Re infinity, we are discussing matters beyond the scope of scientific proof, and are firmly in the realm of philosophy. We can agree on that, can we not? I do find your arguments re infinity quite mind-bending, Bill S. I wish I could understand the problem that you evidently see. As I see it, either the universe has always existed in some way, shape or form, or else it was brought into being by an ineffable cause which itself has always existed (with one foot outside the experience of time, rather like photons perhaps). Personally, beyond the semantics, I don't distinguish a difference between those hypotheses. It seems that you reject both notions because they're beyond scientific proof - which, of course, they are. On the other hand, what kind of proof could be presented to show that there was no existence of any kind before a given moment?
The above isn't intended as negative criticism. I don't have answers, just opinions. I'm all ears, as they say.
