The universe, defined as everything and anything in space and time, is infinite. The visible universe is not infinite; it is just a part of the whole universe. The problem here is that I am using the term "universe" the same way that some people use the term "multiverse" or "metaverse" or "parallel universes." If we use the definition of the universe as consisting of everything, we must realise that you cannot put a box on everything, since there is logically something outside the box. If there is nothing outside the box, it must eventually end, because if there is supposed to be nothing but nothingness for an infinite amount of time, eventually the nothingness will end - such is the nature of infinity. I repeat: some of you are saying the that the universe is not infinite. A lot of you that are saying that actually mean to say that the visible universe is not infinite. What I'm saying is that the whole universe, as in everything, is infinite, since there is logically something outside what we call the visible universe. Also, since each particle in our visible universe can be divided and divided and divided an infinite amount of times, you could also say that this "proves" the infinity of the universe, since it is infinitely large in relativity. I call this point of view "inward infinity" as opposed to "outward infinity" which is what most of you are talking about (how the universe is larger than just us, our visible universe). Okay, so are you following me? Now, the big bang probably occured, but that does not mean that the big bang was the start of the entire universe. If we use the logic I have already applied, we see that the big bang could only be the "start" of our visible universe, which, when compared to the rest of the universe, is either infintessimally small or infinitely large (remember inward infinity). Outside of our visible universe, and in neighboring "universes" or "realities" or "parallel universes" etc, the things that we are familiar with in our reality could be different. For instance, in some of the "other universes" (remember though, I try to use the term "universe" to mean "everything" and every one of these lesser universes) the laws of physics may be different. The laws of time may also be different. Maybe everything is so different that we can't even grasp it or begin to explain it in words. Anyways, the one rule you have to remember with the universe, as in everything, is this: the only truly infinite thing in the universe is the size of the whole universe itself, both in space and time. Everything except the total size of the universe eventually ends. I call this the "infinity rule". Now, theologically, we can apply this knowledge to a lot of things. What could we consider God to be? I don't want to offend anybody, especially since these are, of course, just my opinions and hypothesis, and nothing can ever be proven - but let's talk about God. Monotheistically, we could consider God to be everything (he/she/it's everywhere, everything, is all knowing (in a sense), etc. This works with the concept that God is infinite, since the universe itself is infinite. Polytheistically, we could argue that the universe is not one whole, but, rather, an infinite number of parts, and so is God. We could even say that, since are world is infinitely dividable (inward infinity), we could be considered Gods, and our God could be ruled over by a God (or, of course, Gods), and those Gods could have Gods, etc. Atheistically, we could argue that since there is no one true God, that is the end of that. Now, do you see how these three arguments, depending on your point of view, are actually saying the same thing? Personally, I prefer to call it "infinitheism." As in, there are an infinite number of Gods, in a sense that each thing that is created is created in part by every other thing in the universe. Each "God," or "Creator," is both created of and creating an infinite number of things. Also, when considering what reality truly is, we could say that our human creations (stories, films, etc.) may qualify us as Gods, and that our creations are just as real as ourselves, and that our creations help to create more creations. Basically, what I am saying is that monotheism, polytheism, atheism, and my own infinitheism, are all saying the exact same thing: the universe is infinite, and is made up of an infinite amount of parts, and the parts come together, in a sense, to make an overall whole, the whole universe, which could be considered the One True God, who is either made of an infinite amount of parts, or is actually a collaboration of an infinite amount of Gods (in actuality, both). Now, you must also realize that anything is possible and that you cannot know anything for sure. Do you agree with that? Anything is possible, as in, I could actually sprout wings and fly off to mars right now, while eating a bunch of carrots and singing a song that doesn't exist. It is possible, by definition. Possibility is the one thing that humans really have trouble grasping; if something is possible, it means that if could happen, not that it necessarilly ever will. You have to realize that when you are saying that something isn't possible, you are saying that it has a 0% chance of happening, when in truth it actually maybe has a 0.00000000000000000000001% chance of happening. Likewise, when you say that you know something for sure, or that something is proven, you are saying that there is a 0% chance that you are wrong, when, in truth, there is maybe a 0.0000000000000000000000001% chance that you actually are wrong. See, humans like definition. They like to be sure of things. They don't like complexity (see eastern philosophy). Humans like to have extreme views, even when they don't know it. This is why sports are "unfair," laws are "unfair," etc. The key is balance. Now, eastern philosphy knew this, but it incorporated it in a simple way. Balance, as in, cut all the other shit out and make it simple (just lie around and be happy). Now, I agree with this philosphy, but I argue that to be truly balanced, you can and need to put more on the scales. Complexity, as in taking in all the factors and risks and rewards and possibilites and events, etc., can still be balanced (it just goes against the restricting human nature to realize this). A sidenote: nonexistence is the closest we come to true balance. It is so complex that it is infinitely simple (it is nothing). Now, just mentioning nonexistence refers to anything we can think of as being nonexistent, and therefore, makes it all, at least to a small extent, existent. That's really hard to understancd, I guess, but look here... there's is nothing that doesn't exist, because by just conceptualizing the nonexistent, but just thinking about something not existing, we actually, to a very small extent, make the things exist. Death is the closest we humans get to nonexistence, and the closest we get to true balance. During life, we get to have the same balance (basically, the concept I am talking about is Karma), however, as I touched on before, there is more piled on the scales (just equally on both sides). What life allows us to do is to experience ups and downs. It all still balances out, but we get to experience more extreme ups, and more extreme downs, like a roller coaster. Life allows us to get more complex. Death gives us simplicity. So, what is the meaning of life? At it's basic level, the answer is "to exist" (althought that answer is better for the question "what is the meaning of existence?"). To get more deep though, the meaning of life for us humans, since we can fool ourselves into thinking that we have consciences, that we are more than just masses of particles, is to experience as much happiness as is possible. An unachievable go, of course, and, like possibility itself, what really matters is probability - how much happiness we get. We need to try for as much as possible. Happiness is basically called contentment. What can aid us greatly in this is love. Now, let us define love (god I hate definitions because of their restricting nature). Love is, at its simplest form, change. Trust me, it is. If you don't trust me, then here: God loves us because he created us. When we come together (in marriage, in friendship, in collaboration, etc.) we are loving. What that x-factor is, is the feeling that comes from change. I would say creation, but basically, since all the particles in the universe are never actually destroyed completely (just changed) creation is basically about change. About difference. About ups and downs. Complexity. So, we want to reach contentment, and love and happiness and stability and a bunch of other stuff can help us do that. We also have to realize that everything we do is for ourselves. We are at the center of our own universe (our reality). Why do you give to charity? To help yourself, ultimately. You feel like YOU should. Why do you give to others? Because it makes YOU feel good. This is not selfishness. Selfishness is when you do stuff for yourself when you don't realize that it can actually hurt you since it might not help others and in the end actually is bad for you. A funny paradox, I know, but I have found that the universe works in a paradox. So, when you do stuff for others, you help yourself. If you only do stuff for others, it might end up bad for you. It's all about true balance. Doing for yourself all your life might be best for you, depending on what you are about. Doing for others all your life could be the same. The surest route is going in the middle. You still have to realize, though, that your end goal in everything you do is actually to better yourself. The truth is that often, in bettering yourself, you first better others. So being "selfish" is not always bad, if you are being selfish as in "I gave the hobo fifty dollars... because it made ME feel good." So what is the meaning of life? To exist, and for humans, since we are more complex than something that just sits on the shelf and exists, to be content (balance). Being content is basically existing. So, exist, my friends, exist. I hope I explained my Theory of Everything to you all well. Most of you will have probably stopped reading by now. Most of you will disagree with a lot of what I say. Just remember that there is so much more in my head than I can type correctly, as in, a lot of the stuff that makes this stuff make sense is lost in translation. I could get more detailed, I could get less detailed, I could make the way I say it more or less easy to read, etc. I could go on all day, but that's all for now. One more thing: I know that I actually attempted to explain everything and not just whether or not the universe is infinite, but I think that a question of that size requires an equally large backup. What backups theories about the universe? The universe itself, which is everything, and so I decided to go ahead and try and explain everything since otherwise it would feel incomplete to me. If any of you have some comments for me, in addition to leaving a comment on this site, please leave a comment to jpritzlaff@pritzlaffianity.com Thank you for reading. Bye.