Your hilarious "infinity of infinities religion" fell apart in its first application to the real world.
You say there is an infinite number of smaller possibilities between the written number "1" and the written number "2". However if I get two electrons in the real world, there are not an infinite number of smaller and smaller electrons between them, are there? 
In fact you don't actually have a clue what goes on in the real world at all.
You think the Big Bang was an explosion.You think photons have to receive ongoing power to keep going in a vacuum.
You really need to go read a basic science book.
Mathew, even though your objective all this time has been to dispute my arguments, debating with you, and others, along with answering questions, helped significantly in solidifying "Infinitism." Despite therefore of the objective in your efforts (futile in my opinion), namely to "debunk" my theories and philosophy in general; and as a moderator put it once the "Innocuous" characterizations of me, by mostly you and occasionally some of the other interlocutors (strongly "innocuous" in fact, to say the least), I am grateful for your and their time and effort. That is why I do not mind you or others having the last word, seeing that debating has achieved my objective; I am just waiting for it to be something, positive, or substantial or even sufficient enough in ending the conversation in a good note.
I know that you are a very learned and intelligent person, and while others can see it too, by scrolling up or searching your other blogs (in which, albeit you mostly harshly to severely harshly criticize other people's work, instead of you sharing your point of view, wisdom, imagination and knowledge in a positive; way as I have already mentioned to you on one occasion in the past, where you were ripping apart a poor lamb like a hungry wolf); some people that won't put the effort, or due to personal perspective may not be able to see through your debating tactics; they may actually think that you cannot tell the difference between say, the "real world" use of the word "time" and the statement that in the "unreal world" of the microcosm, and the macrocosm, and in actuality; time is an illusion of the effect of gravity - not even an emerging property.
Between a "1" and another "1" which make a "2", there are not "infinite possibilities", but infinite "1's" which make infinite "2's." Infinite segments, as far as we could ever measure, and within them, infinite more! The term "infinite possibilities" would apply for example in covering all the possibilities that would be required to have "infinite" futures in order to have as you still believe, a physical, dimensional time (which would imply replicated Infinites which is impossible and therefore a nullified concept.).
In the "real world", engineers, create photons with the same phase and frequency; which is perceived as a laser beam; what happens in the "quantum world," we would have to be able to see it from a particle perspective, to ever be able to be certain.
As I have already mentioned, in the "real world" the concept of time has been adopted along with other means to keep society organized and working like a clock. So I don't have all the time in a day or even a week to go on into circles responding to your arguments, some of which remind me of a lawyer addressing a jury comprised of retail clerks. They may work with them, but they are not worth it my time. I mean, you don't seriously believe that every time Hawking or Einstein referred to the term "God" they were preaching a religion, do you?
Hawking on God:
"Einstein was wrong when he said, 'God does not play dice'. Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."
"Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
"God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator."
"If we do discover a theory of everything… it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would truly know the mind of God."
“God is the name people give to the reason we are here,” he said. “But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”
“What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
Einstein on God:
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."
"I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clock-maker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?"
"We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."
Matthew, you should never let ego come in the way of you being a quick learner! I have told you before to be careful not to "shoot yourself in the foot." When you go hunting, it does not take wisdom to know where to point a gun, before you pull the trigger; it takes common sense! After all, you only have two feet.
Folks don't know their science (/philosophy/religion).
