Pluralism, Not Relativism

[aurum]

6 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I'd say what Leo is really, really good at is taking advanced epistemic, ontological, and sociological insights and stating them in accessible language.

Thar said, probably the best thing I've done for my own epistemic development is branch away from Leo's work, and put a lot of time and effort into developing my own ideas (which often overlap with Leo's, but also branch off in some significant  ways - and this is a good thing!)

True. Doing your own thinking is important.

Best of luck with your work, I'll keep reading.

[zurew]

14 hours ago, aurum said:

What you have to ultimately reground your epistemology in then is not relativism, but the Absolute itself. Which is infinity.

I can grant that - I just dont see how that solves the epistemic anarchy problem. It almost feels like a backwards pragmatic approach to philosophy, where you ask the question of 'what view could justify itself with 100% certainty' and try to construct something that satisfies that.

Even under the context, where the existence of the Absolute is granted:

1) To me it seems that multiple people can agree on the Absolute being 'real' or 'existing', but still make different interpretations and inferences about it.

2) There are multiple different ways to arrive at the same conclusion about the Absolute (its not constrained to one way of knowing)

 

This goes back to the problem of collapsing epistemology and ontology.

We can agree that the Absolute is real or that it exists, but I fail to see how that claim makes any inherent epistemic claim about a 'right' way of knowing or how that makes any claim about epistemology at all.

Like - I don't see how you would possibly derive from the Absolute existing that 'being is the right/correct way of knowing'.  The Absolute doesn't seem to have any epistemic norms embedded in it.

 

 

14 hours ago, aurum said:

Without that higher authority, suddenly you may feel like you are sliding into total epistemic chaos.

Kind of - but I wouldn't frame this as something where you either have 100% certainty vs you have no certainty at all - there are varying degrees of certainty.

 

I have to mention again that I see a lot of parallels in reasoning with the presups (and I think similar errors are made on this forum as well). Their idea is to ground everything in the all knowing Christian God, where God can deliver epistemic and metaphysical insights through revelation. This is a move, where they attempt to try to get rid of all the fallible and limited human aspects, so that finally we can have the "correct" take about metaphysics epistemology ethics etc with 100% certainty , where there is no more room to be wrong anymore. 

At the end of the day, if God is all knowing - that means that he can tell us all truths, right? The answer is yes, but the issue is establishing that the all knowing Christian God exists without presupposing that he exists. Presups reply to this problem by saying that there are certain transcendental categories that are necessary when it comes to any knowledge claim (for example logic, intelligibility , meaning) - in other words, the idea is that you cant make any knowledge claim without pressuposing those transcendental categories. They also say that you need to ground those transcendental categories and  in order to ground them ,  you need the Christian God and nothing else could satisfy being the ground.

Essentially they end up saying that the existence of the Christian God is logically necessary (all other worldviews are incoherent and they have a contradiction in them), but if you press them on it, they just keep repeating catchphrases like (Im right, due to the impossibility to the contrary'), but they never demonstrate how all other views necessarily contain a contradiction in them, they just assert that to be the case.

So in a nutshell - they answer "how do you know that" question in 2 ways - one is claiming that only their view is coherent and two is saying that they gathered this insight through revelation from God , where they cant be wrong about revelation.

 

 

The parallels are - the idea that you can get rid of the fallible human aspect of philosophy and the idea that all other views are incoherent (contain a contradiction in them) and the idea that you need to collapse epistemology and ontology (the existence of the Christian God is what grounds epistemology).

Now presumably you reject their reasoning and you would label it as question-begging, but when it comes to your reasoning (where structurally you do the exact same), you label question-begging on your side as a postive thing ("feature, not a bug").

I take it that you think that this way of reasoning is a necessary thing in order to justify anything.

There are multiple ways to respond to that

• First way is to grant that what you are saying is true, (that thats the only way to properly justify anything), but that alone doesn't say anything about other views being impossible, it would just mean that other views (where the proposed metaphysics is different to yours) cant 'properly' justify/ground themselves. It would be a pragmatic argument at best.
• Second way is to question the idea that this is the only way to properly justify things and asking for an argument that establish that all other views different to yours are incoherent without question-begging.

 

TL;DR - I don't understand why you are more justified in your view than presups in theirs (or more justified than anyone who use the exact same reasoning structure, where question-begging is allowed). I also dont understand why collapsing epistemology and ontology is helpful in any way at all - if we are allowed to question-beg then maintaining the epistemology-ontology distinction and question-beg that way doesn't seem any worse than collapsing it and question beg that way. It sounds like question begging is taken to be a necessary feature - but question begging is compatible with multiple different metaphysics

 

 

Just as a sidenode - I don't necessarily reject the idea in principle that one could put forth a view where there is 100% certainty that it is true - Its just that the argument that would be required to establish that in a non-question-begging way won't be pulled off in practice (you would need to find a trait  that is in all views except your proposed view and derive a contradiction from that).

Until/Unless that certainty is actually established in a non-question-begging way - I think @DocWatts's epistemic humility (where there is room for error and where there is an acknowledgement of epistemic limitations and where there is constant epsitemic-refinement) is the way to go.

Edited Tuesday at 11:39 AM by zurew

[zurew]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

The parallels are - the idea that you can get rid of the fallible human aspect of philosophy and the idea that all other views are incoherent (contain a contradiction in them) and the idea that you need to collapse epistemology and ontology (the existence of the Christian God is what grounds epistemology).

+1 - their "infallible" non-inferential justification would be revelation , actualized.org's would be awakening

[aurum]

17 hours ago, zurew said:

I can grant that - I just dont see how that solves the epistemic anarchy problem. 

I'm not claiming it "solves it". You just realize that an Absolute exists, which shifts your understanding and epistemology.

The Absolute is the reason for epistemic anarchy.

17 hours ago, zurew said:

1) To me it seems that multiple people can agree on the Absolute being 'real' or 'existing', but still make different interpretations and inferences about

You don't agree about it, you become directly conscious of it. That's what makes it different.

But yes, people could interpret it in different ways. It's not a perfect solution.

17 hours ago, zurew said:

2) There are multiple different ways to arrive at the same conclusion about the Absolute (its not constrained to one way of knowing)

No.

There is only one way: direct consciousness.

17 hours ago, zurew said:

Like - I don't see how you would possibly derive from the Absolute existing that 'being is the right/correct way of knowing'.  The Absolute doesn't seem to have any epistemic norms embedded in it.

It's not that "being" is only the correct way to understand. 

It's that all knowing must eventually derive from Being.

You cannot know anything without existence.

17 hours ago, zurew said:

Now presumably you reject their reasoning and you would label it as question-begging, but when it comes to your reasoning (where structurally you do the exact same), you label question-begging on your side as a postive thing ("feature, not a bug").

No, their reasoning is mostly correct.

God is logically necessary for knowledge to exist. But they corrupt this with Christianity and lack of direct consciousness. 

Before direct consciousness, God is question-begging.

After direct consciousness, God must exist.

Edited Wednesday at 01:05 AM by aurum

[zurew]

On 2025. 05. 21. at 3:04 AM, aurum said:

Before direct consciousness, God is question-begging.

After direct consciousness, God must exist.

The way I use logical necessity (and the way philosophers I know use the term) under that saying what you said would be a category error. Logical necessity isn't affected by time or knowledge or lack of realization.

Its like saying " before I realized that a triangle must have 3 sides, a triangle might have more or less than 3 sides

After realizing that it must have 3 sides - it became logically impossible for the triangle to have more or less than 3 sides."

No, the triangle having more or less than 3 sides have always been logically impossible,regardless of one's lack of knowledge or realization. 

 

So given all that - saying "God must exists" means God is a logical necessity which in principle can be proven and you take that burden on yourself the moment you state logical impossibility claims.

 

On 2025. 05. 21. at 3:04 AM, aurum said:

No, their reasoning is mostly correct.

God is logically necessary for knowledge to exist. But they corrupt this with Christianity and lack of direct consciousness. 

And they would say that actualized.org's reasoning is mostly correct, they just confuse and corrupt the right infallible way of knowing (revelation) with direct consciousness and they confuse God with something other than the Christian God.

 

I can generate a 1000 other views where the exact same reasoning structure is used, and none of them would be more epistemically warranted than the other.

I Just need to say that ontology and epistemology needs to be collapsed , then I need to select an arbitrary ground, then I need to select an arbitrary 'correct' way of knowing that I assert to be infallible, that I can then use to validate/realize that my arbitrary selected ground is logically necessary and then assert that all other views (other than mine) are incoherent and the only way to substantiate the claim that all other views are incoherent is by using my arbitrary selected, infallible, 'correct' way of knowing.

 

 

You and Leo and some other actualizers take on burden that none of you can substantiate. I don't understand why make a claim that one cant defend or substantiate. And you cant get out of this by saying that you can only realize by using direct consciousness (correct way of knowing, thats infallible), because again 1) you make a logical possibility claim (which in principle can be proven) and 2) you also have a presupposed  correct, infallible way of knowing that you take for granted. The method that you propose that one needs to use to realize the truth of what you are saying , presupposes that  that particular method is infallible, and how do you establish the infallible part? Well, you just presuppose it. 

 

Why not just stay epistemically humble and just say that your view makes more sense, why there is a need to  take it up a billion notch and give yourself burden that you can't substantiate and say things like - only your view is possible and all other views are incoherent?

 

Imagine presups saying this:

Quote

Before revelation, the Christian God is question-begging.

After revelation  , the Christian God must exist.

And then saying "Yeah well, I know actualized.org users have the same reasoning structure -  see humans cant solve these problems, what you actually need in order to realize truth is revelation"

"After going through the transformation caused/generated by revelation, I can now see the Truth, that I cant be wrong about and I know for certain that relevation is infallible"

 

@DocWatts Sorry btw for derailing your thread, I just felt the need to highlight some of these points, because I havent seen any good or satisfying response to any of these challenges by people who hold Leo's views.

Edited Thursday at 12:13 PM by zurew

[aurum]

@zurew You are asking for a level of proof no human can possibly communicate to you. 

It’s like I am saying “If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection”. And then I give you a bunch of math to show how mirrors work and why this must be a case.

But instead of just looking in the damn mirror to see if that’s true, you demand proof of my methodology. “How do I know if I look in the mirror I will see myself??? I can come up with other conclusions based on looking in the mirror! You are presupposing that your mirror methodology works!!!”

Just have direct consciousness and your questions will be answered. Plenty of techniques have been provided for how to do so. You will either use them or not. 

Either way, I have no burden to prove anything to you. Because proof always follows experience. If you don’t have experience, then there’s nothing else to be said.

Edited Thursday at 05:28 PM by aurum

[zurew]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

@zurew You are asking for a level of proof no human can possibly communicate to you. 

It’s like I am saying “If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection”. And then I give you a bunch of math & science to show how mirrors work and why this must be a case.

But instead of just looking in the damn mirror to see if that’s true, you demand proof of my methodology. “How do I know if I look in the mirror I will see myself??? I can come up with other conclusions based on looking in the mirror! You are presupposing that your mirror methodology works!!!”

Just have direct consciousness and your questions will be answered. Plenty of techniques have been provided for how to do so. You will either use them or not. 

Either way, I have no burden to prove anything to you. Because proof always follows experience. If you don’t have experience, then there’s nothing else to be said.

You don't need to prove anything to me, the discussion is not about that, the discussion is about recognizing and being honest about what your claim entails and and what kind of burden you take on yourself when you state your claim.

The very moment you make a logical necessity claim, you take on the burden to subtantiate it by showing the contradiction and you cant get around it by appealing to a different method ,that would be way too convenient.

Its not like you can just randomly pick and choose what kind of method you want to use to substantiate your claim.

 

Notice, that you would never ever accept the idea from presups that "all views are incoherent except Christianity and the way to substantiate this claim is by revelation" - you would probably say "no dude, revelation as a method isn't sufficient to substantiate that claim!"

So there is a big disconnect and confusion around what can substantiate your claim.

---

 

Yes, given your mirror example , the claim that I will see my reflection can be properly substantiated by the move of me looking in the mirror. I know by that example you want to imply that I want to place some kind of unfair burden on you, but what you don't understand is that you categorically put it on yourself and you can't get around it. (no one is forcing you to make claims and put on burden on yourself that you cant substantiate)

 

A more accurate representation would be saying something like:  an infinite book example - You saying that if I look into book A, I will get answers to all of my questions and using the method of 'looking into book A' is an infallible method so I can trust 100% all the answers that I will find in it. And one of Book A's claim is that all other books are wrong (so I go with that, and conclude that all other books are inaccurate - categorically ruling out an infinite number of other books). 

Then a presup comes along and tells me to use the method of 'looking into book B', and that method is infallible and I can trust with 100% certainty all the answers that I find in that book. Book B also tells me that all other books except Book B are all inaccurate, so I go with that  and I categorically rule out an infinite number of others books (including book A)

Can you recognize why you asserting the claim that using the method of "looking into book A" isn't responding to the issue and doesn't solve anything?

Quote

Just have direct consciousness and your questions will be answered

Again this pressuposes a bunch of things already and this isn't responding to the problems that I brought up.

Presups can do the same thing - "Just have revelation and your question will be answered".

So why think that the answers that are realized during awakening are 100% accurate? 

You would ask the exact same question to presups "Why think that the answers that you got from revelation are 100% accurate?"

 

 

 

And I will state again - the only reason why im pressing you on this is because of the burden that you place on yourself. I wouldn't play this level of skeptic if you would have just said "my view seems to be the most reasonable one, but I dont think that any other view would be logically impossible" -  I would have no issue with that, I would still investigate the view, but you want to categorically rule out all other views and then you don't want to defend it.

Edited Thursday at 06:55 PM by zurew

[zurew]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Yes, given your mirror example , the claim that I will see my reflection can be properly substantiated by the move of me looking in the mirror

Or if you really want to stick with the mirror example , a more correct representation would be this:

 

You making a claim that "If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection” and you also saying that "its impossible for you to be wrong about it".

Can you recognize what burden of proof you put on yourself between the claim where you dont add the "its impossible for you to be wrong about it" and between the claim where you add that part?

 

In the instance where its not impossible for me to be wrong about it - Im more than okay with just looking in the mirror to check your claim, in the instance where you add "its impossible for you to be wrong about it", me looking in the mirror is nowhere near sufficient to substantiate the claim.

Edited Thursday at 07:07 PM by zurew

[aurum]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

The very moment you make a logical necessity claim, you take on the burden to subtantiate it by showing the contradiction and you cant get around it by appealing to a different method ,that would be way too convenient.

I take on no such burden.

Because if you understood what I was saying, you'd understand no human can possibly prove to you that God must exist.

Proof is your problem, not mine.

I will speak what I understand, regardless of whether you've verified it. I'm not going to wait around for you to verify my answers.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Notice, that you would never ever accept the idea from presups that "all views are incoherent except Christianity and the way to substantiate this claim is by revelation" - you would probably say "no dude, revelation as a method isn't sufficient to substantiate that claim!"

So there is a big disconnect and confusion around what can substantiate your claim.

No.

Revelation is a perfectly acceptable form of understanding. Assuming you've actually had it.

The problem with most Christians is that they haven't experienced revelation.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Can you recognize why you asserting the claim that using the method of "looking into book A" isn't responding to the issue and doesn't solve anything?

No, because we are not talking about a book. We are talking about GOD.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Again this pressuposes a bunch of things already and this isn't responding to the problems that I brought up.

Tough shit.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

if you would have just said "my view seems to be the most reasonable one, but I dont think that any other view would be logically impossible

I will do no such thing.

You want me to water down my understanding of God. 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

but you want to categorically rule out all other views and then you don't want to defend it.

I can defend it plenty.

The question is whether you'll recognize it.

[zurew]

24 minutes ago, aurum said:

Tough shit.

I can defend it plenty.

The question is whether you'll recognize it.

If by defense you mean asserting a claim to be true over and over again, and then ignoring all the challenges and pretending as if you would have successfully responded to them,  then sure.

24 minutes ago, aurum said:

No.

Revelation is a perfectly acceptable form of understanding. Assuming you've actually had it.

The problem with most Christians is that they haven't experienced revelation.

I have no clue why you respond "no" to that, and agree with them when it directly contradicts your view (the example claims that only the christian view is coherent).

And then I guess the answer is that the only Christians who had a revelation are the ones who agree with you, and the ones who disagree with your view are the ones who must be wrong about them having revelation.

So we can conveniently ignore all Christians who claim to have had a revelation and also claim that only the christian worldview is coherent. (categorically ruling out all other views - including yours)

24 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, because we are not talking about a book. We are talking about GOD.

Can you tell me the relevance in difference?

 The subject/object that the reasoning is applied to is irrelevant , because the exact same issues come up - if you think otherwise, explain it to me how changing the subject of the example breakes the point I try to make there.

Edited Thursday at 08:23 PM by zurew

[zurew]

28 minutes ago, aurum said:

I take on no such burden.

Because if you understood what I was saying, you'd understand no human can possibly prove to you that God must exist.

Proof is your problem, not mine.

I will speak what I understand, regardless of whether you've verified it. I'm not going to wait around for you to verify my answers.

Yeah this is the part where you think you can choose the method by which you want to substantiate a given claim.

You think you can categorically rule out all other views with awakening.

Still waiting for your response to the example where Chrisitans claiming that by the use of revelation they realized that only the christian view is coherent and all others (including yours - are incoherent).

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, zurew said:

The subject/object that the reasoning is applied to is irrelevant , because the exact same issues come up - if you think otherwise, explain it to me how changing the subject of the example breakes the point I try to make there.

The whole point of that example is to outline this problem - you choose a random method that you can use to gather info about metaphysics,epistemology etc and then you take whatever info you gather by the use of that method to be infallbile (100% accurate and you cant be wrong about it)  and the gathered info includes the claim that all other views except the one that is mentioned are incoherent.

 

The obvious problem is if person A claims that I need to use method Y and if person B claims that I need to use method Z and the information gathered by method Y contradicts the information that I gathered by method Z - then how do I know which one is actually correct? Both of them claims that the info that I gathered by the use of the method is infallible and both method provides the claim that all other views (except the one that they mention) are incoherent.

Now change method Y to direct consciousness and change the view provided by method Y to your view and change method Z to revelation and change the view provided by method Z to Christianity.

And then tell me how you saying to just use direct consciousness gets around the problem I outlined above.

Edited Thursday at 08:44 PM by zurew

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

And then I guess the answer is that the only Christians who had a revelation are the ones who agree with you, and the ones who disagree with your view are the ones who must be wrong about them having revelation.

If they've truly have had revelation, there are two possibilities:

1) They'd agree with me and would no longer be Christians. Because God breaks Christianity

2) They've had revelation, but have interpreted it poorly for various potential reasons

Both are possible.

There is also the possibility that they are just self-deceived about experiencing revelation in the first place.

Either way, revelation is the most crucial aspect of realizing you are God. And you cannot properly answer the objections you are raising without it.

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

Can you tell me the relevance in difference?

The difference is that a book is a finite object, while infinity is not.

And infinity is bound by its own internal logic to exist. Whereas a book is not.

You cannot have an "infinite book" because by definition books are finite. This a contradiction in terms.

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

The difference is that a book is a finite object, while infinity is not.

And infinity is bound by its own internal logic to exist. Whereas a book is not.

You cannot have an "infinite book" because by definition books are finite. This a contradiction in terms.

17 minutes ago, zurew said:

The whole point of that example is to outline this problem - you choose a random method that you can use to gather info about metaphysics,epistemology etc and then you take whatever info you gather by the use of that method to be infallbile (100% accurate and you cant be wrong about it)  and the gathered info includes the claim that all other views except the one that is mentioned are incoherent.

 

The obvious problem is if person A claims that I need to use method Y and if person B claims that I need to use method Z and the information gathered by method Y contradicts the information that I gathered by method Z - then how do I know which one is actually correct? Both of them claims that the info that I gathered by the use of the method is infallible and both method provides the claim that all other views (except the one that they mention) are incoherent.

Now change method Y to direct consciousness and change the view provided by method Y to your view and change method Z to revelation and change the view provided by method Z to Christianity.

And then tell me how you saying to just use direct consciousness gets around the problem I outlined above.

 

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

If they've truly have had revelation, there are two possibilities:

1) They'd agree with me and would no longer be Christians. Because God breaks Christianity

2) They've had revelation, but have interpreted it poorly for various potential reasons

Both are possible.

There is also the possibility that they are just self-deceived about experiencing revelation in the first place.

Either way, revelation is the most crucial aspect of realizing you are God. And you cannot properly answer the objections you are raising without it.

But there is no possibility that you are wrong and that they are right about you being wrong.

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, aurum said:

2) They've had revelation, but have interpreted it poorly for various potential reasons

That sounds like something that makes your position even more shaky. 

How can you know that your interpretation of awakening is accurate and that you haven't misinterpreted it or drawn false conclusions from it?

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

But there is no possibility that you are wrong and that they are right about you being wrong.

Yup.

Because Christianity is based on claims of the existence of a historical finite human, Jesus, who was God. So they lose their right to claim infallibility.

My position cannot be falsified because it is based on Infinity. 

That's the double standard.

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

That sounds like something that makes your position even more shaky. 

How can you know that your interpretation of awakening is accurate and that you haven't misinterpreted it or drawn false conclusions from it?

That is possible to a degree.

I am always working on my sense-making and making things clearer for myself. There are degrees of understanding infinity.

But I claim that even if I become thoroughly self-deceived, infinity still remains unfalsifiable. That's what makes it Absolute Truth and not a perspective or opinion.

God is untouched by self-deception.

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yup.

Because Christianity is based on claims of the existence of a historical finite human, Jesus, who was God. So they lose their right to claim infallibility.

My position cannot be falsified because it is based on Infinity. 

That's the double standard.

No, it doesnt have to be based on that -  it can be based  on relying on a revelation from an entity that is all knowing and all good  and all powerful (one that provides accurate information with 100% certainty, since he is all knowing, and one that can pull off so that you cant misinterpret his missage - since he is all powerful and one that who won't lie to you since he is all good) and one that asserts that only christianity is true and your view is false.

So how do you exactly have any upperhand vs them?

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

But I claim that even if I become thoroughly self-deceived, infinity still remains unfalsifiable. That's what makes it Absolute Truth and not a perspective or opinion.

Yeah - if you pressupose infinity to be absolutely true then sure, the issue comes when you question the 'absolutely true' part with respect to infinity and you open up the door to be wrong about infinity being logically necessary.

Your whole system suddenly completely falls apart.

 

Your whole view is dependent on you reframing your view as not a view so that its not subject to the things worldviews are subject to. But this move can be done by the christian presups as well  - they reframe their view as 'absolutely true' and then they are not subject to any questioning anymore - boom all philosophy done.

[aurum]

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

No, it doesnt have to be based on that -  it can be based  on relying on a revelation from an entity that is all knowing and all good  and all powerful (one that provides accurate information with 100% certainty, since he is all knowing, and one that can pull off so that you cant misinterpret his missage - since he is all powerful and one that who won't lie to you since he is all good) and one that asserts that only christianity is true and your view is false.

So how do you exactly have any upperhand vs them?

An "entity" is FINITE by definition!

Therefore it is not infinity, therefore it is not Absolute, therefore it is not unfalsifiable.

I am claiming that only Infinity itself is what is unfalsifiable.

Your hypothetical contradicts itself by suggesting an infinite, finite entity.

Edited Thursday at 10:19 PM by aurum

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, aurum said:

Therefore it is not infinity, therefore it is not Absolute, therefore it is not unfalsifiable.

I am claiming that Infinity itself is what is unfalsifiable.

Your hypothetical contradicts itself by suggesting an infinite, finite entity.

I dont understand this "unfalsifiability" claim - is that just used as "logical necessity"?

The other part thats unclear to me is why would we accept the claim that infinity is logically necessary?

I suspect there is also a confusion around proofs - thinking that something being infinite cant be verified because you would need to go through infinite things - but thats a mistake, because no one is proposing brute force, there are methods by which you can make claims about infinites . So if thats the angle that fails just on that ground.

---

The whole hypothetical stipulates that the entity is all knowing which means it knows all truths, which means that it cant be wrong.

41 minutes ago, aurum said:

I am claiming that Infinity itself is what is unfalsifiable.

Yeah and christian presups claim that only the christian god is unfalsifiable.