>> Then you are redefining the word “infinite” the way they are trying to redefine “marriage”.
Erroneous consequence and specious relation.
>> In your definition, “infinite” means something that
Baseless assertion.
My point is you cannot prove it’s not an infinite resource where we understand infinity to be something like n/0.
You are saying that infinity is conditioned upon the needs of humans. That is not what infinity is. But call it what you want. We are just arguing over words, not the amount of hydrocarbons available to humans, which we seem to agree about. Your need to support the theory of abiotic hydrocarbons by calling its supply "infinite" is simply exaggeration through misuse of the word infinite. It doesn't help your cause to be so irrational about it.
10 to the one millionth power is still not infinite. The universe itself is finite, at least as far as human perceptions are concerned. If that is true, then by definition, the supply of oil is also finite. But so far, it seems to be more than enough, and may well be regenerating within the earth. Us humans are studying that.