Does a natural "god" maybe exist?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Skeptic201

As I said, Dr. Craig, if he was sincere (and, you, too), could bring this matter to the attention of the APS.  Apparently, Dr. Craig is of the opinion that eternal, beginningless models of cosmology are intrinsically flawed.  If so, one must wonder what the Nobel committee was thinking when they awarded Sir Roger Penrose the Nobel Prize in physics??

Of course, Dr. Craig is absolutely correct when he claims that one cannot "count" one's way to infinity, and, by Craig's reasoning, our Universe must be finite, not only in time but also in volume.  But, yet, our Universe, per the BGV theorem, is expanding, which means that "the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time." (Wikipedia, Expansion of the universe)  And, yet, what is the Universe, per Dr. Craig, expanding "into"?  "Nothing"?  If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinites cannot exist in Nature, then how can our Universe be finite without a spatial center?  Please explain that one.  And, if our Universe is finite, where's its surface or edge??  Explain that.

If you live by Science, that's fine.  Just be honest about it.

Sorry don't get your argument.
Our universe is expanding based on observations, not the BGV theorem.
No one knows what the Universe is expanding into.  I think the "room", whatever it is, is likely infinite - but non one knows.
I don't understand what you mean by "If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinities cannot exist in Nature (I think he thinks that, correct), then how can our Universe be finite (it can be... we don't know) without a spatial center (I don't think we know that either, but if Universe is finite I suppose it would have a spatial centre, if infinite a center wouldn't be defined).
Where is the surface or edge if finite (well if there is an edge, its beyond the point which are telescopes can see to).
I don't see how anything you've said adds value to the conversation, no offence. 
I'm in favor of infinity by the way.  It is by infinity that there may be potential for a maximally supreme being - occurring as an inescapable probability against the backdrop of an infinitely old and possibly infinitely vast physical reality.
BTW to the moderator - why did you omit my links, they were only to innocent figures - no mention of my book for sale relating to those links?

Because we have a rule against new members linking to any outside content until they have been a member for 30 days and have accumulated 30 posts. There's an exception to that, but you didn't qualify for it.

Boru