I'm not sure if this is a topic for the Science section or the Religion section but here goes...

I've been wrestling with Infinite Regression for years, if not decades, and would love to hear some thoughts from some fellow philosophers on the topic.

The basic question/quandary is:

If you go back through time you eventually arrive at the Big Bang or some version thereof. And then you ask, what came before that? Ultimately, you arrive at either a) nothing, or b) something. And then you have ask the same question about that 'something'. Regardless of what that something is, the possible answers are the same, what came before that? Either a) nothing or b) something.

The result, you eventually arrive at something that has to have existed infinitely, regardless of what you call it and regardless of what attributes you give it.

And here's where things get murky. There are two main problems.

The first is infinity itself. Stepping past any sort of arguments about whether the universe around us is real or imagined, and postulating that what we see is real, all things known to us have a beginning. A beam of light starts somewhere. Even Pi begins with a calculation before it becomes into existence. A representation of infinity, the infinity symbol, cannot be drawn without placing your pen on the page and forming the figure eight. Even if you side step and try to argue that a stamp of the infinity symbol is infinite, the stamp had to get created somehow. Even the Big Bang was a beginning, and any concepts that have the Big Bang going through an infinite loop of expansion and contraction throughout existence are just theories. The point? Nothing, as far as I can tell can be shown to be a 'true' representation of infinity. So, absent a representation of infinity that is in fact infinite, we have no examples of actualy infinity, only theories, models, and symbols.

The resulting question is, if we have nothing that we can show to be infinite other than the idea of infinity, how can we fully grasp the concept of what infinity is? Yet, something must be infinite or else we would not be here. A small caveat there, something must have existed infinitly into the past at least up until the point of the Big Bang or whatever may have came before the Big Bang. There is no requirement that whatever was infinite up until that point remains in existence, however logically there no reason to believe whatever is infinite would have ceased existence.

The second problem is choice. And this one is murkier than the first. Once you arrive at the conclusion that something must be infinite the question arises either a) the infinite includes us and we are part of that infinite thing, b) we are the involuntary consequence of the existence of that infinite thing, or c) our existence is the choice of that infinite thing.

Under a) you end up with the idea of an ever expanding and contracting universe with infinite Big Bangs and some version of us or other universe emerging each time either through random creation and we are a random consequence or through the same mathematics working itself out each time and creating the same existence over and over. The problem here is that you arrive at the question why would the universe be going through this process over and over and over for all existence? There is no clear answer.

Under b) things are somewhat similar as in a) and you end up with our existence being the natural consequence of the Big Bang, meaning a big ball of burning matter will expand and eventually form galaxies, stars, planets, us, etc. But you end up with a similar question, why are planets, galaxies, and the like formed from the Big Bang. Why wouldn't the infinite universe simply remain a big ball floating in nothing and no reason to ever expand and form what we know as the universe? Even this question has the problem of if you have a big ball floating in nothing, isn't that nothing in fact 'something'?

Under c) you arrive at choice. And this option is the most interesting because here you arrive at two components. Component #1, something is infinite, and Component #2, that something made a choice for other things to exist. Choice denotes consciousness. So under this model, something is infinite and something is conscious. Without assigning any other attributes to this thing such as omnipotence or postulating whether this thing is subject to the laws of the universe or independent, or postulating whether it still exists, you stil have two key pieces of the puzzle; infinite and conscious. And, even with just that, have you not arrive at the foundation of what would define god?

My question to the forum is, do you feel this train of thought is logical? If not, what would you, a classical, or a modern philosopher insert into or change in this model? What holes do you see? Do you feel any logical leaps were made that cannot be made? Conversely, are there any leaps you feel can be made next?

I welcome any and all thoughts and discussion on the topic.