Quite Reasonable that : God Does Exist

How does this reply have anything to do with my reply to you? I think you are starting to get confused here.

 

There also has not been an observed empirical observation of god. There has not been an observed empirical observation of anything pre-bigbang. There has not been any empirical observation of Jesus as anything more than a human (and some doubt that). There has not been any empirical observation of lots of stuff, and where that stuff doesn't exist we can just make shit up and call it real.

 

The denial lies with your concept that a unicorn created the universe to be of the same "logic" as a eternal conscious being. You used another "hyperbole" response to allude the readers of the topic at hand.

The universe is finite and expanding. That would explain that it did have a beginning. Since there is no empirical evidence that something finite can exist from nothing, then one could believe it's reasonable for a conscious, infinite being to create it.

 

So you agree that it is just as reasonable as a conscious eternal God created this universe as maybe the singularity (pre-big bang) being eternal?

 

as far as I know the CMBR can only be used to calculate the size of the visible part of the universe, since that is what it corresponds to.

 

Unfortunately you are unaware you are face palming yourself.

 

Lmao!!!!!!!!!!!

 

OK, I went back and read a little. My thoughts were that those images are of light that set forth 13.7billion years ago, and since we know the speed of light, don't we know the distance traveled. But I was missing a lot of variables to make the calculations. People are currently working on this issue but you are right, there is no current answer.

 

Mags: "A and B are true. Therefore Z."

Mr. Logic: "But Mags, that doesn't follow logically! Furthermore, I'm not sure we can assume either A or B..."

Mags: "You're 'not sure', therefore I could be right. Thank you for proving my case for me."

Mr. Logic: "No, Mags, by 'not sure', I meant that we cannot assume them to be true. The very foundation of your argument proving Z is flawed."

Mags: "If not Z, then what? I suppose you support P, Q, R, or S? Can you prove any of those to be true?"

Mr. Logic: "No, I can't prove those, either, but they are certainly possible, making your assertion that Z MUST be true fallacious."

Mags: "Aha!!! You just said, and I quote: 'Z MUST be true'. I win!"

Mr. Logic: "..."

Mags: "I WIN!!!!!!1111"



the end.

 

Damn, I just changed my name yesterday to Further (from GOD), had you PM'd me ahead of time I could have used "Mr. Logic"


Repped by the way.

 

I modified some names to protect the innocent.

 

unlike things moving within the universe, the rate of its expansion is not bounded by the speed of light. in fact in inflationary scenarios it would have expanded exponentially faster than the speed of light for a short time and could be incomprehensibly larger than we can see.

 

Thanks. It's like I'm used to putting together childrens puzzles, but in the past year I've been handed a million piece puzzle of the universe but I'm still trying to put it together with the same strategy of my Shrek at the Beach puzzle. It seems I need to learn things a dozen times before I actually start to understand them. At least with regards to cosmology and physics.

 

That would be relevant if it were the case. I know you dig, but our text messages say otherwise!

I know, I know, you need a reputation to uphold here.

 

I really wish I would have skipped to this post instead of wasting my time reading the first 5 pages of this thread. Thank you for very accurately summing it up.

 

Mags, are you doing OK? You seem a little broken today.

 

What would give you that impression? Don't take what trip tango has to say to heart. In text messaging, he said that my argument is valid.