Again and again we witness these flat-earthers bring God's Creation down to a human level. To them only a flat-Earth has an up and a down. If monkeys could talk I suspect that is what they would also say for the truth of creation is beyond human comprehension. Flat-earthism would deny God's ability to create the earth as a globe just like the moon and all the planets man can see. Flat-earthism denies the ongoing miracle of gravity, that which has mankind on every part of our global earth to have the sky above and the ground below.

The OP talks about the size of the universe and the number of stars in it. God created that many (as numerous as the grains of sand on Earth) to show mankind they cannot comprehend his power. There is no physical limit to what God can create, so do not even try to put a limit on the universe.

As for those billions of light years for some starlight to get to us, well ponder on the fact that God created Adam with starlight visible to him. In other words it did not take starlight time to reach us. In more words, MANKIND sees the visable universe in OUR TIME. Einstein's time is for atheists and monkeys, those who put a limit of God's omnipotence, try to bring Him down to our level.

Heaven has to be a place for physical mankind to reside, just as Hell is a place for the same reason. Again do not try to tell God he could not have created His Heaven outside the physical universe as we know it from all sides of the global Earth.

.
Should I say you have given me something to think about, cassini, or should I just be amazed at how short your posts have become?
.
Sometimes less is more.
.
That's something I have yet to learn, as we shall now see..............
.
A man can certainly TRY to comprehend God's power, but then the man would be nothing more than merely a flat-earther.
.
Man is capable of so much more.
.
We can try to put a limit of size on the universe, for example. That would be kind of like what flat-earthers do.
.
Such as how flat-earthers never have ANYTHING to say about what the heavens look like "below" their flat earth model.
.
Or what the bottom side of their flat-earth model really looks like -- that is, specifically.
.
Just one portion of your post above causes a thinking man to pause and think some more:
.
"God created Adam with starlight visible to him. In other words, it did not take starlight time to reach us."
.
Reading this quickly, a shallow, superficial reader won't give it a second thought.
.
But humor me for a moment, will ya? (No, I am not accusing you of being superficial, dear reader.)
.
The starlight Adam first saw was light coming from the direction of stars, light true to the stars themselves, but light that existed before the stars from which it "obviously comes" existed. This is to say that had Adam been created a few days earlier in Creation, he would have seen starlight coming to him even though there were no existing stars yet in the sky.
.
Scientists today recoil from such concepts and turn around running in the other direction because they're terrorized by the thought of losing their pension, of losing their "respectability."
.
In this way, they're very different from flat-earthers who have no concern for such things.
.
Adam saw starlight, and if he had had access to a functional radio telescope with interpretive software and a working computer to run it he could have seen everything that we can see today, even if in a slightly different arrangement of images, but the characteristics would have been identical.
.
Astrophysicists today assure us that if the stars we "see" in the sky were to suddenly cease to exist, we wouldn't know of it for millions of years, perhaps even billions of years, because that's how long it takes for the light they're emitting to reach us. And so-called logically since by that time our own sun might have burned out we shouldn't be concerned with thinking about how the world looks because certainly we won't be here to look at it. Furthermore, for all we know, they might not exist at all even now, because we're looking at light they emitted millions of years ago, or longer, and we have no idea what has happened in the meantime.
.
Boy, are they in for some surprises.
.
Being a scientist today is like being a gambler -- you never really know what's going to happen in the future. You might win, you might lose.
.
God would not deceive us, so He would not give us starlight ostensibly coming from physical stars if there were no physical stars out there to be found producing such light. However, God has not promised us that the starlight we observe was IN FACT produced by the stars from which it apparently emanates after the stars existed. Atheists would accuse God of therefore lying to us by giving us apparent evidence when it is not even real.
.
And that is because for atheists, reality is in the mind. And in their mind, stars that don't exist yet cannot be the source of the starlight we see.
.
They can't manage to stretch their narrow minds to recognize that the stars can exist in the mind of God without existing yet in physical space.
.
It is not for us to know what is in the mind of God however we cannot dictate to God what cannot be there. 
.
Atheists go absolutely tied up in knots when you tell them stuff like that.
.
But for a man who does not put limits on God's power, whether the starlight we see was emitted by the stars from which it apparently emanates is not a relevant question to ask. All we need to believe is that God gave us a created universe for the PURPOSE of contemplating His power, while those who would rebuke us for attributing to God infinite power and even go so far as denying God's own existence are so repulsed by the mere THOUGHT of contemplating the purpose God had in mind that they argue against and bemoan the principle of teleology to the point where in modern universities today there are no courses in teleology, and the concept has been evicted from the curriculum of classes they still call "philosophy" regardless of the fact that they cover next to nothing of philosophy true to the name (philo + sophos + y = love of wisdom) and have replaced it with the addiction to denial of observed reality and an obsession with everything that flies in the face thereof because it is the exception to the rule that is of their only interest, and the one weird fluke that statisticians reasonably discard as being unreliable is the one thing modern so-called philosophers hang onto for dear life (or is it dear death?) to the point that if they were honest they would rename their courses and field of studies to something that actually represents what they're doing, that is, hating wisdom, and dwelling on insanity and the abnormal.
.
I could say that reminds me of flat-earthers but someone might think that's being uncharitable so I won't say that.  :)
.

WoW Neil O I really like this thought-provoking idea.  Between your last post here and Cassini's, someone should consider creating a suitable Blog with a compilation of intelligent thinking.  

... that wouldn't be thread jacked by Lovers of Flat...

Boy, aren't you going to be in for a helluva surprise at the end of days when the stars fall from the heavens.
.
.
.
AS IT SAYS IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
.
.
.

;D They (assuming they believe all infallible dogmas' of the Catholic Church without innovations) will be so disgusted that the New Jerusalem rests on the new flat earth, will they even want to experience this beautiful place that is not up to their spherical standards? ;D

;D They (assuming they believe all infallible dogmas' of the Catholic Church without innovations) will be so disgusted that the New Jerusalem rests on the new flat earth, will they even want to experience this beautiful place that is not up to their spherical standards? ;D

Is this what they picture for the New Jerusalem?

WoW Neil O I really like this thought-provoking idea.  Between your last post here and Cassini's, someone should consider creating a suitable Blog with a compilation of intelligent thinking.  

.
Thank you.  I had fun writing that. 
.
Flat-earthers ought to be glad I've dealt with the likes of Lawrence Krauss whose inane ramblings have given me cause to burn off much of my upsetment over such stupidity, especially when it's paraded as some kind of higher level thinking. Stephen Hawking has some pretty dopey things to say too but somehow he doesn't make it come across so utterly and proudly belligerent as Krauss. 
.
So by the time flat-earthers came along I was much more able to control myself, for their benefit.
.

Is this what they picture for the New Jerusalem?

.
When I need "a picture of the New Jerusalem" there's plenty of good Catholic literature from which to choose.
.
But you would certainly prefer your water-cooler version of reality, no?
.

Man is capable of so much more.
.
"God created Adam with starlight visible to him. In other words, it did not take starlight time to reach us."
.
Reading this quickly, a shallow, superficial reader won't give it a second thought.
.
But humor me for a moment, will ya? (No, I am not accusing you of being superficial, dear reader.)
.
The starlight Adam first saw was light coming from the direction of stars, light true to the stars themselves, but light that existed before the stars from which it "obviously comes" existed. This is to say that had Adam been created a few days earlier in Creation, he would have seen starlight coming to him even though there were no existing stars yet in the sky.
.

When God created man time began for us. True time then is universal for the universe was ready for us, from the moon to the furthest star, no matter how far away it was. If the universe spins in 24 hours, then everything in it shares the same time.

As you probably know the greatest mystery for science is the 'theory of everything,' that is what causes gravity. Domenico Cassini, God's astronomer, solved that problem but never pursued it.


     Today, true science understands light and its effects, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. We are now proposing that in the beginning when God created ‘light’ the Lord created what amounts to universal electromagnetism throughout space, the means whereby the material universe would operate in so many ways. It is light that gives colour to the universe, from multicoloured galaxies to the clear blue sky of day. In similar manner, as science has now discovered, it is light that causes the ocean to be blue and the plains and forests to be green. It is light that ‘provides the energy that plants use to create sugars mostly in the form of starches, which release energy into the living things that digest them. This process of photosynthesis provides virtually all the energy used by living things.’ But more than this, for that same growth provides the oxygen that would mix with the nitrogen to provide the air necessary for life. In other words, when God created light he not only provided the medium by which all with vision could see things, but He also provided the means whereby the Earth could supply oxygen and perpetual growth and thus sustain all on it for as long as He wills it to be in existence. But there is another cause provided by that ‘light’ created on the first day of creation that Domenico Cassini found evidence for, electromagnetic effects that are to be found in the movement of celestial bodies, effects that could move the universe and also sustain the Earth as the immobile centre of the universe. 

.
What it would look like if people were 300 miles tall......................
.