In case you missed it.

@premise 1,

Oh BTW this quote:

"Science doesn't really work, anyway. You can't prove anything with it, you can't even claim it can give a good guess. You can never prove that you're not hallucinating, or being manipulated by some sinister force. And you can't say that it's indicative of anything because you would be using science to demonstrate that, which would be circular. I'm not even sure if methods of truth exist, or if the idea makes any sense at all.

Is nothing but philosophical skepticism.  Most people recognize that you must reject it completely or live paralyzed in indecision.  Note what happens when you turn this position on itself, now we cannot trust the idea that we cannot trust things.  Note what happens when you turn this position on god, now we cannot be sure that anything that allegedly happened regarding any religion has ever happened.  Note what happens when you turn this on existence, now we cannot be sure that anyone exist and must accept the possibility that we are nothing but the figment of a delusional imagination, but of who?.  The thinking is circular and paralyzing and it must be ignored for progress to be made. So long as science continues to explain the universe to great accuracy, consistency, and agreeance with objective observable evidence people will logically continue to ignore the idea of philosophical skepticism in favor of what works.

Even if skepticism does lead you to nothing, that certainly doesn't validate any other method of thought; they're still just as far away from proving anything.  And I merely contest science, not ideas or truth themselves.  Presuppositionalism (although I 'm not so sure how well it works) is an alternative to circularity of knowing nothing.  Or there's the possibility of revelation (which may be a from of Pressup., and I'm not so sure how it works either); that is, an all-powerful being (sorry if that sounds Christian cliche-ish) gives you the ability to know things for certain.

Ok with premise 1 addressed I'd like to point out that premise 2 is irrelevant since with the 1st law of thermodynamics properly used in this context there is no rule that says the universe cannot spring from "nothing" (the term is used loosely) and thus no longer has a need to be infinite. I address it for completeness.

Now to address premise 2,

As for the "infinite paradox", its not really a paradox although I should point out that a paradox is not necessarily a contradiction (read more) to begin with. 

But to more concretely deal with it I shall go to space-time, something most people are familiar with by now is the concept that time is simply another dimension of space.  All mass has a constant velocity through these 4 (or more) dimensions which is why if you increase your spatial velocity you lose velocity (aka "Slow down") in your movement through time.  I point these proven facts out because it is important to understand that time is literally another dimension just like space.

Now understanding this consider the "paradox" of where you are right now.  Just like where we are in time at this moment (an infinite expanse of time) you are in an infinite expanse of space.  No, not the infinitely large kind of space, the infinitely small kind of space.  You're standing at 6.734572342456673452345667.....etc which can go to infinite precision and yet you can still exist within this infinite expanse.

Now, the point here is that many people often mistake their own inability to comprehend an infinite expanse for an inability to exist in one.  Consider this, if it were impossible for you or I to exist within an infinite expanse, what can exist within an infinite expanse?  And if nothing can exist within an infinite expanse how can anything be infinite if nothing can be part of it? 

For the record the infinitely small example is a false example but I thought it would be easier than attempting to relate the details of a non-euclidian geomotry to you to explain that space can be infinite in the large scale.  Its used as a proxy example because it is far easier to understand for those who don't want to spend a bunch of time reading about math (like me =p).

I'm not sure how this gets around crossing an infinite amount of time though; if we had an infinite amount of time in the future, we really couldn't get to the end of it (as that's impossible via definition), so how could we have an infinite time before us, indicating that we somehow did cross an infinte amount of time?

basically, Sri Lumpa is attempting to assert God existence as being subjected to the universe, while I'm asserting the universe's existence being subjected to God. We're both doing this through a series of philosophical and theoretical proofs and then pointing out weaknesses in each other's proofs.

Well if God did exist, being a perfect and omnipotent being, the Universe would be subject to him.

Not all religions have the threat of hell, though; what terrors are there in hinduism (I really hope I didn't just stick my foot in my mouth with that), and probably tons of others?

The hell of Hinduism is being reincarnated as an untouchable or as a leper or a slave or an animal people hunt or eat or hate, like a tasty fish or an evil bear or snake.

It might not be the monotheistic concept of eternal damnation, but it sucks for a long time, and strikes fear into the hearts of men, to control them and make them do good.

Any religion that explains something that happens to you after you die and has anything good or bad after this life... is controlling people through fear.  Some people would argue that religions without that kinda stuff aren't even religions, but are philosophies.  Whatever.

I trump them all together and call it "Afterlifism" and I throw it out the window.  I'm only living once and I'm kicking ass at it here on Earth with the rest of the bums.