What do you think of this proposition?

Far out, man. Seriously, that is some heavy sh**. Really made me start thinking. And I think it's a very valid thought. And you know, it may be undefined, but technically, the idea of God is undefined, given that it's something that cannot be scientifically proven.

Dude, I bet you'd be fun to have a conversation with. This just came to you while lying in bed?? Jeez, the only thing I think about upon waking up is how much I need to pee...kinda makes me feel like a pion in comparison! :)

Great question. I thoroughly enjoyed it, as well as all the answers too!

Sorry, but any number "n" divided by infinity becomes zero, not infinity. If you think about it 1/1 = 1, 1/100 = .01, 1/1000000 = .0000001, and so n/infinity is approximately equal to zero and not infinity.

Also, n/0 is undefined. So your math is way off. You should take a calculus course dealing with infinite series.

Also, it has not been proved that there was nothing before the big bang. One of the fundamental laws of physics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it just changes shape or is transferred. This is evidence that all of the energy in the universe existed before the big bang. There are also theories suggesting that there are an infinite number of parallel universes and that we are just in one of many.

Nice try though!

There are two paradigms of what exists. Concepts (thoughts) and the physical. Things that exist in reality require quantification. If by definition infinity is a unquantifiable number, then it can not exist in the physical reality. What makes this so? The key is time. Time implies energy. There is a finite energy supply in the physical reality, so things that take the form n/∞ (zero) can not exist. Thus a timeless reality is required for ∞ and 0. Time produces change, and our minds differentiate this change. We have experience. So long as we are conscious, there can be no ∞ or 0. Now I'm already anticipating disagreement so to make something clear. One could say that there are zero apples in front of me, therefore there can be zero. This is wrong because you need to look at what matter is there. There must be at least one atom/subatomic particle. It is impossible have a perfect vacuum.

I think it's a very valid conclusion. Given that zero is an irrational number, for nothingness is an inconceivable notion, therefore it is inpropable that it could exist (or not exist). Thus ascertaining that nothingness has never been for something has to have had existed at all times and was therefore not the result of an initial creation. If there was no creation then there is no creator and rules out the existence of a god.

Even fixing and assuming that your premisses can be somehow true... (like, by saying that "undefined" can be rightfully understood as "infinity" and by changing "n ÷ 0 = ∞" to something like "n ÷ ∞ = 0"), and which has been well questioned by other contributors, you would have something like:

If...

A thorn gets blood out of you. (Your skin <> Thorn - Bleeding)

and if...

A bullet gets blood out of you. (Your skin <> Bullet - Bleeding)

Then...

The thorn is a bullet? or vice versa?

The argument you've given trusts a lot in our syntactical way of dealing with mathematical objetcs or realms. The general scheme is clearly fallacious though. (Even if there might be some complex valid exceptions to this type of fallacious reasoning, with a some sort of uniqueness clause, I don't think that this is a case)

To the second part of your question; our way to represent and calculate, for example, about infinity and nothingness in arithmetic doesn't have uncontroversial metaphysical translation. This is like saying that "0" might not be the same as "nothing" or "nothingness". For instance, you could have contingent nothingnesses, like (pardon the example, I could not think of a better one) social equality (we almost have non of it), that doesn't mean that we will not ever get some. If we could change society somehow, we can have a lot of social equality. We should represent a metaphysically contingent vacuous set with a metaphysical necessary vacuous set. (Probably there are not problems in doing so, but you would still need to argue in favour of it)

You were giving a lot of illegitimate steps (Good questions though!... because in solving them one clearly improves comprehension...)

As you are unable to divide anything by 0 I can only assume that infinity is = to 0. BUT think about it, 0 IS nothing, but SOMETHING can appear to be infinite. i.e a status, a stretch of water, love, wisdom etc. I then begin to think the two ARE different..........................

Sorry.

n ÷ ∞ = ∞ is incorrect.

n ÷ ∞ = 0

or perhaps more accuratly an ifninitely small number.

you cant devide by zero. undefined. but perhaps that undefined is the infinite. you could indeed be right

but division is only a conception. it is infinite only in the abstract.