What if we were to say the finite "is" and the infinite "is not"? This seems a logical way to deconstruct talk of the infinite.
...Any talk of the infinite here is just an analogy for the unknown, as when we say things like 'in freedom we are oriented to infinite possibilities.'
Here lies the problem. People refer to this or that as infinite, obviously not referring to literal infinity. Such as the example of "infinite possibilities" when referring to something finite in reality. I'm actually referring to something quite different. I'm referring to the fabric and structure of space extending beyond the finite range of our current perception. Yes, that is to refer to the unknown. But it's to logically deduce what we should expect to extend beyond our immediate range of perception. And these theories are very rational expecting that space and matter must necessarily continue on without limit. No one claims to know for sure until empirical data is gathered, but at the same time all of these people are working off of empirical data that they think points to a limitless space. That's one of the concerns of the LISA satellite. Humans want real answers to the hard questions, at least some of population does to be fair about the claim...
Robert you're hilarious because you have one foot planted in atheist science (strict BBT standard model science) and the other foot floundering about in liberal Christian views. Both strict standard model cosmology and Christian mythology have traditionally been hostile towards infinite cosmologies. And I've often differed with many from both of these polar opposite sides. With you I have the entire conflict wrapped up into one neat little package.
This is itself a never ending debate with cosmologies changing from infinite to finite and back and forth according to the current state of society at the time:
"In our century the cosmological pendulum has 'swung back'. The universe of present-day cosmology is more like that of Ptolemy and Augustine than that of Galileo and Kepler. Like the medieval cosmos, the modern universe is finite in time - it began in the Big Bang, and will end either in a Big Crunch or in slow decay and dissipation of all matter. A universe of unlimited progress from an infinite past to an infinite future makes sense when society is 'advancing'. But when that advance halts, when the idea of progress is mocked by the century of Verdun, Auschwitz, and Hiroshima, when the prospect of human betterment is dim, we should not be surprised that the 'decaying cosmos' again rises to dominance." - Eric Lerner
Ultimately I think that the right thing to do is to stick with the current standard model until it's been changed. You're justified in doing so in my view.
But this has very little to do with the Mythicist Position and a scientific evaluation of ancient myths and more to do with modern cosmology. The mythicist position is addressed to anyone from any perspective who feels that "many Gods and God-Men" of mythology are in fact personifications of the natural world and not necessarily based on real people, kings, rulers, sages or whatever. The MP is not addressed to finite or infinite cosmological speculation and that is in fact an aside to the MP itself, with people from both perspectives converging together in the MP. You and I are a primary example. We (mythicists) have theists and atheists as well. Deists, agnostics and gnostics. This is an all inclusive position that has to do with a scholarly oriented opinion on comparative mythological studies. Like the science of archaeo-astronomy. There is no fixed religious belief system associated with the MP. And it seems that there has been a little confusion over that issue due to the strong religious proselytizing tone you've taken in these discussions.
For instance, when we first met we did little more than debate back and forth, you from an evemerist position on Jesus and me from the MP. You were dead set against the MP as I recall. And I'm glad to see that you've grown alot after much reading and contemplation. When you say: "Mythicism is like a caulking gun for the god of the gaps" it's interesting to see how you've evolved since those initial conversations at FTN. Now there are panentheist's out there who take the MP, so obviously there are people who don't see it the same way you're seeing it. The MP, in and of itself, doesn't do anything to the "God of the Gaps" or any God belief really. Remember, it's actually an all inclusive position that doesn't really wipe out anyone. Even Christians can take a look at the evidence and lack thereof concerning the claim of an historical Jesus and conclude that mythicism is a sound position. Tom Harpur has done just that. He believes in God in some way, but understands that the Christ myth is a human construction at the very same time. It's important that when you express your personal feelings on mythicism that you make it clear to unsuspecting readers that you're offering a personal opinion about an all inclusive position that does nothing to bolster or eliminate God belief in and of itself.
I am a pantheist myself, as you know and others may not. But that doesn't make the MP an exclusive pantheist position. I actually offered it to the world pantheism community in our private discussion forums with very flaccid results. No one seemed to understand it. Most of the others favor evemerism, no different than most atheists out there. Although the MP fits well with Pantheism when all is said and done. Murdocks beliefs are expressed in her book "The Gospel According to Acharya S." I recognize many of them as pantheist type beliefs about the God concept. It would be incorrect for her or I to go around saying that the MP is exclusively pantheist just because we happen to favor pantheist philosophy. And the same holds true for your efforts to re-arrange Christianity into a focus on it's underlying astrotheological format and the possible compatibility with science. The MP is actually a mixing pot and likely will always be because it's nothing more than something that freethinkers in general can gather around regardless of personal belief or lack thereof. It wouldn't be right to present the MP any other way...