Heh. Sorry for misunderstanding scripture. Not my strong point.
> The universe's size is "larger than observable but not infinite". The Universe expands at the rate of the maximum traversable speed.
Really ?
1) Then how did it get larger than observable ?
Either by being infinite in the first place, or by expanding faster than the "maximum traversable speed". Assuming Einstein is right, it's the first one. Choosing the second option requires explaining a lot of coincidences : we know through observation the edge of the universe (the point beyond which we can't detect matter) lies within ~2 million light years of the "event horizon" from the perspective of earth. Are you seriously saying that's just a coincidence ? Note the corollary, answering yes, means that the earth is the center of the universe +- 2 million light years (and if you accept somewhat more iffy measurements, you'd conclude that the center of the universe lies within our solar system and it's moving). What are the chances of that ?
2) how do you know it is finite ? Can you point to even a single measurement that makes it even just somewhat unlikely ?
> Your Religion Studies sucks. As pointed out "God" sent an emissary and didn't show up in both Christian and Muslim religions
Jee ... I truly wonder why God's son didn't stroll through muslim regions in 0 AD ... despite muslims claiming otherwise, there weren't any muslims back then. So this is not an inconsistency.
The two genesis, have you actually read how they arrive at that. They pull a single text apart (sentence 1 -> text 1, sentence 2 -> text 2), see a weird pattern (the stories make sense if you split out the sentences like that), declare them 2 separate stories and find them contradictory. First of all, this process is pretty farfetched, and if you don't split up the sentences, they still make sense (granted, there are some hard questions that have no good answers, but certainly not enough to declare them inconsistent).
Second, assuming they did originate as separate stories, this was obviously an attempt to reconcile them logically, which was the whole point I was making : Christianity attempts to be consistent, I did not claim it succeeds 100%, just that it's pretty good compared to the competition. I gave the example that islam does not claim to be consistent at all. If you talk to muslims about that, inconsistencies are, first of all, not a problem, second if you need an explanation, they're just allah's mood swings. The God of Judaism and Christianity is good, and consistently good (he does not randomly attack people unless they deserve it somehow). Allah, on the other hand, is what might be termed "generally merciful to the good", nothing more. No matter how good a muslim you are, you cannot count on allah's help for anything, they're pretty clear on that. When it comes to world religions, the islamic case is "normal" : most religions have gods that mass-murder for fun, or simply because they're angry or even just because they're bored.
