What I have repeatedly put forth is "infinity" as a possibility that most cosmologists lean towards. I never stated that I know it existed, and I made that, I thought, abundantly clear many times here. It is your remarks that infinity somehow cannot be a hypothetical solution that's absurd, and you have repeated that mantra over and over again.
What I have shown is that is not true. Most cosmologist (and I have shown this over and over and other atheist debaters have even volunteered it) is that the overwhelming most accepted model in the BBT and it posits a finite past. The second most accepted theory is one who's name has finite in it. Many cosmologists and I as well would allow that all possible infinites are not all known to be impossible. They are probably not possible and good reasons exist to think that but not all are proven impossible. Who cares? How is that a meaningful piece of information. Any conversation about anything not proven impossible is silly. Why discuss blue kangaroos of a planet 100 million light years away just because it is not impossible? Why is reliable science that confirms the bible written off or ignored and claims about what is not impossible talked about page after page?
But what I find so bizarre with your approach is that you pooh-pooh the very thought of infinity, but somehow are so willing to accept a theistic causation for our universe that is virtually impossible to find one shred of evidence for. If you had taken the position that both are hypothetically possible but that you lean towards a theistic causation, that would make sense, and we probably wouldn't have had much of a discussion. But that's not been your approach at all, instead claiming that you know for sure and these others are dishonest, idiots, or both. Just take a look over the last several pages to see where you've done that.
I do not claim they are wrong on my own authority (even though an 8th grader would know why some of their claims are wrong). I do so because many cosmologists, physicists, pure mathematicians, and philosophers point out why their wrong in ways that no argument is possible that they are right. Nothing never can, never has, and never will produce anything. Nothing is the absence of being and has no causal potential. I do not care how many degrees a guy has who dreams that it can, it never will. What is even stupider than that, is them claiming nothing is actually something and that that proves it could happen. That is just plain dumb, dishonest, and a bad excuse for not knowing what actually occurred. I don't care if they have 75 degrees in all subjects, up is up, and down is down, left is not right and right is not left. I can't change the fact that smart people make stupid claims. I can't say I know every possible instance of infinity is impossible. Most are but some can't be proven impossible. There exist darn good reasons to think they are all impossible but no absolute proof. Discussing them however is worse than meaningless because it takes up time where good science and evidence could be being discussed. They should produce one or shut up, because it is a waste of time to discuss things just because they may not be impossible. Why re you spending all you time on things that are not known and probably never can be instead of using good science to make decisions in the case of God. IN almost every other case you make decisions based on the best information, why in God's case are you doing the exact opposite? Double standards are terrible foundations.
Here is another link that concerns what cosmologist actually believe in the most and why infinities are all probably impossible.
The Kalam Cosmologucal Argument and Infinite Regress by James Watson
Questions of whether an actual infinite exists, and in what capacity, have woven their way through the history of philosophy and mathematics. On the surface there do not seem to be many problems left. Few really believe in an actual infinite set of physical things or that such sets can be formed by successive addition. Transfinite mathematics has shown us that infinites, conceived as whole sets, can be attributed positive properties and formalized into consistent mathematical theories. Yet even Georg Cantor, the most sympathetic proponent of transfinite math, did not believe that any of these sets had ontologically instantiable import.Here I will examine arguments for and against the existence of instantiated infinities in the debate surrounding the
kalām cosmological argument for the existence of God. I hope to show, despite the continued hope for the infinite past of the universe or for the infinite nature of time, that the concept of infinity, its definition and implications, precludes any instantiation in or as space-time.
When certain physical theories are developed, theories of cosmogony and cosmogeny, theories of time, etc., their immensity calls into question the common beliefs about infinite sets. Even Aristotle, though he thought infinities could only exist potentially, thought of time as entirely and ontologically infinite, and of time and space as infinite by division.The problems become especially apparent in theories of cosmogony. Concepts such as ‘beginningless series,’ ‘a past point in time infinitely distant from the present,’ and ‘existing through an infinite amount of time until the present’ ask strange things of astrophysicists.
Big bang theories of the universe escape most of these problems. An initial cosmological singularity, in which time and space began, without which there is no concept of ‘prior’ or ‘before’ (since these are temporal terms), supports the claim that an instantiated infinity does not exist with respect to the universe’s age. Medieval Islamic philosophers had no qualms with this type of theorizing. They had developed a philosophical theory that simultaneously proved the finitude of the universe and the existence of a creator.
The
kalām cosmological argument, as opposed to the Thomistic and Leibnizian, is one of the better-respected arguments for the existence of God. Because its validity is not controversial,because it aligns with the most prominent scientific theories of the universe, and because it agrees with general philosophical insight concerning properties of infinities, it is one of the more interesting pieces of religious philosophy.
It can be stated as follows:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition:
(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive
addition.
(2.23)
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Questions of whether an actual infinite exists, and in what capacity, have woven their way through the history of philosophy a
is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics... In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e., a number greater than any real number. Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities).[2] For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable...
