Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

No, our existence is *improbable*, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds. Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid *reason* to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.

There is no longshot possible within an empty set, and thus there is no probability of an event occurring.

The empty set claim is unsupported by evidence. It's a theory, (and not even

*your* theory).

The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).

No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.

It is perfectly logical. If our time space is not infinite, then nothing within it could persist outside its scope -- ergo when that scope ceases so does all within and because of information loss none of it would have ever existed.

Such an "if" premise is implausible since it makes a two-part a priori assumption which is unsubstantiated. The conclusion which follows from that invalid assumption is itself, invalid because it does not logically follow from a false/unsubstantiated premise, (which, in turn, means that your claim that "it is perfectly logical" is invalidated as a false claim).

There would be no "well it used to exist" as that time space has been removed from the equation. The paradox is removed if there is an external reference as information loss no longer becomes a factor.

Presenting some 'null jargon' doesn't advance your "proofs" an iota. The assumptions made regarding "space-time do not mathematically-apply to 'supra-existing' universe(s), (e.g., those "parallel" or, alternately-configured 'dimensions' which exist "outside of" so-called

*normal*, (4D), space-time. There's no paradox when

*this* universe is mathematically-considered to be a subset of a larger set, (rather than an "empty set").

I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...

No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'. That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" *itself*.

It is not a strawman as it isn't subject to an attack.

That's not accurate; by conflating a mathematical term, ("imaginary"), with the colloquial, ("not real/tangibly-extant"), you are presenting a tangential strawman argument to draw attacks, rather than have your invalid premise(s) attacked. I'm merely pointing out that the attempt failed because either way, it was caught in a enfilade.

If you wish to try and claim it to be a false parallel you are most welcome to give it the old college try. I will give you a hint to get you started, using relativity, solve for c when under effect of an entropy sink and you will see the relation to existence in the measure of light that is revealed.

I've haven't done differential or tensor field equations in years however, I am familar with the Einstein-Rosen bridge equations. Go look them up, if you are not.

I am not trying to justify anything specific here (the interpretation or alternate explanations/theories are open -- but I did allude to an example that would qualify and I denoted it with a 'for instance'.

That must have been an implied "for instance" since there is no such overt designation. Regardless, you imply lots of things which are dubious and therefore, disregarded as non sequiturs.

Your own prejudice and limitation has blinded you to what I posited. Since you are confused you should reread what I posted.

Nice try projecting your own inherent blind religious faith onto me; the only trouble with that is, I'm not a religious fundie, nor am I easily "confused" by one unless they descend into an opaque morass of irrationality, (which is a rhetorical condition for xtians, admittedly).

For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities *within* that same 'universe'. Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").

That is exactly what is being calculated on here. Singularities are not a continuation of space time, and in fact they might well be considered an end.

Singularities are 'overlapping sets' since they are able to interact via their event horizons which physical objects in

*this* universe while extending a different sort of influence 'outside' of

*this* 4D space-time continium.

Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?

Yes it would be different than the sort of fool you point out in your scripture that you are presenting here.

I'm not the fool relying upon dubious religious "scripture" here; you xtians are.