-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Insignificance of Humanity
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
And this is goes to heart of the issue in the OP: considering the incredible vastness of the universe does god's claimed concern for us really seem rational?
Well then my original point still stands. I'm well aware that science can tell me how a star exists, how it functions and what its material composition is, but why stars should even exist at all is another question entirely. In fact in a sense it is the very question you asked in your OP, yet you fail to see that if anything, it is more of a problem for your wordview than it is for mine.
You reject the first mover so what are you stuck with? An infinite regress? An inexplicable reality of brute fact? It all just is? Fine, but that's no more rational than my view.
Last edited:
Small and slight does not mean insignificant.
An example is cancer. One small change in one cell can cause the early death of a person. Insignificant? Many people think one cell is not insignificant.
37.2 Trillion: Galaxies or Human Cells?
An example is cancer. One small change in one cell can cause the early death of a person. Insignificant? Many people think one cell is not insignificant.
37.2 Trillion: Galaxies or Human Cells?
Are galaxies insignificant compared to stars?
Are stones insignificant compared to rocks? How about sand?
People with frequent flier miles probably agree with me that sand is significant.
Are stones insignificant compared to rocks? How about sand?
People with frequent flier miles probably agree with me that sand is significant.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
So what you're saying is that we need to step up our game and invade the solar system. I hear they have oil a few solar systems out. Looks like it could use some freedom.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.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Which is easily answered.
From NASA's web site
"Why Stars and Planets Exist
". . .why do planets and stars exist at all, maintaining their mechanical stability over cosmically vast periods of time? Both the Earth and the Sun are four and a half billion years old, and modern scientific investigation suggests that their masses and sizes have not changed very much in all that time. Why are these bodies so exactly in equilibrium? More precisely, why is the inward-directed force of gravity so perfectly balanced by the outward-directed force of material pressure? In these bodies, the pressure comes about from the fast microscopic motions of the constituent atoms and molecules. But even our highly mobile atmosphere does not either suddenly collapse or fly off into space upon the slightest beat of a butterfly's wing. Nor do earthquakes below the surface and meteorite impacts from above provoke cataclysms of the whole Earth, even though they do cause vigorous vibrations inside it."
source: NASA
". . .why do planets and stars exist at all, maintaining their mechanical stability over cosmically vast periods of time? Both the Earth and the Sun are four and a half billion years old, and modern scientific investigation suggests that their masses and sizes have not changed very much in all that time. Why are these bodies so exactly in equilibrium? More precisely, why is the inward-directed force of gravity so perfectly balanced by the outward-directed force of material pressure? In these bodies, the pressure comes about from the fast microscopic motions of the constituent atoms and molecules. But even our highly mobile atmosphere does not either suddenly collapse or fly off into space upon the slightest beat of a butterfly's wing. Nor do earthquakes below the surface and meteorite impacts from above provoke cataclysms of the whole Earth, even though they do cause vigorous vibrations inside it."
source: NASA
For the rest of the explanation you'll have to click on "source."
Not at all. If it's a regress at all it stops at the Big Bang, which is a far better explanation than that of your god's being, which stops at "Because."
.
Last edited:
Nowhere in this quote or on the page is the "why" question addressed.
Like asking, "why did you go to the store today?" And the response, "well, you see the store is 37,000 sq.ft. with 2 levels and my vehicle is able to get 28 mph, which carried me to and from the store."
I was going to say that. but I think I should read the article before I say it.
You really don't understand, or rather you refuse to see the real point. I have not asked for an explanation of how anything exists, but why it should.
Does reality (at least in principle) have an explanation? Or does it just exist as brute fact? It all just is, just because. You accuse me of the latter, but it's a far bigger problem for materialism. Which brings us to the second point.
If the universe had a beginning then its existence isn't necessary. You may not see it but that's a serious philosophical problem for a materialistic wordview, for if the universe is contingent it must possess explicablity. This explicablity must come from outside the universe, because contingent things can't explain themselves. (By definition).
So what's more likely? An inexplicable reality of brute fact (the universe, just "because") or something necessary ( i.e non-contingent and eternal) giving rise to it? I'm going with the the latter because IMO, that's where reason leads.
Of course, you can always throw reason out the door and give me more snark. Or alternately more crude, childish misrepresentations of theism.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sorry, but pontificating nonsense like this is better left to dorm room bull sessions. Have a good day.
.
Last edited:
arthra
Baha'i
Of course when the Genesis account was written people then had a very limited perspective of what the universe consisted of and also they were ignorant of geologic and cosmic time. The story of Genesis though was not intended to be a science textbook... Consider how much the science textbooks themselves have had to be rewritten in the past hundred years or so.
In the Baha'i Writings Baha'u'llah reveals the universe is infinite and has no beginning or end and the creation is continuing...God is a creating God.
Also "man" as we know him..that is our sentient beings are not limited to this world.
Read the brief essay by Duane Troxel
http://bahai-library.com/troxel_extraterrestrials_exotheology
Skwim
Veteran Member
I quickly skimmed through the article and I didn't see anything to suggest humanity is any more significant than it is: virtually not at all. BTW, science disagrees with the writing of Baha'u'llah that the universe is infinite and has no beginning or end. And while your leader says "man" as we know him..that is our sentient beings are not limited to this world, it lacks the necessary evidence to convince.
.