Common self contradiction of the religious

[Freedom of thought]

It's my understanding that expansion is viewed in two ways. The first is as a doppler shift. This states that the stars and planets are moving away from each other through space. In other words, stars and planets move, space stays still. The other view is that the stars and planets are remaining stationary while space is being stretched (imagine putting dots [representative of planets and stars] on a deflated balloon, as you blow up the balloon the 'space' between the dots stretches and the dots get further apart). It's my understanding that the second explanation is more scientifically accurate.

There are a few things wrong with this. First, space does not stay still. We know from relativity that space can be twisted, turned, and warped, by the effects of gravity. The 'doppler shift' is nothing to do with stars and planets moving away in space, nor is it to do with 'space' being stretched, but you are getting close. By the way, you are talking about the 'doppler effect'. Which states that something like light from another galaxy, which travels through space, can have its wavelength 'stretched' as both galaxies move away from eachother. As an object is moving away form the observer, its light gets redshifted, and as it moves towards the observer, the light gets blueshifted. When light is redshifted, its wavelength becomes stretched, and blueshifting is the opposite.

This statement is pretty ambiguous. What do you mean it is 'consistent with everything we know?'

Yes, it is quite ambiguous. What I meant was everything we know from our observations of the world, particularly in physics.

How do you know I don't look at current cosmology and see it confirming scripture?

There is nothing in scripture which is confirmed by science, not even in the slightest. Even the models where the universe 'began to exist', it happens spontaneously without a cause, leaving no moment for god to work. Now this, is something you couldn't accept if you believe in god. I bet you don't even accept the total energy of the universe is zero(which means we are just a re-arrangement of nothing). But its all real science, and physicists are working hard to find out which model is correct, if any.

The current scientific consensus is that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding then it cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe cannot be infinite.

Well, you are quite welcome to prove the universe had a beginning, which hasn't even been done by any of the scientific community for the entire history of modern science. And even if you did prove a beginning, it doesn't prove there is a god. There are self contained models where the universe doesn't need a god to get it started. So even if you did prove a beginning, you're just proving god didn't create the universe, according to modern science. So I'd give up this argument if I were you.

This is an illogical argument. Your affirming the consequent.

"Consequent: the propositional component of a conditional proposition whose truth is conditional; or simply put, what comes after the “then” in an “if/then” statement.
Antecedent: the propositional component of a conditional proposition whose truth is the condition for the truth of the consequent; or simply put, what comes after the “if” in an “if/then” statement.

An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result."-Logicallyfallacious.com

I never said that: If god is infinite then the universe is infinite, god is infinite, therefore the universe is infinite.

No, I didn't make any such claim. I was trying to get around the point that it is inconsistent to say infinities cannot exist, yet affirm a god which is infinite by its very nature.

From the 'plates' perspective, how can the human exist?

What do you mean here?

You're dangerously close to an argument from ignorance here. Just because you can't understand how something works or stating that something sounds incredibly far fetched to you doesn't make it true or false.

No-where near an argument from ignorance. I didn't say I cannot understand it therefore it isn't true. I gave reasons to why a mind cannot function without time, and a timeless mind is a logically incoherent concept, and only at the end did I merely 'comment' that its far fetched, because it is.

If god exists, and wants his presence known, we should be able to study the physical world and find evidence of his existence.

This seems to be an unargued personal bias that some atheists on this site maintain: That God must reveal himself only through the physical world, else He doesn't exist. Why do you presume that God must reveal himself through the physical world, that we can only come to an understanding of God by 'studying' Him (through the scientific method)

'Personal bias' is the wrong word. 'Preference', yes. Because most atheists are empiricists, not surprising at all. No one here is arguing that we must be able to put god in a test tube to verify his existence, that would be absurd to ask. If god did exist, you'd expect all sorts of evidence everywhere. Back 2000 years ago, he was curing blind people, turning water into wine. And now all of that completely stopped... Hmm, I wonder why that is! If you make claims such as miracles, and etc, which have an observable impact on our world, you put yourself into the field of science. Anything that has physical effects can be subject to scientific inquiry. And the absence of evidence is so strong in the field of science, scientists such as Victor J Stenger say that with science the claim can be made that 'god does not exist'.

And meanwhile not a shred of evidence is found for the existence of god in science,

So scientists have reached the end of their discoveries? All the questions have been answered? No more theories or hypotheses to test? Science has done away with logic, morality, and philosophy? Which science book lays claim that all things are now known, and that there is no God?

Re-read what I said there, I didn't say anything to the degree you were implying. There are many unanswered questions. We don't know where the universe came from. We don't know if it 'came from' anywhere. We don't know if the universe had a beginning, and we certainly don't know if it was eternal. All we can know is that we know almost nothing. But that doesn't mean we can't know more. Brilliant minds are forming many models of the universe, we don't know which is right or wrong, only future experiments will tell us. And as with what Darwin did for life, the same might be done with the universe. As we learn more our need for a creator god to explain what we observe around as has been emancipated.

I'm called to give an account.

Well, isn't that sweet.

I don't.

Well, you've definitely set out to fulfill your ambitions.

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Oh, quoting the bible... By the way, this definitely didn't help anything.