An infinite progress

[pocaracas]

I am a Christian. 

Hello.
I am not a Christian.
How did you get to be a Christian? Can you remember?

That being said, I am also a human. 

Hello!
I am also a human... not surprising, since, as far as I can tell, only humans are capable of interacting on these forums (or is it fora?)

I have the same flaws as all the rest of you. 

That is doubtful.
Each of us has their own flaws, either physical or psychological.
For example, I have a simple Syndactyly on my toes and, considering that only 1 in ~2000 people are born like this, I'd wager that you do not have this condition.

THAT being said . . . why? Why is your view of the universe, no, of the Cosmos correct?

Why is yours?

Would you rather believe a true thing or a false thing?
How can we tell which things are false and which are true? Or rather, which things that we believe in are closer to the truth and which are further from it? I'd say that the scientific method provides us with as good a tool as we can get for that. Would you not agree?

Now some questions for you to ponder while I take you on a trip back in time.
Think back to my first question. Why are you a christian?
Why is anyone a christian?
What originated Christianity?
I think religions already existed when Christianity appeared... it's pretty well documented... so maybe we should go further back and ask how did religions appear? This is not documented at all.
Keep going back in time and you eventually are forced to acknowledge that the supernatural believing homo sapiens was, at some point, not even a homo sapiens, so very likely as much of a believer as any other animal we see today. Why or how did Homo Sapiens become a believer in the supernatural? Sadly, they didn't have any writing system at the time, so they didn't pass down that information - use your best guess.

We can keep going back, but no longer looking at any belief system.... just animals, dinosaurs, plants, bacteria... eventually no life, just rocks, a newly formed planet around a newly formed star. Further back, we have other stars made of hydrogen going supernova which produced, through nuclear fusion, all the elements we find on Earth and the solar system today. Even further back, we have a young Universe, full of simple particles like protons - which are, basically, Hydrogen nuclei - and electrons and neutrons. All of them merging through gravity in lumps due to some initial inhomogeneities in how all the quarks and bosons first appeared.
How did these quarks and bosons appear? That is the big question, isn't it? There was a Big Bang, so some claim. I'd say it must have been quite big to produce all the matter we see in the Universe... and all the matter we don't see, but can ascertain that is there, the dark matter. As for the bang, well, there was no air to send off any sound

Looking at the sequence I outlined, it looks like things happened in a way that went from simpler building blocks to more complex ones... what could be even less complex than quarks and bosons? As far as I know, the LHC hasn't managed to produce anything simpler.
But there are ideas... one such idea involves quantum fluctuations in space-time that seem to be involved with particle-antiparticle pairs being randomly generated. Could some particularly large localized set of these fluctuations lead to what we call the big bang?
Thinking about space-time as a single "thing" instead of separating space from time, like we usually do, you can then easily circumvent the infinite regress by having this event occur at some particular random point in the 4-dimensional space-time.
Of course, once we reach the stage of attributing things to random fluctuations, I don't think we can go further in simplicity... unless technology, or the theory, provide us with some tools to probe further.
Until then, why attribute to a very complex entity something that seems to stem from ever simpler elements?

The major objection you all seem to raise is the infinite regress. What about the infinite progress? If everything that is designed requires a designer more complex than itself, how does that not imply an infinitely and complex creator?

I'd say that, as far as we are aware of, everything that's designed has been designed by humans.
This narrows down the scope of your usage of the term "design" and automatically prevents its usage in any far reaching cosmic creator sense, don't you think?

But there's a cool idea there, infinite progress - Imagine we keep progressing as a species and eventually gain the ability to generate our own Universe(s). Would we be gods? Would the individual who pressed the button be a god? Would we care about how particular individuals in some planet of this new universe felt about our existence?