a) Is there any reason why there couldn't be an infinite number of universes, and ours is just one of many?

Of course not.  This is unknowable and thererefore greater than anyones' philosophy Horatio.

On the flip side there isn't a scrap of evidence for it apart from pure speculation and imagination.

b) If you will insist that there has to be a First Cause then philosophically that opens that option up to me.

If you deny my ability to say that there was a First Cause but say that you can have this then your argument fails under the Special Pleading

If you allow me to have a First Cause, then I will say that it was the Big Bang.

You label the First Cause 'God' I label it 'the Big Bang'; we have stalemate from a philosphical position.

Not hardly. Given the fact that if we know things like matter and time did not exist prior to the First Cause, then that necessitates the First Cause was immaterial and timeless. As such the characteristics of the First Cause can be deduced and the list of possibilities reduces in proportion to the increase of characteristics to the First Cause.

I'm guessing that your next position will be "well what came before the Big Bang?' for which I can repeat to you about God.  You will then say that God is a special case. you fall for the fallacy of Special pleading again

Heh. You reveal the inherent flaw every atheist who has challenged First Cause can never seem to understand. The arguement is - Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The Big Bang necessitates that 'something' existed in order to "bang" in the first place. A timeless Being does not necessitate a beginning by definition. There is no special pleading. There is only logical reasoning of inherent traits and properties.

Your arguement boils down to saying it's "special pleading" to say only males have Y chromosomes while females don't. 

So what?  Your god existing outside time has zero evidence too.  This is why you are special pleading.  You disallow our speculation because it is speculation but yuou are allowed to speculate about a timeless being (I'm arguing about before this universe, not within human memory) for which there is no evidence but pure speculation and imagination.

Heheh. Not even close kid. Characteristics such as being timeless aren't "speculated" so much as deduced from the fact 'timelessness' is the only logical conclusion when entropy has proven 'time' had a beginning. That and infinite regress being logically impossible. As such it's not up for discussion or speculation. That's the facts you have to work with if you want to remain rational. And attributing the characteristic to God isn't so much "specultaion" as revelation. The fact that the characteristic for a Being that claimed to be the cause of creation matches the same characteristic as the First Cause of creation just means the claim is substantiated and credible.

The fact it was made thousands of years before modern science makes it even more credible.

As shown above, you do special plead.  "A timeless Being does not necessitate a beginning by definition."  This is Special pleading.  You are invoking something as a First Cause without any evidence and denying the other side a timeless something purely because of your belief system.

Not really. But as you aren't interested in a worthwhile discussion so much as making baseless assertions there's no reason to clarify further.

If a First Cause is necessary, then I claim the Big Bang to be the First Cause.  It existed outside of time by definition.  I have now made a positive stance and the evidence is there in the physics (ie that Time itself started then, so by definition there was no 'before' the Big Bang.

Now you show me with evidence why that can't be the case.

Hehe. You make a positive stance, merely assert evidence is there, then demand evidence from the other side? You're too rich kid. Regardless I can easily point to the appearance of design in the universe's construct as evidence that your appeal to an unintelligent cause is far fetched. And you still have the inherent logical problem of needing to describe what existed in order to "bang" in the first place. Plus as you are so gung-ho with describing it as timeless, you need to explain how something with no intelligence caused a change to begin with as anything without a will will remain inert.

Loads of problems with your clinging to unintelligent agency. But "evidence" is just a farce anyway. As seen by your appeal to multiple realities you don't need (or want) evidence. Simply thinking it is good enough for you so long as you can maintain your belief. As such you really have no buisness asking evidence of anyone with an alternative theology. As you seem to handle the subject with the same attitude as one's prefrence for icecream you should at least have the decency to respect that other people don't have the same prefrence for the same flavour that you do.

Sorry, how is infinite regression logically impossible?

If the past is infinite then the present can never occur as there will always be one event occuring before another infinitely. Basicly it's like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit.

That was the claim.  I had forgotten it.  I'm not convinced.  That sounds too much like Zeno's (or is it Xeno's?) paradox.

Well evidence has never been much good against pure stubborness.

Okay, so let's assume that there must have been a First Cause.

There is zero evidence of anything from before or outside the universe.  Therefore anything from there is pure speculation.

Wrong. First Cause tacitly admits there must have been something before the the universe was created as it's an inherent impossibility for something to come out of nothing. And as current evidence shows the universe couldn't have existed for an infinite amount of time there must have been a First Cause.

Again, there is no speculation. There are only facts a rational person has to work with wheether they like it or not.

Logic is not evidence, as Xeno's paradox points out.

Spoken like someone ready to embrace insanity in order to maintain their beliefs.

Do not get the two things mixed up.  When you claim this is logically impossible, how many philosophers disagree with you?  Many I'm guessing, and some for the same reasons that I would use.  This means there is some debate yet about whether it is logically impossible or not.

In other words you have no refutation and are just using pure denial driven by stubborness. Disappointing, but not surprising. Like it or not the inherently impossible remains impossible no matter what you or anyone says. One doesn't need "evidence" to no a 'square-circle' doesn't exist. Because such a thing is an inherent impossibility by the very definition of 'square' and 'circle'.

Once again, you equivocate between logic and evidence.  I said there was no evidence, and you talk about what the logical position is.

Because for all your bluff and bluster logical deduction and impossibilities are evidence. And as shown you've got nothing but denial.

It's been clear for awhile you're not interested in any evidence or reasoning and are just closed-minded on the issue. So further argument is a waste of time.

Because for all your bluff and bluster logical deduction and impossibilities are evidence. And as shown you've got nothing but denial.

It's been clear for awhile you're not interested in any evidence or reasoning and are just closed-minded on the issue. So further argument is a waste of time.

I am interested, and I am interested in discussing the logic, but before we get to the logic, let us discuss the physical evidence.  That's not so hard.

Also, when I asked you for philosophers against your idea you just resorted to ad hominem arguments.  That is revealing.

You obviously understand philosophy better than me, and I was hoping you could educate me before I sart googling for it.

Tell me, are their any philosophers that deny your arguments, or is there 100% agreement?

You can have a timeless something.  But you have to explain what it is, and it has to fit the evidence.  Also, it doesn't have to be "timeless" -- it just has to be a first cause explanation.  For example:  one could claim the universe bangs, crunches, and then bangs again in an infinite cycle.  That would be a naturalistic first cause.  As you can see, I don't rely upon an "infinite is impossible" argument.  A cycle would satisfy first cause while allowing for infinity.

There you are, there is someone here that allows for the infinite regress argument.