eh? why did the fish need his ear?

"The information that exists in our observable Universe, that we can access and measure, only corresponds to the final ~10-33 seconds of inflation, and everything that came after. If you want to ask the question of how long inflation lasted, we simply have no idea. It lasted at least a little bit longer than 10-33 seconds, but whether it lasted a little longer, a lot longer, or for an infinite amount of time is not only unknown, but unknowable."

At 3 seconds of memory the fish didn't get far but his quarks came from 5 months or infinite , which boggles the eyes.

To Banjo Peterson.

What is irrational to the idea that God has always been there. Unless studies of physic's has changed since I've learned a highschool equivalent, the current understanding is the idea that energy and matter can not be created or distroyed. Just that it changes form. With this outlook even the theories of the Big Bang are affected to say the matter and energy of the universe was always there, just that they were condensed beyond the point that we can measure and discover.

(I've heard of nothing to try to prove or provide details of what existed prior to the Big Bang. The only theories that are close to do that are fringe theories that don't accept that the Big Bang happened. Something worth considering, but for the most part a moot point when discussing the beginnings of the universe, when we know nothing to relate to that kind of a world).

Regarding God being believed to have always existed, why is that irrational, when the idea that mater and energy have always existed?

Regarding faith, and believing the bible. What of that? I trust the bible because I trust God. This isn't a matter of salvation, but it's a matter of trust.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding discriptions of God. Many have tried to describe who God is and what God is. It's not comprehensible. Though often people are wrong in their assertions. For a good foundation I trust the bible, which also puts God into descriptions we can understand. Who knows? It's entirely possible (and sometimes argued) that God gave us those roles and descriptions in our world so that we could understand Him better through these Biblical descriptions. Here are some I remember. If you want more detail I can look up the verses too.

God is described as a Father, as a Husband, and as a Shepard. He's described as a King, and even compared to a rich man either hiring people, or who put his servants in charge of certain responsibilities like tending the land or investing His gold. These descriptions are in the Old Testament as well as the New. And I focus on these because each of these are roles of people in our world that we can relate to or learn from being in those roles ourselves.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The harder to fathom descriptions are still there. God is all powerful, creator of the universe, always has been and always will be, knows the end from the beginning and is all knowing as well. And that He is love, or that He is all loving. These are harder to grasp because we don't have as much to relate these positions to. But these positions can be confirmed by people by what happens in their lives. (Unfortunately experiences aren't universal, so it's worth while for believers to come together and encourage each other or correct each other).

There's more. Still from the bible. God is quick to forgive and slow to anger. Merciful, patient, and loving, but also just with His judgments and corrections. If these descriptions are true and applied to the criticisms towards the bible, then some of those criticisms can be resolved with the perspective that the people who received God's wrath are't victims. Often the people are warned and given time to turn from their sins. The wrath of God should be enough of a consequence to set anyone straight, but the examples of that wrath are still there because people continued in murder and corruption, and all kinds of sins on a societal level.

These perspectives about God though are still second in importance to the realization that He actually exists. Finding that first is worth it before struggling to come to grips with who God is.

Sorry for the confusion. In the second post regarding descriptions of God, I meant to say "It's not incomprehensible." Meaning that you can comprend many or most of the description of who God is.

Hopefully not too many other spelling errors there, and that the reply can be understood regardless of my spelling issues.