"infinite" and "nothing" are well understood terms. That's not a mere "claim". You said

The term 'nothing' or 'infinite' are just as unintelligible (sic.) — universeness

You are mistaken.

Your bitching at me makes no difference to that argument. It does say quite a bit about you.

Introducing someone skilled in the art of cartography would not change the outcome of the demonstration. Either character could have been a cartographer. — Experience of Clarity

Only in repeating Davidson's point, from The Very Idea of a Conceptual Schema. Roughly, if we can recognise that what is before us is a map, then by that fact we must be able to read at least some of the territory in that map - a map cannot be utterly unintelligible and yet still be recognised as a map.

But I see now that I misread part of your previous post, where you were quoting @Art48, as your own work — not realising that you were not using the quote feature. My apologies.

On most devices, if you highlight a piece of text you wish to quote, a "Quote" pop-up will appear, allowing you to copy-and-paste with attribution. See Forum Tips and Tricks - How to Quote

I intend no personal offense to you, by my next three sentences, it is more about personal preference and my personal tastes.
I found your response to be a little top heavy in prose and word salad.
I tried to ignore that and find any significant points that I thought you were trying to make.
I always try to adhere to the scientific KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.

I find the term supernatural to be unintelligible. I also find most other placeholder terms such as 'infinite' and 'nothing,' to be unintelligible. This adds to the credence level I have for atheism, and against all theism and theosophism. So,

What did you mean with the word, “compare”? — Experience of Clarity

Your 'incorrect map,' being compared to the 'real' surroundings in the scenario you offered, was, in my opinion, a poor way to exemplify the reasoning used by theists, or anyone else, who accept the existence of the supernatural.
'True believers,' need no evidence and require no test or measure of the supernatural. They believe the supernatural is fact, because they have been indoctrinated to accept the supernatural from an early age, and they have been terrorised into accepting the content of a book, as the word of their god, Or they make a living from selling the concept of such proposed existents.

As long as the supernatural remains completely hidden, and is not empirically verified, then I maintain my very high credence level that it has no existents, and IS unintelligible. Same for other concepts such as 'nothing' and 'infinite.'

What you consider new and improved about your version removes from consideration the appeal to the real world and to real human processors. — Experience of Clarity

I don't see why, as I am employing 'reality' and my human processor (brain). I just found your 'incorrect map' analogy, along with its observational solution, a bit weak.

The passage guts the concept of its relevance to reality in the same way that the duped map-reader in my post has not conferred with reality. — Experience of Clarity

I agree, but again perhaps it's just down to personal preference and taste. Many people favour their own way of arriving at much the same position.

Your bitching at me makes no difference to that argument. It does say quite a bit about you. — Banno

If you bitch at me Bammo, I will bitch right back at you. Have your wee tantrums, in your own padded room. Don't try to spew over me. I hope that explains ME very clearly to you.
I tried to explain my position to you, I could not give a flying f***, if you disagree with it.
Learn to be a better interlocuter or continue being surrounded by rubbish and shite of your own creation.

It's not me having the little tantrum.

Oh yes it is! Do you like panto Mr Bammo?

I've tried a few times to take you back on topic. Your claim was that "supernatural" was as unclear as "infinite" and "nothing". But both "infinite" and "nothing" are much clearer than "supernatural". For example, both have uses in mathematics and physics, whereas "supernatural" is at best a fringe notion.

The appropriate thing for you to do is to reply to that issue.

Perhaps I will, after you apologise for your insulting mannerisms.

Whilst you are making up your mind!

Consider the following:
1/0.5=2 days. He eats half an apple a day.

If he wants to eat the apple for three days, then:
1/0.333=3 days. The amount of apple he gets to eat per day, is reduced. Lets reduce it further.

1/0.1=10 days. Further more..
1/0.05=20 days.
1/0.001=1000 days.
1/0.000001=1000000 days. So,

1/0.0…..001=100……00 days. And it goes on. Which means

1/0=∞. So, literally we can suggest 1/0=∞. But lets now consider these answers..

1/-0.5=-2 (don’t ask me how there can be negative amount of apples, please)
1/-0.1=-10
1/-0.0001=-1000 and so
1/-0.00……001=-100……00. Which means,
1/-0=-∞

We all know that zero is unbiased, which means there is no such thing as -0 and +0. This makes us conclude that -∞=∞. Which is not true.
So the above observations 1/0=∞ and 1/-0=-∞ are wrong in terms of strict math.
So the mathematicians call it UNDEFINED.

What do words like 'undefined' and 'not true' mean to you?
Do you consider the supernatural undefined and untrue?
Or do you think such questions are rubbish and shite?

OK, I apologise. Sometimes I forget that I may be dealing with children.

You're doing the maths wrong.

The appropriate thing for you to do is to reply to that issue. — Banno

BTW, how amazingly arrogant of you, to advise anyone on what is appropriate, when your manners are so low.

OK, I apologise. Sometimes I forget that I may be dealing with children. — Banno

:lol: Are you related to @Bartricks by any chance? I know you really do want to apologise properly. Shave your knuckles first, that might help!
Then you can tell me where you think the maths I posted 'from Quora,' is wrong.
I have often heard mathematicians refer to 1/0 as 'undefined.'
I am surprised you did not know that?
Have you practiced acting like a troll for a long time, or just sometimes, on TPF?

For example, both have uses in mathematics and physics, whereas "supernatural" is at best a fringe notion. — Banno

Notions of the supernatural have little use as they are 'fringe'????
Some people make their full living from the notion.
It is an enormous aspect of traditional human storytelling.
It's been used to justify the divine right of kings to rule!
It's the foundation of all human theism and theosophisim!
The notion of the supernatural has easily as much 'USE' as the concept of infinite has in maths and physics. What are you on about????

Please try to bring it back to arguments.

Well, I have included some points, as well as respond to banno's initial insults towards me, in this thread. But, I am happy to cease and desist, even though he has not yet properly apologised, and then I would return the gesture, for being unable to resist responding in kind to his initial cheek. :halo: