After all, if something was obviously true and accepted by everyone, we wouldn't have an axiom for it, would we? — Pussycat

We call that a self-evident truth. Some axioms are self-evident truths, other axioms are not self-evident truths.

Sure, I agree that's the case, but "numbers" is not a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually I believe that numbers ARE things - that our physical reality is based on mathematics, and numbers are at the heart of everything. But we'll put that aside for the moment because you and others may not agree with it. 'I can infer that there are infinite numbers, therefore I can infer that there is an infinite thing' is NOT the argument I was making in my last post, I was arguing that just because we can't empirically observe an infinite thing doesn't mean that it's always unreasonable to assume the existence of an infinite thing. Numbers was just an example. Here's another example: something caused the big bang. In the absence of any evidence indicating that this event could only happen once, the hypothesis that are physical laws which cause big bangs to spontaneously happen at random point in time and space is more simple and relies on fewer assumptions than the hypothesis that something caused only one big bang to happen and then something else stopped that process from reoccurring. Because of this I can infer that a multitude of big bangs have always been and will always be happening, and therefore there is an infinite multiverse.

Actually I believe that numbers ARE things — Fuzzball Baggins

That's fine, but the issue here is whether "numbers" (note the plural) refers to a thing.

I was arguing that just because we can't empirically observe an infinite thing doesn't mean that it's always unreasonable to assume the existence of an infinite thing. — Fuzzball Baggins

I explained to you why it is always unreasonable to assume the existence of an infinite thing. If you have a reasonable rebuttal then please present it.

Here's another example: something caused the big bang. In the absence of any evidence indicating that this event could only happen once, the hypothesis that are physical laws which cause big bangs to spontaneously happen at random point in time and space is more simple and relies on fewer assumptions than the hypothesis that something caused only one big bang to happen and then something else stopped that process from reoccurring. Because of this I can infer that a multitude of big bangs have always been and will always be happening, and therefore there is an infinite multiverse. — Fuzzball Baggins

Sorry, but I can't see any argument here. You seem to misunderstand "the big bang", representing it as something which occurred at some time, in some place.

I was arguing that just because we can't empirically observe an infinite thing doesn't mean that it's always unreasonable to assume the existence of an infinite thing. — Fuzzball Baggins

Science makes a rule: naturalistic solutions only allowed. No magic. Why do we make an exception to this rule for infinity? If I said I had a ruler longer than any other thing it would be a magic ruler would it not? Infinity is supernatural and it should not be allowed in science.

Infinity meant to be (say) larger than anything else; but 'larger' is a property of quantities and infinity is demonstrably not a quantity; it's a concept and a logically flawed one at that.

Really the burden of proof should be on those who believe in infinity - its an irrational belief and it requires evidence to back up its existence. But there is no such evidence and plenty of evidence that infinity does not exist.