Cosmologists claim Universe has been forming and reforming for eternity

There is only one infinity. OK, Hank, how are we going to tell LW we won't be slaves to this Infinity?

I am not sure I understand the question, but I have a couple of comments:

Actually, there is no inifinity at all. The infinite is a mathematical concept. Remembering that mathematics is only a method of dealing with aspects of reality that can be counted (absolutes) or measured (relatives) and that concepts like the infinite and the Calculus are always, "as ifs." Derivatives are derived by treating a function "as if" one of its elements were contintually reduced until it was nothing at all. It works as a method, but would actually be dividing by zero except for the, "as if."

Infinity is the concept for the number one would reach, "as if" they continued any series indefinitely. Of course, if it is continued indefinitely, the end is never reached and never can. However, it works as a method.

Neither the infinite or the infinitesimal describes anything in material existence.

Hank

Neither the infinite or the infinitesimal describes anything in material existence.

I guess the difference between notional concepts and actual existents is a real evolutionary bummer.

Is existence finite or infinite?

Is existence finite or infinite?

Existence is not a thing, it is a quality. Everything that is has it. Everything that isn't, doesn't.

Sometimes "existence" is used to mean, "everything that exists." Every existent (thing) is finite.

Maybe your question is, "how many finite things are there?"

Sorry? I don't know; but I'm sure it's a finite number of things, but probably more than can ever be identified.

No actual existent of any kind can be infinite.

This automatically excludes the Gods of almost all religions which define their God as infinite, or eternal, or omniscient, or omnipresent, which are all kinds of infinities.

Hank

No actual existent of any kind can be infinite.

So there's your answer. I wonder if LogicWings has a different take. To paraphrase your view, infinity as a quality (there are kinds of infinity) does not apply to things. So we can't properly say that notional concepts exist, but just are?

( To be frank, hank, I'm really not interested how many finite things there are. Although the supposed question leads on: is omniscience finite? )

I've always had a suspicion that the first words ever spoken were were the ancient Sanskrit equivalent of "Oh no! Not again!"

Don't forget though, the ancient Kings of Sumeria bragged in Sanskrit text about being able to read the "ancient" writings from before their own time.

Even civilization is cyclic.

Your questions are important ones, and I can tell you my personal beliefs and HOW I believe them, but they don't satisfactorily explain the birth of the universe any more than the most recent physical theories (which don't even come close).

The problem is people use words that have no meaning other than in their heads. They are called floating abstractions. I agree with you about the “birth of the Universe.” I don’t think anyone, anyone, anyone, can explain that. I, personally, don’t think there was a birth to the Universe. It has always existed in one form or another. I don’t accept the “Big Bang” and even if I did, that doesn’t explain anything. What went BANG?!

I know that's abstract, but I can tell you why I believe in something at all. I have been conscious and completely aware outside my body.

I don’t accept this. You “believe” you have been outside your body, but that doesn’t mean you were. I have had all kinds of experiences. I can become fully aware of myself inside a dream, know that is a dream, and go anywhere I wish. It doesn’t mean I have actually done so. Now, if I could get the Swiss bank account of Saddam and transfer all his money to my bank account, I might consider this valid. But until your “OBE” experiences have practical, real, results, they must be considered nothing more than fantasy.

When this happens to you, you pass the point of BELIEVING to the point of KNOWING that there is existence outside the purely material body.

Only if you decide so. Until you no longer have a material body, you can’t make this claim since your consciousness is still rooted in your material body, it could merely be a body/mind projection. Actually, from a Hindu point of view, it is just your higher material body in which your consciousness is lodged. You still have a material body, just a different material than this plane. And you can’t prove this theory wrong, because there is no basis by which to judge. There is no evidence either way.

On a side note, I am a research scientist by profession, so no stranger to scientific atheism.

I have a really big problem with this statement. So what? You are a research scientist. Doesn’t mean you have superb logic skills, otherwise you wouldn’t equate this with “scientific atheism.” You couldn’t define “God” so I doubt you’d define “atheism.” The errors here abound, and no one ever addresses them.

But I often note with irony some of my colleagues' fervent belief that nothing exists after death based on a lack of evidence, even though not a shred of evidence exists to support their own strong faith (in nothing).

As I said, these are logically invalid conclusions, by both you and your colleagues. The very wording here hurts to contemplate. I have made this point many times, the word “faith” has a specific meaning. To conflate the different connotations is the favorite pastime of religionists. One cannot have a “faith” in nothing, in the religious sense. But one can in the “confidence” sense, which is not the same.

In my estimation, logically, both are wrong.