Existence Is Infinite

[Veritas Aequitas]

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender
Abstract
Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

Other than what had been discussed, here is the general view re
"Existence Is Infinite"
I had argued the terms "existence" [as in the copular] 'infinite" are merely "ideas" and do not directly represent anything substantial in empirical terms.

The contentious views of 'ideas' are argued here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
  Etymology
  History
  Philosophy
  Plato
  René Descartes
  John Locke
  David Hume
  Immanuel Kant
  Rudolf Steiner
  Wilhelm Wundt
  Charles Sanders Peirce
  G. F. Stout and J. M. Baldwin
  Walter Benjamin
  In anthropology and the social sciences

The general view of what is an idea;

In common usage and in philosophy, ideas are the results of thought.[1] Also in philosophy, ideas can also be mental representational images of some object.

However, it appear yours is aligned with Plato's:

Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being.

Plato's ideas are outdated [as irrational] within modern philosophy but the later philosophers like Locke, Hume, Kant and other listed above aligned with a more rational and realistic view.

I believe it is critical you get familiar with the above [if you are not] to understand where your position on 'existence is infinite' stands within rationality and critical thinking in philosophy.

[daniel j lavender]

Other than what had been discussed, here is the general view re
"Existence Is Infinite"
I had argued the terms "existence" [as in the copular] 'infinite" are merely "ideas" and do not directly represent anything substantial in empirical terms.

Your arguments have been addressed.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples:

viewtopic.php?p=746581#p746581

viewtopic.php?p=746567#p746567

viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

[daniel j lavender]

While your stance is detailed, I believe it is only a partial truth and existence can be viewed at fundamentally a deeper and simpler level.

Existence concerns all truth and all falsity. As expressed many times, existence is all.

How so? Existence is occurence.

Currently I am aware of four foundational laws of identity with identity being synonymous to existence:

1. Occurence

2. The relation of one occurence to another.

3. The relation of occurences as an occurence.

4. The transitional transitory nature of occurence where occurence is fundamentally empty.

This necessitates occurence occurring through and as recursion and through and as the alternation in and out of states of existence.

The dualism of finiteness and infinite can be reduced to occurence.

Perspective can be reduced to occurence, experience too and so on an so forth.

Simply put all things cab be reduced to occurence and to even reduce these things to nothing would still be an occurence as reduction is occurence.

How is occurrence simpler or any more basic than being?

Occurrence indicates action. So not only would there be [being] but being would also act.

It isn’t any more basic nor insightful. It is more complex, more complicated and confusing with little supporting detail.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Other than what had been discussed, here is the general view re
"Existence Is Infinite"
I had argued the terms "existence" [as in the copular] 'infinite" are merely "ideas" and do not directly represent anything substantial in empirical terms.

Your arguments have been addressed.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples:

viewtopic.php?p=746581#p746581

viewtopic.php?p=746567#p746567

viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

I don't think you get the point of what is presented in the WIKI link above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
Can you argue your points against that of Locke and Hume?

Let say we see an "apple" out there.
To merely claim 'the apple exist' or "there is the existence of the apple" is relatively meaningless.
To ensure the apple exists as really real, it must be verified and justified as real via the science-biology FS.
Why the apple is real? it is because the science-biology FS said so which is most credible and objective.
Generally we do not qualify the existence of the apple to the science-biology FS but merely imply it can be backed by it.
If some other lay-person insist it is 'real' without an implied reference to the science-biology FS, that is not credible because it could be an illusory apple from a hallucination or in other cases, as a mirage in a desert.
In addition, if I say the apple is beautiful, it is subjective and cannot be verified and justified as highly objective.

Humans experience space.
Space can be verified and justified as real within the science-physics FS.
To insist space is infinite is not tenable because it is impossible to verify and justified 'an infinite space' within the most credible and objective science-physics FS.
In this case, the idea of infinite is a subjective thought that is predicated to space and since it cannot be verified and justified as objective it can only be illusory.

It is the same with the term 'existence'.

Thus whatever thing-X you predicate with 'existence' and 'infinite' these terms do not establish the thing-X as objectively real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It’s analogous to planet Earth. We may not be able to observe the entire Earth at once, however that does not negate the entire Earth or that the entire Earth is. One may be unable to observe the whole however that does not negate the whole.

The Earth is [existing, in Existence] is meaningless and not objective.
As I had argued, the term 'existence' is merely a copula to join [in this case] the Earth to some predicate.

What is objective is this:
The Earth is [exists as, existing as, in Existing as] a real planet within our Solar system is verified and justified objectively within the science-physics-cosmology FS.
As you can see, the term 'existence' is not significant and irrelevant to establish the Earth is a real planet.

The term "is" [exists as, existing as, in Existing as] is merely a copula, it cannot be an ordinary object that can be predicated with the term 'infinite'.
As such, the statement 'existence is infinite' is meaningless in real terms.

[daniel j lavender]

Other than what had been discussed, here is the general view re
"Existence Is Infinite"
I had argued the terms "existence" [as in the copular] 'infinite" are merely "ideas" and do not directly represent anything substantial in empirical terms.

Your arguments have been addressed.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples:

viewtopic.php?p=746581#p746581

viewtopic.php?p=746567#p746567

viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

I don't think you get the point of what is presented in the WIKI link above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
Can you argue your points against that of Locke and Hume?

Let say we see an "apple" out there.
To merely claim 'the apple exist' or "there is the existence of the apple" is relatively meaningless.

Read the essay. The terms are clearly defined.

The term “thing” is defined and further explained by means of properties or qualities, boundaries, etcetera.

As previously conveyed, a brief summary of the idea including tangible examples as requested:

How can you verify and justifiable 'whole-existence' itself as real?

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

Terms and ideas can be linked with or associated with tangible, real world objects and in fact are for our survival and advancement as a species.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your arguments have been addressed.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples:

viewtopic.php?p=746581#p746581

viewtopic.php?p=746567#p746567

viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

I don't think you get the point of what is presented in the WIKI link above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
Can you argue your points against that of Locke and Hume?

Let say we see an "apple" out there.
To merely claim 'the apple exist' or "there is the existence of the apple" is relatively meaningless.

Read the essay. The terms are clearly defined.

The term “thing” is defined and further explained by means of properties or qualities, boundaries, etcetera.

As previously conveyed, a brief summary of the idea including tangible examples as requested:

How can you verify and justifiable 'whole-existence' itself as real?

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

Terms and ideas can be linked with or associated with tangible, real world objects and in fact are for our survival and advancement as a species.

I maintain the statement "Existence Is Infinite" is meaningless.

To encompass your thoughts in the OP effectively [ignoring the irrational and irrelevant] the more appropriate statement could be;

Reality is all-there-is.
which cover the terms 'existence' and 'infinite' more effectively.
The term "is" represent 'exists' "in-existence" and 'existing' where all-there-is is real.
With all-there-is, there is no need to invoke the term "infinite".

The question is then how to verify and justify all-there-is [not as a unify whole but only refer to its parts thereof] is real.
This is where the conditional and grounding FS is necessary.

Next is how to use the above to facilitate and motivate the well-being, progress, flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity toward the ideal of perpetual peace.

[daniel j lavender]

I maintain the statement "Existence Is Infinite" is meaningless.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

The essay conveys the parameters of existence. Simply, comprehensively.

Reality is all-there-is.
which cover the terms 'existence' and 'infinite' more effectively.

False.

There is reality but also fantasy.

Existence is both.

Existence is the more comprehensive term. Not reality.

The term "is" represent 'exists' "in-existence" and 'existing' where all-there-is is real.
With all-there-is, there is no need to invoke the term "infinite".

Existence is not just “all-there-is”. Existence is part, a single thing as well. Hence existence being infinite. Existence is both part and whole as conveyed in the original essay.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I maintain the statement "Existence Is Infinite" is meaningless.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

The essay conveys the parameters of existence. Simply, comprehensively.

Reality is all-there-is.
which cover the terms 'existence' and 'infinite' more effectively.

False.

There is reality but also fantasy.

Existence is both.

Existence is the more comprehensive term. Not reality.

The term "is" represent 'exists' "in-existence" and 'existing' where all-there-is is real.
With all-there-is, there is no need to invoke the term "infinite".

Existence is not just “all-there-is”. Existence is part, a single thing as well. Hence existence being infinite. Existence is both part and whole as conveyed in the original essay.

Yes, in a way, existence is not just 'all there is'.
"Existence' is problematic because it allows anyone to [falsely] claim imaginary and illusory things to exist as real and these cannot be verified and justified as real at all, e.g. God exists, an independent soul exists, ghosts exists, Santa Claus exists, heaven and hell exists, and the like.

Because existence is so problematic, we must narrow 'existence' to what is real, i.e. reality is all-there-is that is verifiable and justified as real so as to differentiate reality from the illusory, fiction and whatever is unreal, e.g. the claim 'existence is infinite'.

Reality as all-there-is encompasses whatever there is, thus including the reality of 'fantasizing or claiming what is supposedly a fantasy as something real', i.e. being insistent on such a false claim is delusional.
One point is, being "delusional" in insisting 'a supposedly fantasy or fiction is real' e.g. "God is real" [theists] or "Santa is real" [toddlers] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present for therapeutic purposes.

So there is a reality of claiming 'existence is infinite' as this claim is delusional because you cannot verify and justify your claim is real, thus it is illusory; to be dogmatic with it is delusional.
Your claiming "Existence Is Infinite" can be empirically verified and justified based on what you posted on this forum as debated by various posters, but what is claimed as "existence is infinite' is not real because you have not provided or it is possible to be verified and justified as real empirically.

Reality is all-there-is.
Whatever is real [not illusory] must be verified and justified empirically and supported with rationality.
The most credible and objective mode of verification and justification of what is real is that of the scientific framework and system; there is not other more credible, if so, which?

[Eodnhoj7]

While your stance is detailed, I believe it is only a partial truth and existence can be viewed at fundamentally a deeper and simpler level.

Existence concerns all truth and all falsity. As expressed many times, existence is all.

How so? Existence is occurence.

Currently I am aware of four foundational laws of identity with identity being synonymous to existence:

1. Occurence

2. The relation of one occurence to another.

3. The relation of occurences as an occurence.

4. The transitional transitory nature of occurence where occurence is fundamentally empty.

This necessitates occurence occurring through and as recursion and through and as the alternation in and out of states of existence.

The dualism of finiteness and infinite can be reduced to occurence.

Perspective can be reduced to occurence, experience too and so on an so forth.

Simply put all things cab be reduced to occurence and to even reduce these things to nothing would still be an occurence as reduction is occurence.

How is occurrence simpler or any more basic than being?

Occurrence indicates action. So not only would there be [being] but being would also act.

It isn’t any more basic nor insightful. It is more complex, more complicated and confusing with little supporting detail.

That is relative as it can be argued saying "existence is infinite" is far more complicated than just saying "occurence".

Occurence is being as being is inseperable from movement as movement allows change and with change the manifestation of distinctions.

It is far more simpler to say "existence is" than saying "existence is x". Existence is not fixed except as a transitional process.

The four laws I am arguing are horribly simple and their simplicity allows them to be seen in anything, thus they can go as deep as one desires, or not deep at all, or both, or just ignored entirely. There is no law as to how to see the laws other than the laws itself for these laws are occurences, a transitional process of awareness. They are a conceptual raft to cross a river and once the river is crossed the raft is left behind.

If existence is all, and what I state is thus part of existence, who are you to state what is correct and incorrect when the existence is justification by the act of being...no intentions of being rude, but I have to be frank.

Like I said, your argument is well articulated and requires a deep discipline in the art of rhetoric, but it is only a partial truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

I maintain the statement "Existence Is Infinite" is meaningless.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

The essay conveys the parameters of existence. Simply, comprehensively.

Reality is all-there-is.
which cover the terms 'existence' and 'infinite' more effectively.

False.

There is reality but also fantasy.

Existence is both.

Existence is the more comprehensive term. Not reality.

The term "is" represent 'exists' "in-existence" and 'existing' where all-there-is is real.
With all-there-is, there is no need to invoke the term "infinite".

Existence is not just “all-there-is”. Existence is part, a single thing as well. Hence existence being infinite. Existence is both part and whole as conveyed in the original essay.

Yes, in a way, existence is not just 'all there is'.
"Existence' is problematic because it allows anyone to [falsely] claim imaginary and illusory things to exist as real and these cannot be verified and justified as real at all, e.g. God exists, an independent soul exists, ghosts exists, Santa Claus exists, heaven and hell exists, and the like.

Because existence is so problematic, we must narrow 'existence' to what is real, i.e. reality is all-there-is that is verifiable and justified as real so as to differentiate reality from the illusory, fiction and whatever is unreal, e.g. the claim 'existence is infinite'.

Reality as all-there-is encompasses whatever there is, thus including the reality of 'fantasizing or claiming what is supposedly a fantasy as something real', i.e. being insistent on such a false claim is delusional.
One point is, being "delusional" in insisting 'a supposedly fantasy or fiction is real' e.g. "God is real" [theists] or "Santa is real" [toddlers] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present for therapeutic purposes.

So there is a reality of claiming 'existence is infinite' as this claim is delusional because you cannot verify and justify your claim is real, thus it is illusory; to be dogmatic with it is delusional.
Your claiming "Existence Is Infinite" can be empirically verified and justified based on what you posted on this forum as debated by various posters, but what is claimed as "existence is infinite' is not real because you have not provided or it is possible to be verified and justified as real empirically.

Reality is all-there-is.
Whatever is real [not illusory] must be verified and justified empirically and supported with rationality.
The most credible and objective mode of verification and justification of what is real is that of the scientific framework and system; there is not other more credible, if so, which?

A person in an insane asylum might be delusional but these delusions are what manipulated reality in such a manner for the asylum to exist.

Regardless of the degree of the reality an experience is both part of and changes reality. The only thing one knows is experience.

The term "God" or "gods" are just terms that mean a deep and or intense experience that guides one's actions, thoughts, and emotions. So God and gods exists, but not in the manner general percieved...and yes this means the war in heaven is an ever present process, metaphorically speaking.

The war of the gods is a war of ideals. If memory serves, and fact check what I say, the ancient Egyptian religious caste claimed we create the gods...again fact check this.

[daniel j lavender]

"Existence' is problematic because it allows anyone to [falsely] claim imaginary and illusory things to exist as real and these cannot be verified and justified as real at all, e.g. God exists, an independent soul exists, ghosts exists, Santa Claus exists, heaven and hell exists, and the like.

Imaginary and illusory things do exist. They are imaginary and illusory. They are not necessarily real depending on use of the term.

By definition that perceived, at least in part, is existence.

Because existence is so problematic, we must narrow 'existence' to what is real, i.e. reality is all-there-is that is verifiable and justified as real so as to differentiate reality from the illusory, fiction and whatever is unreal, e.g. the claim 'existence is infinite'.

Reality as all-there-is encompasses whatever there is, thus including the reality of 'fantasizing or claiming what is supposedly a fantasy as something real', i.e. being insistent on such a false claim is delusional.
One point is, being "delusional" in insisting 'a supposedly fantasy or fiction is real' e.g. "God is real" [theists] or "Santa is real" [toddlers] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present for therapeutic purposes.

It isn’t problematic. The terminology works.

However your presented premise is problematic.

The premise attempts to merge fantasy, or illusion, with reality. It presents reality as “all-there-is” including fantasy. That is erroneous.

Fantasy is fantasy, reality is reality. Regardless if you construe fantasy as delusion.

While fantasy and reality are different they both are existence. The philosophy presented here allows for that dynamic while remaining congruous. Your premise does not.

Your premise acknowledges fantasy or illusion, dismissing it as delusion, while integrating it into reality as reality. It is confounding, it is fallacious.

Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality. However both exist.

Existence is the more comprehensive, coherent term.

So there is a reality of claiming 'existence is infinite' as this claim is delusional because you cannot verify and justify your claim is real, thus it is illusory; to be dogmatic with it is delusional.
Your claiming "Existence Is Infinite" can be empirically verified and justified based on what you posted on this forum as debated by various posters, but what is claimed as "existence is infinite' is not real because you have not provided or it is possible to be verified and justified as real empirically.

Reality is all-there-is.
Whatever is real [not illusory] must be verified and justified empirically and supported with rationality.
The most credible and objective mode of verification and justification of what is real is that of the scientific framework and system; there is not other more credible, if so, which?

The means of substantiation have been conveyed above and in the essay.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A person in an insane asylum might be delusional but these delusions are what manipulated reality in such a manner for the asylum to exist.

Regardless of the degree of the reality an experience is both part of and changes reality. The only thing one knows is experience.

I have not gone that far, but ultimately whatever is reality is grounded on experience, i.e. the a priori experiences of all living things evolving and resulting to what is human, plus whatever is a posteriori will be a priori [if significant] in the future.

So whatever is real must be experienced or possible to be experienced.
One can have an experience say perception of a mirage, the consideration of realness is very critical.
The perception of a mirage exists as real within the person, but that which is perceived need to be verified and justified as real.
In this case, existence is not critical, what is critical is reality because survival is at stake with reference to reality, i.e. not chasing for real water in a mirage in the desert and ending dead. [where the known real alternative is a bit further in the opposite direction ]

The term "God" or "gods" are just terms that mean a deep and or intense experience that guides one's actions, thoughts, and emotions. So God and gods exists, but not in the manner general perceived...and yes this means the war in heaven is an ever present process, metaphorically speaking.

The war of the gods is a war of ideals. If memory serves, and fact check what I say, the ancient Egyptian religious caste claimed we create the gods...again fact check this.

A belief in God is a critical necessity for the majority, but they would be better off for humanity if theists realize the limits that God is illusory but nevertheless a critical useful fiction for therapeutic purposes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Existence' is problematic because it allows anyone to [falsely] claim imaginary and illusory things to exist as real and these cannot be verified and justified as real at all, e.g. God exists, an independent soul exists, ghosts exists, Santa Claus exists, heaven and hell exists, and the like.

Imaginary and illusory things do exist. They are imaginary and illusory. They are not necessarily real depending on use of the term.

By definition that perceived, at least in part, is existence.

Because existence is so problematic, we must narrow 'existence' to what is real, i.e. reality is all-there-is that is verifiable and justified as real so as to differentiate reality from the illusory, fiction and whatever is unreal, e.g. the claim 'existence is infinite'.

Reality as all-there-is encompasses whatever there is, thus including the reality of 'fantasizing or claiming what is supposedly a fantasy as something real', i.e. being insistent on such a false claim is delusional.
One point is, being "delusional" in insisting 'a supposedly fantasy or fiction is real' e.g. "God is real" [theists] or "Santa is real" [toddlers] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present for therapeutic purposes.

It isn’t problematic. The terminology works.

However your presented premise is problematic.

The premise attempts to merge fantasy, or illusion, with reality. It presents reality as “all-there-is” including fantasy. That is erroneous.

Fantasy is fantasy, reality is reality. Regardless if you construe fantasy as delusion.

While fantasy and reality are different they both are existence. The philosophy presented here allows for that dynamic while remaining congruous. Your premise does not.

Your premise acknowledges fantasy or illusion, dismissing it as delusion, while integrating it into reality as reality. It is confounding, it is fallacious.

Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality. However both exist.

Existence is the more comprehensive, coherent term.

So there is a reality of claiming 'existence is infinite' as this claim is delusional because you cannot verify and justify your claim is real, thus it is illusory; to be dogmatic with it is delusional.
Your claiming "Existence Is Infinite" can be empirically verified and justified based on what you posted on this forum as debated by various posters, but what is claimed as "existence is infinite' is not real because you have not provided or it is possible to be verified and justified as real empirically.

Reality is all-there-is.
Whatever is real [not illusory] must be verified and justified empirically and supported with rationality.
The most credible and objective mode of verification and justification of what is real is that of the scientific framework and system; there is not other more credible, if so, which?

The means of substantiation have been conveyed above and in the essay.

The above is a strawman or misunderstanding.

Reality is all-there-is that is real.
A fantasy or illusion is not real, therefore is not part of all-there-is.
What is real is the processes of fantasizing within the brain, but what-is-fantasized [illusory] is not real per se since there is no way a fantasy can be verified as real at all.

Note the consequence where 'existence' is overriding;
Theists will insist their God exists as really or the most real to the extent that their real existing God commanded them to kill believers upon the slightest threats, e.g. blasphemy, drawing cartoon, and the like. This is going on in practice and evident.

However, if the above is constraint by the need to verify and justified what is real [reality] then we could prevent the terrible consequences from happening.

So, 'existence is infinite' is illusory and can lead to terrible consequences to humanity if allowed to prevail over reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Existence' is problematic because it allows anyone to [falsely] claim imaginary and illusory things to exist as real and these cannot be verified and justified as real at all, e.g. God exists, an independent soul exists, ghosts exists, Santa Claus exists, heaven and hell exists, and the like.

Imaginary and illusory things do exist. They are imaginary and illusory. They are not necessarily real depending on use of the term.

By definition that perceived, at least in part, is existence.

Because existence is so problematic, we must narrow 'existence' to what is real, i.e. reality is all-there-is that is verifiable and justified as real so as to differentiate reality from the illusory, fiction and whatever is unreal, e.g. the claim 'existence is infinite'.

Reality as all-there-is encompasses whatever there is, thus including the reality of 'fantasizing or claiming what is supposedly a fantasy as something real', i.e. being insistent on such a false claim is delusional.
One point is, being "delusional" in insisting 'a supposedly fantasy or fiction is real' e.g. "God is real" [theists] or "Santa is real" [toddlers] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present for therapeutic purposes.

It isn’t problematic. The terminology works.

However your presented premise is problematic.

The premise attempts to merge fantasy, or illusion, with reality. It presents reality as “all-there-is” including fantasy. That is erroneous.

Fantasy is fantasy, reality is reality. Regardless if you construe fantasy as delusion.

While fantasy and reality are different they both are existence. The philosophy presented here allows for that dynamic while remaining congruous. Your premise does not.

Your premise acknowledges fantasy or illusion, dismissing it as delusion, while integrating it into reality as reality. It is confounding, it is fallacious.

Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality. However both exist.

Existence is the more comprehensive, coherent term.

So there is a reality of claiming 'existence is infinite' as this claim is delusional because you cannot verify and justify your claim is real, thus it is illusory; to be dogmatic with it is delusional.
Your claiming "Existence Is Infinite" can be empirically verified and justified based on what you posted on this forum as debated by various posters, but what is claimed as "existence is infinite' is not real because you have not provided or it is possible to be verified and justified as real empirically.

Reality is all-there-is.
Whatever is real [not illusory] must be verified and justified empirically and supported with rationality.
The most credible and objective mode of verification and justification of what is real is that of the scientific framework and system; there is not other more credible, if so, which?

The means of substantiation have been conveyed above and in the essay.

The above is a strawman or misunderstanding.

Reality is all-there-is that is real.
A fantasy or illusion is not real, therefore is not part of all-there-is.
What is real is the processes of fantasizing within the brain, but what-is-fantasized [illusory] is not real per se since there is no way a fantasy can be verified as real at all.

Note the consequence where 'existence' is overriding;
Theists will insist their God exists as really or the most real to the extent that their real existing God commanded them to kill believers upon the slightest threats, e.g. blasphemy, drawing cartoon, and the like. This is going on in practice and evident.

However, if the above is constraint by the need to verify and justified what is real [reality] then we could prevent the terrible consequences from happening.

So, 'existence is infinite' is illusory and can lead to terrible consequences to humanity if allowed to prevail over reality.