Not if you took the problem to "spacetime": or this dimension.

The line will never extend past time. Unless we assume that dimensions are loose -with ability to be removed or taken away when wanted-.
Time never stops; as far as science and humans know.

From here; the question asks the thinker: "if time never stops; what prevents infinity from existing"?
God is thought about the same, books like the Quran and religions like Islam strengthen that belief furthermore.

We need to consider the possibility that in this physical local universe (not abstract mathematics), it may not be the case that when we draw a line, we are drawing a line of infinite points. After all, Planck length may be the smallest unit of length possible in this universe. And that may explain why one is able to draw a line or move a certain amount of distance or catch up to the tortoise and speed past it.

Now when it comes to time and space, this is going beyond just this one universe, and it seems like time and space both have to be infinite. There is no "before/after time" or "beyond space" ultimately. You can argue that you can be beyond a certain regional space, but not space ultimately. Just the same for time. You can argue that you can be beyond a certain time stream, but not beyond time ultimately. I say this while ignoring the presentism vs. eternalism debate here, btw. Under eternalism, time is a coordinate/dimension of space (just like length, width, height).

Either way, not sure why God should be deduced from all this. Existence consisting of infinities need not a god behind it.