"In short - the Big Bang could not have occured if the universe is infinite - and the Big Bang has mounds of evidence." this is a common fallacy the particular instance was recently posted in mathforum's "infinity" thread people who actually study the big bang, the CMB, inflation scenarios, do not assume finite universe because there is no logical implication BB does not imply finiteness you can see this graphically in e.g. lineweaver's figure 5 or you can read it in words (if you understand the terminology) in any recent survey of contemp cosmology The misconception that BB implies finiteness is a naive one and surprisingly common. Whether the universe has a finite volume or an infinite volume is not the point here. That is a separate issue. What I am calling attention to is the the fallacy that evidence for BB constitutes evidence for finiteness. You pay the experts millions of tax dollars to put satellite observatories like COBE and WMAP into orbit to study the oldest light---the CMB---and to write articles about the Bang and you entrust these expensive projects to Bang experts who do not see any reason to suppose the universe is finite Maybe it is finite---that would be fine with me---but that would be on the basis of entirely different evidence. That evidence has yet to be found (some type Ia supernova data might reveal it, depending on what turns up). But if you say silly things like BB implies finite then you are not getting your money's worth from the satellite observatories and the people you pay to study universe beginnings and such.