The Insignificance of Humanity

[savagewind]

I could easily go on a significant tangent about how much rocks can "do" - even without a single hand being lifted to make them do it. Even with "no humans required", more rocks are constantly in motion, influencing other bodies of matter, and basically affecting the universe on a grander scale than all activity of humanity could ever hope to accomplish.

But it is obvious you miss my point entirely, so I am done here. Just know that it is also no strike against the rock that it cannot "fear God" (whatever that means).

So......you're not really funny.

 

[savagewind]

Can rocks take a joke?

I have "obviously missed the point entirely". I think there has never been a stone or a rock who believed something that wasn't true. Rocks are BETTER than people. Now you have me straight.

 

[metis]

Another aspect of the relative insignificance of humanity comes in the form of the age of the universe, the Earth, and how long we've been around as humans. Our universe is almost 14 billion years old, humans as humans have only been around for 6-7 million years, so the math looks like this: 7,000,000/14,000,000,000, which means we've only been around about 1/2000 of the time.

 

[savagewind]

Does anyone know what insignificant means?

 

[savagewind]

Does anyone know what insignificant means?

too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

One guy says that rocks are important. I think everything in the universe is worth considering.

People blow up rocks. Poor rocks. I wonder if it is a sin?

People might experiment with forms of energy and change this side of the universe that way. Would that still be considered insignificant, in your opinion?

 

[savagewind]

I do understand that rocks are significant. Either everything in the universe is significant or nothing is. OK? Hello? HELLO? Oh bother, another one has done me in.

 

[Skwim]

What if the physical cosmos in all its entirety itself is only a drop in the vastness of God's total creation?

Okay. Seems it would make mankind all that more insignificant.

What if the human soul in its immortality will last long after the very last star has burnt out?

Okay. What about it?

What if God sees what you do not?

Being an omniscient guy, I would expect he does.

And furthermore, what would such a minor, short lived creature (by your reckoning) know of "rationality" as it would pertain to God?

As much as he knows now?

Many times I've sat out on my porch, or on a beach and have looked up at the night sky in awe. I don't see a void but instead a glimpse of the sheer magnitude and power of God. It's perspective, you see our insignificance and I see the awesomeness of God.

Okay.

I cannot give you a why, but only that the point of Christianity isn't an answer to everything.

That's pretty obvious.

It's no argument against theism at all, that belief in God doesn't itself lend an instant "answer" to the whys of everything.

And I don't believe anyone's ever used such an argument.

Christian thought has always had a reverence for mystery,

In as much as it would be a concoction of god, I don't see what else one could do with it. The Christian thinking being: everything god does deserves to be revered.

and the creation is certainly one of those mysteries.

Most likely only for the present. Science is hard at work trying to solve it---and they're pretty darn close.


.

 

[Glaurung]

Okay. Seems it would make mankind all that more insignificant.

Rather the opposite, as we're predestined to enjoy eternal sight and love of God Himself. Human beings are a big deal then, big enough that even God Himself became one. (Who Himself is infinitely bigger than the universe).

Okay. What about it?

It means we're not so short lived.

Being an omniscient guy, I would expect he does.

And that omniscient guy cares deeply for us, so therefore perhaps our place in creation is in fact, significant.

And I don't believe anyone's ever used such an argument.

I know you wouldn't make that argument outright, but reading between the lines that is what you are saying. Like most of your content this is just another post to beat Christians over the head.

Most likely only for the present. Science is hard at work trying to solve it---and they're pretty darn close.

Science may tell us the material composition of a star, but it will never tell us why that star exists. (Or why anything should exist for that matter). That's just brute fact given the materialist worldview, and you'll never science that away.

There are deep questions about us and our world that simply cannot be addressed scientifically. Science isn't in the business of truth, it's in the business of constructing predictive models with which to understand the functioning of the physical world.

 

[Skwim]

Rather the opposite, as we're predestined to enjoy eternal sight and love of God Himself. Human beings are a big deal then, big enough that even God Himself became one. (Who Himself is infinitely bigger than the universe).

It means we're not so short lived.

And that omniscient guy cares deeply for us, so therefore perhaps our place in creation is in fact, significant.

Obviously you prefer to co-op the context of the OP to suit your own purposes, which is fine, but don't expect me to play along..

Like most of your content this is just another post to beat Christians over the head.

If that's your perception then by your continued replies here you obviously don't mind being beaten over the head. Mind if I kick you in the butt a few times? But to each his own I guess.

Science may tell us the material composition of a star, but it will never tell us why that star exists.

Errr. . . . it already has. Might want to pick up an introductory book on astronomy when you get the chance.

That's just brute fact given the materialist worldview, and you'll never science that away.

I'll "never science that way"? What the heck does that mean?..............................................................never mind. I can't bring myself to care.

There are deep questions about us and our world that simply cannot be addressed scientifically. Science isn't in the business of truth, it's in the business of constructing predictive models with which to understand the functioning of the physical world.

Nice irrelevant tangent that you've gone off on here. Please excuse me if ignore it. Thank you.


.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It seems as though many people have a very hard time shifting perspective.

I am NOT insignificant to myself. I am, in fact, very important to myself.
I AM insignificant to "the universe". I am, in fact, pretty much meaningless to "the universe".

Those two sentiments are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. And yet so many of you get in a huff when someone points out that you are not "hot stuff" when viewed from perspectives other than your own. Get over yourselves. I'm being serious. Cut out the conceit and just accept humility. In my opinion - believing God loves you and cherishes you above so many other things is little more than an extension of your own feelings of self-importance.

 

[Glaurung]

Obviously you prefer to co-op the context of the OP to suit your own purposes, which is fine, but don't expect me to play along..

Look how small we are, therefore Christian claims are nonsense. It's bogus self-serving thinking.

If that's your perception then by your continued replies here you obviously don't mind being beaten over the head. Mind if I kick you in the butt a few times? But to each his own I guess.

I'm probably not the first to point it out, but rhetoric against Christianity is the bulk of your posts here.

Errr. . . . it already has. Might want to pick up an introductory book on astronomy when you get the chance.

Okay, why should anything exist? Why this state of affairs and not others? Why should the universe even be coherent? Is there purpose to it? Where do human beings fit in the grand scheme of it all?

You may have beliefs about all these questions (which you no doubt call 'scientific') but I doubt actual science is equipped to coherently approach them. No, what you and others like you actually mean by 'science' is in fact nothing more than your own belief system.

 

[Cateau]

Errrrrr . . . . . . okay.


.

(-_-) I simply meant why look outside the box when inside it has all the answers. Ur body itself is a universe ur mind another. Complex just like the perfect rotation of the planets if off by a bit we'd freeze or burn its not a coincidence u kno

 

[Skwim]

Okay, why should anything exist? Why this state of affairs and not others? Why should the universe even be coherent? Is there purpose to it? Where do human beings fit in the grand scheme of it all?

Are you suggesting that because I know that cosmologists know why stars exist I should know why anything exists? If so, then I fail to see the connection and have to ask why this should be so. If not then your question is a non-sequitur.

You may have beliefs about all these questions (which you no doubt call 'scientific') but I doubt actual science is equipped to coherently approach them. No, what you and others like you actually mean by 'science' is in fact nothing more than your own belief system.

Kind of a screwy conclusion don't you think. (Rhetorical question.)

(-_-) I simply meant why look outside the box when inside it has all the answers. Ur body itself is a universe ur mind another. Complex just like the perfect rotation of the planets if off by a bit we'd freeze or burn its not a coincidence u kno

Sorry, but talk like this only leaves me with another, Errrrrr . . . . . . okay.


.

 

[Deeje]

The point being, god's claimed concern for an extremely, EXTREMELY minor, and extremely, EXTREMELY short lived creature in his extremely, EXTREMELY vast universe just doesn't seem at all rational.

Does it to you?

Yes it does actually. It gives us some perspective on how great the Creator is....not only are we infinitesimally small on such a large scale, but we also have an infinitesimally smaller universe contained in our own very small planetary environment. Comparing the smallest thing we know, with the largest things in existence is rather breathtaking.

Moreover, according to Genesis 1:4, none of these1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe existed until the fourth day, after the Earth had been created, when "God made the two large lights. He made the larger light to rule during the day and the smaller light to rule during the night. He also made the stars."

That is not quite right. Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens and the earth were created in one monumental act, which would have included all those stars and galaxies. The word for "created" is "bara" whereas the word "made" is "asah" (used in Gen 1:16) so two different words are used...one signifying the creation of the luminaries and the other meaning "to accomplish, advance, appoint".....more like "making them visible".

Light was there on the first creative "day" (obviously not a 24 hour day.) In order to have light we need a light source. The sun is our only light source. Since it is clear that luminaries did not become clearly visible from the earth's surface until the 4th day, we can assume that some sort of cloud layer was obscuring those luminaries from being visible, and by the 4th day that cloud layer had dissipated.

And a billion trillion of them no less! Why?

Why not?

Sound reasonable to you?

In my opinion, our EXTREMELY insignificant place in the universe simply doesn't merit the attention the Bible claims god gives it.

Perhaps you should contemplate some possible scenarios as to why the Creator would begin to populate this small planet as the starting point in his creative endeavors. Once he has the problems of free will sorted, there is nothing to stop him eventually making many other planets habitable throughout the universe and populating them. Its such a big expanse with unlimited possibilities, and the Creator has no time limit, so who knows what he has up his sleeve?

 

[Acim]

​

OR looked at another way.

The point being, god's claimed concern for an extremely, EXTREMELY minor, and extremely, EXTREMELY short lived creature in his extremely, EXTREMELY vast universe just doesn't seem at all rational.

Does it to you?

Moreover, according to Genesis 1:4, none of these1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe existed until the fourth day, after the Earth had been created, when "God made the two large lights. He made the larger light to rule during the day and the smaller light to rule during the night. He also made the stars."

And a billion trillion of them no less! Why?

Sound reasonable to you?

In my opinion, our EXTREMELY insignificant place in the universe simply doesn't merit the attention the Bible claims god gives it.

Um, Yeeeahh.

Being the Gnostic in the room, I'm not sure where to begin.
How about....
The utter and sheer meaninglessness of the physical universe?
Or the notion that demiurge is responsible for the vastness and meaninglessness of said universe?
And that Creator God / Holy Spirit is speaking with that which holds (any) value in that world? As if that is what is of actual significance?

The way this OP is framed it doesn't sound reasonable. As in, not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[Cateau]

Are you suggesting that because I know that cosmologists know why stars exist I should know why anything exists? If so, then I fail to see the connection and have to ask why this should be so. If not then your question is a non-sequitur.

Kind of a screwy conclusion don't you think. (Rhetorical question.)



Sorry, but talk like this only leaves me with another, Errrrrr . . . . . . okay.


.

Are you suggesting that because I know that cosmologists know why stars exist I should know why anything exists? If so, then I fail to see the connection and have to ask why this should be so. If not then your question is a non-sequitur.

Kind of a screwy conclusion don't you think. (Rhetorical question.)



Sorry, but talk like this only leaves me with another, Errrrrr . . . . . . okay.


.

Just remember to love yourself....since you make it oh so difficult for others to take a liking to you. In the end, all that one has is their thoughts and I hope for you it isn't a bad thing. As Einstein said in Self-Portrait (1936), "What is significant in one’s own existence one is hardly aware, and it certainly should not bother the other fellow. What does a fish know about the water in which he swims all his life?"

 

[Glaurung]

Are you suggesting that because I know that cosmologists know why stars exist I should know why anything exists? If so, then I fail to see the connection and have to ask why this should be so. If not then your question is a non-sequitur.

Do you understand that how and why are two different questions?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We can look at the usual arguments offered for a Copernican view of the universe (there’s nothing special about Earth or us). For example, the universe has existed for billions of years and is enormously vast. Only it turns out that the universe HAD to be billions of years old for life to be able to exist at all, and it had to be enormously vast (these properties also allow a small window in which we could make the discoveries in physics we have, such as the recent observation of gravitational waves or the CMB that provided such clear empirical support for the big bang theory). We needed a long, long time for the universe to spread out, cool off, produce the basic elements required for life, solar systems with the right distributions, etc. In a very real sense, we are in an extremely special space in the universe on an extraordinarily unique planet at the perfect cosmic time.
“No one should be surprised to find the Universe to be as large as it is. We could not exist in one that was significantly smaller. Moreover, the argument that the Universe should be teeming with civilisations on account of its vastness loses much of its persuasiveness: the Universe has to be as big as it is in order to support just one lonely outpost of life.”
Barrow, J. D. & Tipler, F. J. (1986).The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press.

 

[Skwim]

Do you understand that how and why are two different questions?

Okay, I'll bite. Yes I do, but so what?


.

 

[Acim]

Okay, I'll bite. Yes I do, but so what?

Perhaps the opening post is a non sequitur?

IOW, because space appears vast, and humanity relatively tiny, doesn't necessarily follow that humanity is insignificant. Could just as easily be the other way around, that space is insignificant in relation to what humanity is.