It is mind boggling. Perhaps it is helpful to draw an analogy between the non-repeating sequences of the decimal representations of numbers like Pi and Phi and the non-repeating infinite pattern of Penrose tiling. I recall the video mentions Phi or the Golden Ratio emerging from the geometry of Penrose Tiling. If you believe that the decimal representation of Pi and Phi are non-repeating sequences maybe it is easier to believe the non-repeating pattern of Penrose tiling.

Hmmm, I wonder if there are certain combinations of solids that can fill three dimensional spaces with infinite non-repeating patterns.

I was speaking of Nietzsche's view of Christianity. Far be it from me to suggest that Christians hold a common creed or a shared worldview. :wink:

Nietzsche rejected the rejection of this world that is found both in Christianity and incidentally Buddhism. The Christian rejects this life and this world for a supposed better eternal life and eternal world to come.

I believe you are making the step of rejecting this world when you say that "to have faith with eternity is to believe that there’s something beyond the void(we are more than just mortals who are passively put to live and die in an endless physical world)". It is for this "eternity beyond the void" that you reject this life this and this world.

"Having faith with eternity" is a dubious phrase and requires some unpacking. It's not my phrase so I may not be able to unpack it but if "having faith with eternity" is a matter of rejecting this world in favor of a supposed eternal world this is antithetical to Nietzscheanism. It is this world and this life that matters. As a thought experiment we might imagine living our life over and over and over again forever and ever exactly the same every time. That is the myth or thought experiment of the eternal return. There is no escape from this world to this supposed eternal world. Imagine the weight of an infinite number of identical lives with each day you live. What choices virtues and actions would make the thought of eternal repetition bearable? How would you change the way you lived your life if you believed the myth of eternal return to be true? Can you, to borrow your phrase, have faith with this eternity?

Correction: They are in essence an omnipotent sophist. Or at least that is the word that Plato would have used here. It is the sophist who can make the good appear bad and the bad appear good.

Question: Is this omnipotent sophist able to discern the good from the bad and the true from the false or is this person able to convince themselves as easily as they do the others regardless of truth or fact?

Question: If this person was able to discern the good and the true would they still be tempted to lie to others?

If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for Biden or Trump then you ain't White.

I appreciate the warm welcome.

Kant worked these into his aesthetics and a theory of national character in Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. That's an earlier work not quite 20 years before the critique.

Reductio ad absurdum ergo Manichaeism.

To Dasein or not to Dasein, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler to become open to the disclosure of being as such
Or to take up arms against a sea of ontological claims
And by opposing end them. To remain pre-ontological.

In a positivist or purely descriptive mode one can get by without feeling the weight (or the unbearable lightness) of Being. One might insist that Being is just another attribute like any other but consider that due to the ubiquity and importance of this particular attribute, or it's negation, existential quantifiers were introduced into first-order logic. I suppose we don't really get ontological unless we pause to reflect upon this and the strict positivist will shun such reflection as a rule.

It is in the aesthetic or purely subjective mode that we encounter being. In this mode we can reflect upon being and then allow our reflection to give way to the immediacy of being. I see no harm in speaking of Being but how do we speak of it? Heidegger began with ontology and ended with poetry.

Finally, in a normative or evaluative mode one is faced with the question of whether Being or Existence is good or bad. Or, as the original post basically asks "Does it matter?" and "Does it inform you about anything important?"