^Point on universe noted.
But, yeah, I still accept it even though I can’t comprehend it.
Even if you believe in the big bang, you’re gonna have to accept the fact that the nothing that existed before the big bang is still something… and you really have no idea what that nothing/something is, no matter how smart a scientist you are, or how much faith you have in zeus, allah or jesus.
lol @ “universe is most likely finite”
our galaxy is 6 billion years old. there are 125 billion galaxies in the universe. time and the universe has existed longer than we can possibly comprehend. the universe is larger than we could ever comprehend.
i really fail to see any evidence that demonstrates that the universe is “most likely finite”
yup.
familiarize yourselves with Olbers’ Paradox and see if it makes sense to you.
Spot on Killer Rob, Gervais is going full douche with this one.
If religion is an opiate for the masses. Why not just give opiates to the masses? Methadone: The perfect compliment to the welfare state. I don’t bother with religion. It seems like I could be doing anything else than being worried about fiction. I choose agnostic because it takes to much energy to have convictions about something not existing like atheism. Okham’s Razor, and Pascal’s Wager aside if it makes YOU feel better than go for it.
Funny thing is my wife is 1/2 japanese and 1/2 colombian which equals Catholic and Shinto. She is constantly torn between guilt and serenity. 
So it makes sense that she married a jewish/protestant by family, and agnostic by choice. Our kid is quite the hybrid. Interestingly he never gets sick 
Depends how one defines finite. In terms of space, the Universe is most certainly finite. Well beyond the scope of human comprehension, fo course, yet certainly finite. However, if one considers time as well, then the Universe could very well be considered infinite. As far as we know, the Universe is going to continue expanding forever.
On another, slightly different note, has anyone considered the existence of lack of existence of a smallest particle? Neither possibility makes any sense to me. On the one hand, if there is a smallest particle, then one could simply divide it in half and thus have two smaller particles. Yet, if there is no smallest particle, that implies that there are smaller and smaller particles, which in fact implies an infinite nature to the Universe. Both possibilities make no sense.
Reality does not make any rational sense, as a whole, if you ask me.
We need a youtube clip of Walter from the Big Lebowski yelling “fucking nihilists!”