What would God say if he came here and why.

[Revolutionary]

And I repeat!

Let me explain something about the world of logic..... You don't define infinity, infinity does not contain the finite tangible points by which we give everything else definition.... When it lacks these defining points, that's when we know it's infinite.

All fields of science and logic do not place the burden on proving infinity for very obvious reasons, they place the burden on proving a finite point which shows that it is not.
This is how infinity operates in the world of science and logic!

So, where are these finite points?

[Byblos]

And I repeat!

Let me explain something about the world of logic..... You don't define infinity, infinity does not contain the finite tangible points by which we give everything else definition.... When it lacks these defining points, that's when we know it's infinite.

All fields of science and logic do not place the burden on proving infinity for very obvious reasons, they place the burden on proving a finite point which shows that it is not.
This is how infinity operates in the world of science and logic!

So, where are these finite points?

I'm sorry, is this supposed to mean something? If science is not in the business of proving infinities (which in principle I don't have an issue with) then why are you claiming infinities exist for one, and that space-time is infinite for another.

Seriously Rev, take a step back, you're all over the place.

[Revolutionary]

Rev, please follow me for a second. There is no controversy in the scientific community, irrespective of one's theological views, that space-time is a product of the singularity. Whether or not that singularity is unique or there is an infinite singularities is another matter. What is for certain in nearly all the cosmological models is that our universe is geodesically incomplete, i.e. it had a beginning. Space-time is a product of this universe and therefore is bound by it, it cannot be infinite. There might be other, perhaps even infinite (some claim, but it can be shown otherwise) universes each with their own space-time fields. But in our universe, our space-time is finite and that's a matter of fact.

Now I'll break down my own post for you

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought.... Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness

I have just extended in thought beyond our observable universe by wiping it out of existence, it actually helps to address concepts surrounding what is finite and what is infinite.

More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time.... If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin.

As hopefully we've established, we're not placing this void into a tube; and as there are no defining points to a void, we must accept that said void is infinite. Something that is infinite, must also have an infinite timeframe, otherwise it is a contradiction in terms.
Now as we've extended beyond this, if our observable universe can spring from this void; whatever the dynamic responsible, it happened within this infinite void within and infinite arena of time whatever aspect of relativity it might contain, it is infinitely relative.. Probability would tell us that in such an infinite arena, if it can happen once, it has happened an infinite number of times. This would lead us to conclude given this scenario, that we are just one of an infinite number of universes.

This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.
Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

Based on the conservation of mass, there is nothing that indicates a single finite point beyond our observable universe.... The entire point of this is that our universe does not prove a creator.... AND?

[Revolutionary]

It's a very simple concept folks, by showing how the universe can be a perpetual state within an infinite arena.... IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CREATOR!

Therefore, you can NOT prove the existence of a creator based on science, end of story.... No more argument, it's moot, it's pointless, And?

[RickD]

It's a very simple concept folks, by showing how the universe can be a perpetual state within an infinite arena.... IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CREATOR!

Therefore, you can NOT prove the existence of a creator based on science, end of story.... No more argument, it's moot, it's pointless, And?

So instead of believing in God, you want us to believe in a universe that has the attributes of God?

[Revolutionary]

It's a very simple concept folks, by showing how the universe can be a perpetual state within an infinite arena.... IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CREATOR!

Therefore, you can NOT prove the existence of a creator based on science, end of story.... No more argument, it's moot, it's pointless, And?

So instead of believing in God, you want us to believe in a universe that has the attributes of God?

I don't actually tell people what too believe, condemn them, tell them they are sinful and need to be saved..... that's your M.O..... I will however correct a claim if it's false where logic, reason sense and sensibility is concerned..... If that's something your belief collides with, well?

[Revolutionary]

If your pal Byblos was actually concerned with logic, he would objectively criticize your post by saying that your claim supplies a baseless premise to which the universe is compared to, not the other way around.

[RickD]

You didn't answer my question.

So instead of believing in God, you want us to believe in a universe that has the attributes of God?

Or how about if I reword I it like this:

You think it's logical to believe in a universe with attributes of God, instead of believing in God?

[Byblos]

Rev, please follow me for a second. There is no controversy in the scientific community, irrespective of one's theological views, that space-time is a product of the singularity. Whether or not that singularity is unique or there is an infinite singularities is another matter. What is for certain in nearly all the cosmological models is that our universe is geodesically incomplete, i.e. it had a beginning. Space-time is a product of this universe and therefore is bound by it, it cannot be infinite. There might be other, perhaps even infinite (some claim, but it can be shown otherwise) universes each with their own space-time fields. But in our universe, our space-time is finite and that's a matter of fact.

Now I'll break down my own post for you

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought.... Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness

I have just extended in thought beyond our observable universe by wiping it out of existence, it actually helps to address concepts surrounding what is finite and what is infinite.

More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time.... If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin.

As hopefully we've established, we're not placing this void into a tube; and as there are no defining points to a void, we must accept that said void is infinite. Something that is infinite, must also have an infinite timeframe, otherwise it is a contradiction in terms.
Now as we've extended beyond this, if our observable universe can spring from this void; whatever the dynamic responsible, it happened within this infinite void within and infinite arena of time whatever aspect of relativity it might contain, it is infinitely relative.. Probability would tell us that in such an infinite arena, if it can happen once, it has happened an infinite number of times. This would lead us to conclude given this scenario, that we are just one of an infinite number of universes.

This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.
Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

Based on the conservation of mass, there is nothing that indicates a single finite point beyond our observable universe.... The entire point of this is that our universe does not prove a creator.... AND?

All you're doing is merely asserting that a void can be infinite and time can be infinite. These are mere assertions without any proof and therefore can be summarily dismissed without any proof. You have proven nothing. Try backing up what you assert for a change.

And by the way, even if by remote chance you prove there is such a thing as an infinite void with infinite time, do you really think it does anything to invalidate an intelligent creator? I have news for you, your argument was refuted more than 700 years ago. Try looking up Aquinas' Five Ways (and try to understand what they actually mean, not the stawman counter-arguments you find with a simple google search). Like I said, neither logic nor metaphysics nor science is on your side, yet you keep insisting it's simple logic. Defies credulity.

[Revolutionary]

Rev, please follow me for a second. There is no controversy in the scientific community, irrespective of one's theological views, that space-time is a product of the singularity. Whether or not that singularity is unique or there is an infinite singularities is another matter. What is for certain in nearly all the cosmological models is that our universe is geodesically incomplete, i.e. it had a beginning. Space-time is a product of this universe and therefore is bound by it, it cannot be infinite. There might be other, perhaps even infinite (some claim, but it can be shown otherwise) universes each with their own space-time fields. But in our universe, our space-time is finite and that's a matter of fact.

Now I'll break down my own post for you

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought.... Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness

I have just extended in thought beyond our observable universe by wiping it out of existence, it actually helps to address concepts surrounding what is finite and what is infinite.

More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time.... If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin.

As hopefully we've established, we're not placing this void into a tube; and as there are no defining points to a void, we must accept that said void is infinite. Something that is infinite, must also have an infinite timeframe, otherwise it is a contradiction in terms.
Now as we've extended beyond this, if our observable universe can spring from this void; whatever the dynamic responsible, it happened within this infinite void within and infinite arena of time whatever aspect of relativity it might contain, it is infinitely relative.. Probability would tell us that in such an infinite arena, if it can happen once, it has happened an infinite number of times. This would lead us to conclude given this scenario, that we are just one of an infinite number of universes.

This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.
Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

Based on the conservation of mass, there is nothing that indicates a single finite point beyond our observable universe.... The entire point of this is that our universe does not prove a creator.... AND?

All you're doing is merely asserting that a void can be infinite and time can be infinite. These are mere assertions without any proof and therefore can be summarily dismissed without any proof. You have proven nothing. Try backing up what you assert for a change.

And by the way, even if by remote chance you prove there is such a thing as an infinite void with infinite time, do you really think it does anything to invalidate an intelligent creator? I have news for you, your argument was refuted more than 700 years ago. Try looking up Aquinas' Five Ways (and try to understand what they actually mean, not the stawman counter-arguments you find with a simple google search). Like I said, neither logic nor metaphysics nor science is on your side, yet you keep insisting it's simple logic. Defies credulity.

What do you actually think a finite void is? Are you suggesting that we are contained within a snow globe?
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in any field of thought....
Here's a thought, if we're contained in a globe, what's beyond that? Beyond that? Beyond that? x infinity!!!! It's not real difficult to grasp!

Why don't you explain to us how a void or the expanse of space whatever form it might be is finite?

[Revolutionary]

Let me explain something about the world of logic..... You don't define infinity, infinity does not contain the finite tangible points by which we give everything else definition.... When it lacks these defining points, that's when we know it's infinite.

All fields of science and logic do not place the burden on proving infinity for very obvious reasons, they place the burden on proving a finite point which shows that it is not.
This is how infinity operates in the world of science and logic!

So, where are these finite points?

Repeat, yet again..... Show me a finite point, it doesn't work the other way.... get it?

[Byblos]

What do you actually think a finite void is? Are you suggesting that we are contained within a snow globe?
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in any field of thought....
Here's a thought, if we're contained in a globe, what's beyond that? Beyond that? Beyond that? x infinity!!!! It's not real difficult to grasp!

Where exactly did I claim this? What I have been arguing against all along, however, is YOUR claim that 1) a void is infinite (with no other possibility), and 2) that, by extension, time is also infinite.

On 1) it is highly speculative considering general relativity presents a model of the universe than can curve onto itself, therefore is finite with a boundary.
On 2) it is even more speculative considering both general relativity and the inflationary model postulate that space-time and the laws of physics that ensued came about (or at least completely break down) at the singularity. You may disagree with it or you may think it's ridiculous but you're welcome to take that up with any astrophysicist.

Why don't you explain to us how a void or the expanse of space whatever form it might be is finite?

I will tell you what science says, the answer is we don't know for sure. But according to general relativity the most likely scenario is that the universe, i.e. space-time curves onto itself and has a boundary.

But let me say again, even if I were to concede the point that the universe could be expanding into an endless void (and I don't concede that at all), it does absolutely nothing for your claim that time itself must also be infinite. You would have to present some solid proof of that (other than the mere assertion that it creates a contradiction, that is).

And here's the kicker, on the extremely remote chance that you are right that void is infinite and time is timeless (I can't believe I'm even saying that), that, once again, does nothing for your claim that it negates the necessity of a creator since an endless void cannot possibly create matter out of nothing (see my previous suggestion regarding Aquinas' Five Ways that were formulated precisely with an eternal universe in mind).

The fact is that current inflationary models tell us that our universe is geodesically incomplete, which means space-time as we know it must have had a beginning (whether or not a void is infinite is utterly irrelevant). Science also tells us that any type of universe or multiverse or oscillating universe or M-theory brane or whatever else you could think of, there is but one single condition to make all of them geodesically incomplete and that being having an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero. So you could have an oscillating universe that expands and contracts and expands and contracts but if its average expansion/contraction is greater than zero (which it necessarily must be, otherwise nothing will form including matter) then guess what, it also must necessarily be geodesically incomplete with a space-time boundary.

So you could go on asserting an infinite void and timeless time all you want but do you really think you've come up with an argument no one has ever thought of before? You have no leg to stand on Rev, sorry.

[Revolutionary]

What do you actually think a finite void is? Are you suggesting that we are contained within a snow globe?
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in any field of thought....
Here's a thought, if we're contained in a globe, what's beyond that? Beyond that? Beyond that? x infinity!!!! It's not real difficult to grasp!

Where exactly did I claim this? What I have been arguing against all along, however, is YOUR claim that 1) a void is infinite (with no other possibility), and 2) that, by extension, time is also infinite.

Exactly what I've been claiming.... And? Explain to me how a void is finite?

On 1) it is highly speculative considering general relativity presents a model of the universe than can curve onto itself, therefore is finite with a boundary.

This model pertains only to the physical observable universe.... So? What exactly exists beyond this boundary? Did you forget what we are talking about?

On 2) it is even more speculative considering both general relativity and the inflationary model postulate that space-time and the laws of physics that ensued came about (or at least completely break down) at the singularity. You may disagree with it or you may think it's ridiculous but you're welcome to take that up with any astrophysicist.

Yet again, this refers only to our physical observable universe, what exactly exists beyond that? The entire idea is through the big bang, all mass was condensed into a very dense state that began rapidly expanding... What exactly was it expanding into?

Why don't you explain to us how a void or the expanse of space whatever form it might be is finite?

I will tell you what science says, the answer is we don't know for sure. But according to general relativity the most likely scenario is that the universe, i.e. space-time curves onto itself and has a boundary.

Again, this refers to our observable physical universe, what is beyond that 'boundary'?

But let me say again, even if I were to concede the point that the universe could be expanding into an endless void (and I don't concede that at all), it does absolutely nothing for your claim that time itself must also be infinite. You would have to present some solid proof of that (other than the mere assertion that it creates a contradiction, that is).

We already know that the universe is expanding, if it's not expanding into an endless void, what is it expanding into? If it's finite void, can you explain how that void is contained and what is beyond that point of containment?

And here's the kicker, on the extremely remote chance that you are right that void is infinite and time is timeless (I can't believe I'm even saying that), that, once again, does nothing for your claim that it negates the necessity of a creator since an endless void cannot possibly create matter out of nothing (see my previous suggestion regarding Aquinas' Five Ways that were formulated precisely with an eternal universe in mind).

If there is no end to a void, how long would it take for you to get to the end of it?
BTW, the endless void argument was merely setting the stage to demonstrate how the conservation of mass creates a perpetual model that has no beginning and no end, hence, infinite.

The fact is that current inflationary models tell us that our universe is geodesically incomplete, which means space-time as we know it must have had a beginning (whether or not a void is infinite is utterly irrelevant). Science also tells us that any type of universe or multiverse or oscillating universe or M-theory brane or whatever else you could think of, there is but one single condition to make all of them geodesically incomplete and that being having an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero. So you could have an oscillating universe that expands and contracts and expands and contracts but if its average expansion/contraction is greater than zero (which it necessarily must be, otherwise nothing will form including matter) then guess what, it also must necessarily be geodesically incomplete with a space-time boundary.

A boundary to what? Again you talk about the physical and observable.

So you could go on asserting an infinite void and timeless time all you want but do you really think you've come up with an argument no one has ever thought of before? You have no leg to stand on Rev, sorry.

I'm not trying to prove a thing here, you simply don't get that.... All I did is provide a viable model that is perpetual (eternal) where mass is concerned and infinite in expanse.... Hence, does not give any indication that it would require a creator. And yet, you still can't show me a finite point.... And?

[Byblos]

What do you actually think a finite void is? Are you suggesting that we are contained within a snow globe?
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in any field of thought....
Here's a thought, if we're contained in a globe, what's beyond that? Beyond that? Beyond that? x infinity!!!! It's not real difficult to grasp!

Where exactly did I claim this? What I have been arguing against all along, however, is YOUR claim that 1) a void is infinite (with no other possibility), and 2) that, by extension, time is also infinite.

Exactly what I've been claiming.... And? Explain to me how a void is finite?

On 1) it is highly speculative considering general relativity presents a model of the universe than can curve onto itself, therefore is finite with a boundary.

This model pertains only to the physical observable universe.... So? What exactly exists beyond this boundary? Did you forget what we are talking about?

On 2) it is even more speculative considering both general relativity and the inflationary model postulate that space-time and the laws of physics that ensued came about (or at least completely break down) at the singularity. You may disagree with it or you may think it's ridiculous but you're welcome to take that up with any astrophysicist.

Yet again, this refers only to our physical observable universe, what exactly exists beyond that? The entire idea is through the big bang, all mass was condensed into a very dense state that began rapidly expanding... What exactly was it expanding into?

Why don't you explain to us how a void or the expanse of space whatever form it might be is finite?

I will tell you what science says, the answer is we don't know for sure. But according to general relativity the most likely scenario is that the universe, i.e. space-time curves onto itself and has a boundary.

Again, this refers to our observable physical universe, what is beyond that 'boundary'?

But let me say again, even if I were to concede the point that the universe could be expanding into an endless void (and I don't concede that at all), it does absolutely nothing for your claim that time itself must also be infinite. You would have to present some solid proof of that (other than the mere assertion that it creates a contradiction, that is).

We already know that the universe is expanding, if it's not expanding into an endless void, what is it expanding into? If it's finite void, can you explain how that void is contained and what is beyond that point of containment?

And here's the kicker, on the extremely remote chance that you are right that void is infinite and time is timeless (I can't believe I'm even saying that), that, once again, does nothing for your claim that it negates the necessity of a creator since an endless void cannot possibly create matter out of nothing (see my previous suggestion regarding Aquinas' Five Ways that were formulated precisely with an eternal universe in mind).

If there is no end to a void, how long would it take for you to get to the end of it?
BTW, the endless void argument was merely setting the stage to demonstrate how the conservation of mass creates a perpetual model that has no beginning and no end, hence, infinite.

The fact is that current inflationary models tell us that our universe is geodesically incomplete, which means space-time as we know it must have had a beginning (whether or not a void is infinite is utterly irrelevant). Science also tells us that any type of universe or multiverse or oscillating universe or M-theory brane or whatever else you could think of, there is but one single condition to make all of them geodesically incomplete and that being having an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero. So you could have an oscillating universe that expands and contracts and expands and contracts but if its average expansion/contraction is greater than zero (which it necessarily must be, otherwise nothing will form including matter) then guess what, it also must necessarily be geodesically incomplete with a space-time boundary.

A boundary to what? Again you talk about the physical and observable.

So you could go on asserting an infinite void and timeless time all you want but do you really think you've come up with an argument no one has ever thought of before? You have no leg to stand on Rev, sorry.

I'm not trying to prove a thing here, you simply don't get that.... All I did is provide a viable model that is perpetual (eternal) where mass is concerned and infinite in expanse.... Hence, does not give any indication that it would require a creator. And yet, you still can't show me a finite point.... And?

This is getting tiring but I will keep trying.

Everything I stated regarding our universe extends to any other universe, it extends to all of them. In fact that's what my 2nd to last paragraph was all about. I specifically mentioned pretty much all the types of universes conceived of. I tell you what, for the sake of moving the discussion forward I will concede the point that there is a void and it is endless (even though science hasn't settled the issue but maybe you know something they don't). I know you keep insisting on that and it's not a point terribly important to my arguments so there you go, an infinite void it is, okay?

Science tells us that space-time and everything in it including matter is bound by the singularity, of this universe or any other. So space-time and matter cannot be infinite or eternal, one is bound by the other. So as you say, let us go back:

In the beginning there was an infinite void ... And?

[Revolutionary]

What do you actually think a finite void is? Are you suggesting that we are contained within a snow globe?
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in any field of thought....
Here's a thought, if we're contained in a globe, what's beyond that? Beyond that? Beyond that? x infinity!!!! It's not real difficult to grasp!

Where exactly did I claim this? What I have been arguing against all along, however, is YOUR claim that 1) a void is infinite (with no other possibility), and 2) that, by extension, time is also infinite.

Exactly what I've been claiming.... And? Explain to me how a void is finite?

On 1) it is highly speculative considering general relativity presents a model of the universe than can curve onto itself, therefore is finite with a boundary.

This model pertains only to the physical observable universe.... So? What exactly exists beyond this boundary? Did you forget what we are talking about?

On 2) it is even more speculative considering both general relativity and the inflationary model postulate that space-time and the laws of physics that ensued came about (or at least completely break down) at the singularity. You may disagree with it or you may think it's ridiculous but you're welcome to take that up with any astrophysicist.

Yet again, this refers only to our physical observable universe, what exactly exists beyond that? The entire idea is through the big bang, all mass was condensed into a very dense state that began rapidly expanding... What exactly was it expanding into?

Why don't you explain to us how a void or the expanse of space whatever form it might be is finite?

I will tell you what science says, the answer is we don't know for sure. But according to general relativity the most likely scenario is that the universe, i.e. space-time curves onto itself and has a boundary.

Again, this refers to our observable physical universe, what is beyond that 'boundary'?

But let me say again, even if I were to concede the point that the universe could be expanding into an endless void (and I don't concede that at all), it does absolutely nothing for your claim that time itself must also be infinite. You would have to present some solid proof of that (other than the mere assertion that it creates a contradiction, that is).

We already know that the universe is expanding, if it's not expanding into an endless void, what is it expanding into? If it's finite void, can you explain how that void is contained and what is beyond that point of containment?

And here's the kicker, on the extremely remote chance that you are right that void is infinite and time is timeless (I can't believe I'm even saying that), that, once again, does nothing for your claim that it negates the necessity of a creator since an endless void cannot possibly create matter out of nothing (see my previous suggestion regarding Aquinas' Five Ways that were formulated precisely with an eternal universe in mind).

If there is no end to a void, how long would it take for you to get to the end of it?
BTW, the endless void argument was merely setting the stage to demonstrate how the conservation of mass creates a perpetual model that has no beginning and no end, hence, infinite.

The fact is that current inflationary models tell us that our universe is geodesically incomplete, which means space-time as we know it must have had a beginning (whether or not a void is infinite is utterly irrelevant). Science also tells us that any type of universe or multiverse or oscillating universe or M-theory brane or whatever else you could think of, there is but one single condition to make all of them geodesically incomplete and that being having an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero. So you could have an oscillating universe that expands and contracts and expands and contracts but if its average expansion/contraction is greater than zero (which it necessarily must be, otherwise nothing will form including matter) then guess what, it also must necessarily be geodesically incomplete with a space-time boundary.

A boundary to what? Again you talk about the physical and observable.

So you could go on asserting an infinite void and timeless time all you want but do you really think you've come up with an argument no one has ever thought of before? You have no leg to stand on Rev, sorry.

I'm not trying to prove a thing here, you simply don't get that.... All I did is provide a viable model that is perpetual (eternal) where mass is concerned and infinite in expanse.... Hence, does not give any indication that it would require a creator. And yet, you still can't show me a finite point.... And?

This is getting tiring but I will keep trying.

Everything I stated regarding our universe extends to any other universe, it extends to all of them. In fact that's what my 2nd to last paragraph was all about. I specifically mentioned pretty much all the types of universes conceived of. I tell you what, for the sake of moving the discussion forward I will concede the point that there is a void and it is endless (even though science hasn't settled the issue but maybe you know something they don't). I know you keep insisting on that and it's not a point terribly important to my arguments so there you go, an infinite void it is, okay?

Science tells us that space-time and everything in it including matter is bound by the singularity, of this universe or any other. So space-time and matter cannot be infinite or eternal, one is bound by the other. So as you say, let us go back:

In the beginning there was an infinite void ... And?

First off, you're not conceding just to move the conversation forward, you're conceding because after being asked the same question over and over and over after pages of avoiding it, you still can't show or explain how it is possible to contain a void. Yes, the avoidance, it is rather tiring!

Second, can you please (without pages of avoidance) explain how something infinite is able to have a beginning, or can you also concede that an infinite model has no beginning, no end, no middle?

Finally, all mass has gravity, which basically explains how all the mass that exists in our immediate temporal physical universe IS actually a singularity (look, I'm using your favorite word). We don't just flip a switch and the brain shuts off when it comes to exploring all the possibilities beyond that immediate mass, that would be an ignorance similar to trying to contain the mind.... eh hem!
Now don't contain it, expand it.... Take the entire mass of our physical universe, that space-time as a temporal singularity has it's own immense gravity.... The multiverse postulate that you are pointing too is actually rather brilliant... Each singularity (which their are infinite examples in a multiverse) are physically (gravity) pulling towards one another, and because of the structure of the multiverse concerning gravity alone, each singularity is being pulled/pulling simultaneously in all directions which actually causes the entire structure too expand when the limited sense of gravity would otherwise have you expecting that it would collapse..... Give it a fractal similar to say, a honeycomb structure, the important aspect is that it MUST be infinite... If it wasn't, it might have enough force in it's internal structure to expand, but the edges would be collapsing in upon itself; only a matter of time before inevitability takes it's course. Can you imagine a multiverse bang? Could be part of a larger multiverse-verse.. Doesn't change the aspect of infinity, regardless!
Beyond the brilliance of this model that would effortlessly support our expanding universe, we do have a 'problem' concerning the conservation of mass. Somewhat!
We have three possible scenarios within such a model..... Either each universe (the singularity, aren't I nice?) is going to 'expand' away leaving a void in it's place (doesn't quite work), each 'singularity' collapses upon itself over and over again (meh), or the 'honey comb' structure refocuses a radiant mass to the central gaps of the 'honey comb' structure as it expands (hmmmm).
Anyone ever heard of hawking radiation? Where oh where does it go? The part I like about this is that it is rather smooth, collecting radiant particles seems rather absurd, but not to gravity as it very well might relate to a space-time curvature type wedge between universes... If it has the power to cause expansion from an otherwise massive gravitational attraction (pull), not to mention that all the push pull force of said expansion would be exerted on to this very spot... Well?
The reason I don't like collapse, is that it is rather sloppy and violent; there is no balance where the collective gravity induced multiverse could otherwise focus radiant particles to begin forming an extremely dense (sound familiar? It ends in a bang) and balanced state relative to expansion.... The expansion is only immediate, it only expands to fill, this accounts for conservation.... It doesn't have to say 'poof' there it is!
If someone would like to indulge Higgs boson concerning conservation as it applies to the first scenario which leaves a 'void', I'd be happy to.

I will add, this multiverse scenario is beautiful, it's composition is flawless (doesn't exist any other way) and awe inspiring.

Now, IF I were to indulge in a creator.... It would only make sense that it would be this magnificently intricate and also simultaneously demonstrate such an effortless balance, it is in fact the effortlessness that would not actually point to a creator.... And yet?

The business going on here trying to contain such a magnificence within a belief, it's almost a contradiction!