Vastness of Space Suggests There Is No Almighty Creator

[FearGod]

To a mid to late1800 audience, one can only give so much to consider in each passage. This Passage saying that each Sun has its planets and planet has its creatures a number we can not compute. Abdul'baha has given a comprehensive vision to us about the creation of the Universe, in the 'Tablet of the Universe' - Tablet of the Universe

It is a provisional english translation, but science will benefit greatly from this insight in the future.

Regards Tony

I see 2 mistakes, one is that the stars is fixed, the same thoughts in his era that the sun was fixed while the planets were orbiting the sun, the other mistake that each planet has its own creatures and that isn't true as well.

 

[Bird123]

I think that a deeper look reinforces the idea that ours is a godless universe. Here's the argument. Please excuse its length:

Suppose that either Case A or Case B is true, but not both. If A were true, then we might observe Situation 1 or 2 to be the case, but if B were correct, only situation 2 would be possible. We make an observation and find that situation 2 is the case.

An example would be that if there were an intelligent designer - call this Case A - the universe might have physical laws or not. An intelligent designer could will the planets to move as the whim struck it, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, sometimes in an ellipse, and sometimes in a triangle. Call that Situation 1. An intelligent designer could also create regular laws. That will be Situation 2.

But a godless universe - Case B - can only find itself in situation 2. It needs regular laws to keep the planets in their orbits, and those orbits will always be elliptical, and the motions of the orbiting bodies predictable.

Situation 2 is observed. Which is the case, Case A or Case B?

We can't say. But I'm going to assert that case B is slightly more likely to be the case than it was before we observed Situation 2. The reason becomes obvious as we add more and more examples where the situation is one of two possible were Case A the case, but only one of the two is possible in Case B.

Another example: In a universe with an intelligent designer (Case A), we might (Situation 1) or might not (Situation 2) be protected from what would be needless suffering if there a god present capable of preventing it.

But in a godless universe, Situation 2 is inevitable. That suffering will occur. Once again, we observe Situation 2 to be the case. Does that establish the veracity of either Case A or Case B? Once again, no, not by itself, although we will see that it also makes Case B a little likelier than it was before we observed Situation 2 to be the reality.

In a universe with an intelligent designer (Case A), that intelligent designer might (Situation 1) or might not (Situation 2) be evident to us the way that the sun is. In a godless universe (Case B), we wouldn't be able to find a god (Situation 2). Situation 2 is the reality once again.

In a universe with an intelligent designer (Case A), that intelligent designer might (Situation 1) or might not (Situation 2) create us with the will to do only good. It might (Situation 1) or might not (Situation 2) interfere in our affairs. In a godless universe, there would be no such interference. Once again, Situation 2 is what we observe.

The vast universe is yet another piece of similar evidence:

In a universe with an intelligent designer (Case A), the universe might (Situation 1) or might not (Situation 2) look custom designed for us. In a godless universe (Case B), we will discover that the universe does not look custom made for us (Situation 2). Yet again, Situation2 is the observation.

Keep adding more and more of these, each with Situation 2 being observed, and eventually, by consilience - the confluence of a multitude of independent occurrences that all point to the same conclusion, each of which alone is not necessarily convincing, but when considered collectively, is compelling - we get a clear picture that Case 2 is very likely the case. Ours is a godless universe, at least in the sense of the creator, ruler gods of Christianity and Islam. There is still a place for deistic gods, for example.

This is the same reasoning that allows the IRS to catch unsophisticated tax cheats. If a mistake in the taxes were innocent (Case A), it would be random, and sometimes hurt the tax payer (Situation 1), sometimes benefit him (Situation 2). With the unsophisticated cheat (Case B), the mistakes always go the same way: In the tax payers favor (Situation 2). It is the absence of situation 1 occurring over multiple instances where it might have that identifies which Case is likelier the case.

Is it intelligent to design planets to move to a whim? You could choose to drive the wrong way on the street but your intelligence makes that not really a viable choice. If the planets were moving at a whim, how could the kiddies ever learn? Intelligence has order even if others might not see. To be any other way would be fantasy.

Who is to determine what suffering is needless? Pain is only an indication something is wrong. Would an Intelligent Being really make it all about pain and delight?

Maybe the goal of the universe is the education of the kiddies. In many cases kiddies make choices that create suffering. In doing so they choose some hard lessons for themselves. How could they ever learn what their actions really mean unless their actions return to bring them understanding? Want less suffering for yourself? Make loving choices so that is what will return.

Adversity breeds invention. How much knowledge would be acquired and discovered without the need? If no one ever got sick, mankind would have no knowledge of medicine, DNA, or genetics. If weather and earthquakes did not exist, what science knowledge would be missing today? Do we look at the suffering and see nothing else or do we see the entire picture along with the results?

Can God really not be found by anyone??? The Real truth is that I have found few people who actually want to find God. God can be found.

As I see it. I have found no religion that really understands God. If one chooses to go looking for God, I suggest having an open mind. The first thing that God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I work on mine everyday.

With education being the goal, free choice is important to learning. As I see it, God is not going to intimidate your choices. If God were talking to people on a regular bases, can you really say people would not be intimidated? Education is at it's best when total free will is incorporated.

As I see it, God has Great Intelligence. God is working on multiple levels with multiple views. We are but mere ants. As I see it, for most, a true conversation with God would just be confusing. Further, people have a ruling and controlling nature. People want God and the world to be what they want it to be. With this in mind, how much information would really get through? Taking all this in consideration, is the conversation needed? Would not the conversation just disrupt the lessons to be learned in the current physical lifetime?? Yes, there are multiple things to consider with all actions.

Finally, this universe is custom made. It's time-based causal nature is Perfect for Learning.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And all done... just for you!!

Can you provide some substantiation for that, or is it just something you happen to believe, which requires no substantiation whatever?

And if it requires no substantiation whatever, should science be made illegal as a vast waste of money and resources?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm confused.

I'm not sure I see why. You spoke about how to establish "useful premises" about gods. I was trying to show that the only things that will ever fill that requirement is that "gods explain that which we cannot otherwise understand." And that's all they do. And as we continue to increase our understanding, the need for gods continues to decrease.

Of course, it is also true that most people understand very little of science, and will thus retain their need for magical explanations.

I am reminded of a wonderful line from Robert Graves' "I, Claudius," in which a Greek doctor recommends a weed, briony, to help with the emperor's gastric troubles. When Claudius responds, "and the prayers?" the doctor says, "I suggest, Caesar, that as High Pontiff and the author of a book on religion, you are more qualified to prescribe prayers than I am."

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure I see why. You spoke about how to establish "useful premises" about gods. I was trying to show that the only things that will ever fill that requirement is that "gods explain that which we cannot otherwise understand." And that's all they do. And as we continue to increase our understanding, the need for gods continues to decrease.

Of course, it is also true that most people understand very little of science, and will thus retain their need for magical explanations.

I am reminded of a wonderful line from Robert Graves' "I, Claudius," in which a Greek doctor recommends a weed, briony, to help with the emperor's gastric troubles. When Claudius responds, "and the prayers?" the doctor says, "I suggest, Caesar, that as High Pontiff and the author of a book on religion, you are more qualified to prescribe prayers than I am."

So far, I don't see any explanatory power in gods.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So far, I don't see any explanatory power in gods.

And that was precisely my point! Bravo.

But there are, so very obviously here on this forum, many people who find almost all the "explanatory power" that they need in their gods. With nowhere else to turn to, what else could they do?

As an atheist, I've been told far too many times that without God, I couldn't possibly know why it is wrong to murder or rape or steal. I need, it is assumed, divine commandments to grasp that truth, and since I don't believe in the divine, I'm incapable of having a "real" or "valid" reason for the fact that I do -- and indeed I truly do -- believe it is wrong to murder or rape or steal.

My "faith" (which I would rather call my reason or my philosophy) provides everything I need to know to come to that correct conclusion. Whereas, religious faith had little problem murdering Giordano Bruno, and little problem accepting that the Israelites were perfectly justified in murdering the Canaanites, and raping the virgin females.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that was precisely my point! Bravo.

But there are, so very obviously here on this forum, many people who find almost all the "explanatory power" that they need in their gods. With nowhere else to turn to, what else could they do?

As an atheist, I've been told far too many times that without God, I couldn't possibly know why it is wrong to murder or rape or steal. I need, it is assumed, divine commandments to grasp that truth, and since I don't believe in the divine, I'm incapable of having a "real" or "valid" reason for the fact that I do -- and indeed I truly do -- believe it is wrong to murder or rape or steal.

My "faith" (which I would rather call my reason or my philosophy) provides everything I need to know to come to that correct conclusion. Whereas, religious faith had little problem murdering Giordano Bruno, and little problem accepting that the Israelites were perfectly justified in murdering the Canaanites, and raping the virgin females.

Some people lack imagination & insight.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"Scientists now know that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies. It’s a mind-scrunchingly big place, very different to the conception of the universe we had when the world’s major religions were founded. So do the astronomical discoveries of the last few centuries have implications for religion?

Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist.

To explain why, we need a little theology. Traditionally, the Christian God is held to be deeply concerned with human beings. Genesis (1:27) states: “God created mankind in his own image.” Psalms (8:1-5) says: “O Lord … What is man that You take thought of him … Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!” And, of course, John (3:16) explains God gave humans his son out of love for us.

These texts show that God is human-oriented: human beings are like God, and he values us highly. Although we’re focusing on Christianity, these claims can be found in other monotheistic religions, too.

If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”.

Scientists estimate that the observable universe, the part of it we can see, is around 93 billion light years across. The whole universe is at least 250 times as large as the observable universe.

To paraphrase Adams, the universe is also really, really old. Perhaps over 13 billion years old. Earth is around four billion years old, and humans evolved around 200,000 years ago. Temporally speaking, humans have been around for an eye-blink.

Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in. How can we explain it? Surely the simplest explanation is that God doesn’t exist. The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists.

As Everitt puts it:

The findings of modern science significantly reduce the probability that theism is true, because the universe is turning out to be very unlike the sort of universe which we would have expected, had theism been true.
source
​

So, if we humans are indeed god's masterpiece

Ephesians 2:10
“For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us
anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for
us long ago"
​

then the whole of the universe, all septimuchoquadrilion + cubic miles of it with its two trillion galaxies does appear to be considerable overkill. I certainly don't need a universe this large, and I doubt anybody else does either. Either its godly creator has no control over himself (OCD perhaps?) or he simply likes to have lots of stuff around himself (Hoarder Disorder?), OR, he doesn't exist at all.

.

​

I don't see this as a very convincing argument, for all we know God could have humans all across the Universe, or maybe it is his ice machine to keep his Diet Pepsi cold.

 

[Kenny]

Can you provide some substantiation for that, or is it just something you happen to believe, which requires no substantiation whatever?

And if it requires no substantiation whatever, should science be made illegal as a vast waste of money and resources?

I think we have to start with the OP on this one. My point (as both Skwim and I openly declared) we are both dealing with opinions as does your point of being an atheist.

My opinon is simply based on my belief that there are no "aliens" out there (no proof) and man has the desire to "reach the stars" (which is substantiated with man's desire to move forward into space and moves towards his capacity to do so). I could go on with other verifiable points but the interpretation of those points will always be subjective.

It's a never ending story.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Vastness of Space Suggests There Is No Almighty Creator

This view strikes me as a very human-centric way of thinking about the universe. And also it sounds like we think we know what the correct size should be. And that we know all the purposes of it all. It sounds like a mouse determining how a human should have designed things. The mouse is clueless on that grand a scale.

Consider me unimpressed by this argument.

The fact that you called this view a "human-centric" way of thinking about the universe sort of sets the rest of your post up to lose steam. This is completely the opposite of "human-centric". This is sharing the understanding that the universe is NOT "made for humans," that there is vastly more out there than humans could ever hope to traverse or understand, that we are small and helpless here on Earth. That's what we're talking about. Not arrogance, or putting humans on some pedestal. You are remiss in the prejudices you bring to bear here I feel. You've let your judgment be clouded by them and are reading what you want to read.

As far as your analogy goes, the mouse can carry any and all opinions he wants to about how humans have done things, or how he would have liked them to have been done. Is he doing something inherently "wrong" in holding such opinions? Consider me unimpressed by your analogy. But don't worry... there is nothing inherently wrong with being unimpressive either.

 

[George-ananda]

The fact that you called this view a "human-centric" way of thinking about the universe sort of sets the rest of your post up to lose steam.

I think you misunderstood my reply. I was calling out the OP's worldview as human-centric. And I was pointing out that the rest of us broader theistic thinkers do not share such a human-centric view. So I was saying without that human-centric view, why would the OP even think that the size of the universe argues for atheism?

But as it usually turns out with this OP is that he was defining God in the narrowest fundamentalist biblical Judeo-Christian way. f that is what he wants to attack and keep beating a dead horse fine, but the OP title was worded in such a grandiose manner I mistakenly bothered to comment.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think you misunderstood my reply. I was calling out the OP's worldview as human-centric. And I was pointing out that the rest of us broader theistic thinkers do not share such a human-centric view. So I was saying without that human-centric view, why would the OP even think that the size of the universe argues for atheism?

But as it usually turns out with this OP is that he was defining God in the narrowest fundamentalist biblical Judeo-Christian way. f that is what he wants to attack and keep beating a dead horse fine, but the OP title was worded in such a grandiose manner I mistakenly bothered to comment.

I see. So you meant to say that the mono-theistic idea of Earth having been created for us (implicitly refuted/criticized in the OP) is the "human-centric" part. We are agreed then.

 

[missmay]

"Scientists now know that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies. It’s a mind-scrunchingly big place, very different to the conception of the universe we had when the world’s major religions were founded. So do the astronomical discoveries of the last few centuries have implications for religion?

Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist.

To explain why, we need a little theology. Traditionally, the Christian God is held to be deeply concerned with human beings. Genesis (1:27) states: “God created mankind in his own image.” Psalms (8:1-5) says: “O Lord … What is man that You take thought of him … Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!” And, of course, John (3:16) explains God gave humans his son out of love for us.

These texts show that God is human-oriented: human beings are like God, and he values us highly. Although we’re focusing on Christianity, these claims can be found in other monotheistic religions, too.

If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”.

Scientists estimate that the observable universe, the part of it we can see, is around 93 billion light years across. The whole universe is at least 250 times as large as the observable universe.

To paraphrase Adams, the universe is also really, really old. Perhaps over 13 billion years old. Earth is around four billion years old, and humans evolved around 200,000 years ago. Temporally speaking, humans have been around for an eye-blink.

Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in. How can we explain it? Surely the simplest explanation is that God doesn’t exist. The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists.

As Everitt puts it:

The findings of modern science significantly reduce the probability that theism is true, because the universe is turning out to be very unlike the sort of universe which we would have expected, had theism been true.
source
​

So, if we humans are indeed god's masterpiece

Ephesians 2:10
“For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us
anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for
us long ago"
​

then the whole of the universe, all septimuchoquadrilion + cubic miles of it with its two trillion galaxies does appear to be considerable overkill. I certainly don't need a universe this large, and I doubt anybody else does either. Either its godly creator has no control over himself (OCD perhaps?) or he simply likes to have lots of stuff around himself (Hoarder Disorder?), OR, he doesn't exist at all.

.

​

People might choose to buy alot of land in different parts of the world, but that doesn't mean their intent is to build houses on all of them. Or maybe they will build on that land at a later date. Genesis says in the beginning there was the heavens (plural) and the earth. Couldn't it be possible that someone who is powerful and intelligent eneough to create the universe might know what these "heavens" are going to be used for/are being used for? Maybe trying to explain the universe in the way God sees it is just too mind blowing and time consuming for him to have a human being write this down for the purpose of it being put into a book (the Bible). You wouldn't try to explain to your 4 year old things that he/she couldn't even begin to understand would you? You would explain in simplistic terms that you knew he/she could grasp, or at least to get their minds thinking in the right direction, knowing that you as the parent is the one that needs to know the answers. ..all while you are doing your job as a parent.
God doesn't need to have a mental disorder (be OCD, a hoarder, or be guilty of overkill) just because he chooses to do what he does. That's just our minds trying to figure him out.

 

[missmay]

it wouldn't be a creator God in the traditional sense. but an intelligent creative natural force isn't ruled out in my eyes.

my question is what lies beyond space?, space that is expanding, must have some kind of room to grow into.
it must be infinite and of no end.

do you think space is uniformally the same everywhere in the infinite?

there must be other realities out there.

It could easily be the God of the bible. But it's possible God knows exactly why he created the universe in the way that he did and chose to not go into great detail about in the bible.

 

[missmay]

They make a case for why Christianity the probably isn't true. But to a deist it's not really saying much. Really, we don't know how big things really get and if there is more than just this universe, meaning that ultimately we really can't even begin to adequately define a "creator" at this point. But for now, we don't even know how we got here. All we can really say is we're probably not that special, and maybe not even that unique, in the universe. But for all we honestly know this may be the only planet with life.

Although the Bible talks about God creating humankind in his image and placed them on the earth, I can't see the correlation that because there are other planets and galaxies, that the God of the bible isn't real. That's just a really far jump IMO.

 

[missmay]

Sagan used this argument as a case against a personal god I believe. I view the universe, in some sense as a "god" (though obviously not in the religious sense) due to its incredible vastness, complexity, and mystery. It's just childish to believe that there is some anthropomorphic magic man hiding behind it and pulling the strings.

Why is believing that a creator of a universe that has a purpose/plan (and control over what he himself created) is a childish belief? If he's powerful and intelligent eneough to create the universe (s) and life that is sustainable on the earth, wouldn't that make him much more than just a "magic man?" Shouldnt a being of that magnitude oversee what he has created? The only thing that is childish is someone that calls any kind of deity with that kind of power a "magic man".

 

[missmay]

1) The Universe must be a non-repeatable, non-random iteration out to infinity or else it would be wasted, illogical respectively.
2) Therefore it gets to everywhere, and there an infinite amount of possibilities for different kinds of a Universe supporting different kinds of a life. -- Raelism
3) Because it is consciousnesses that differ, not matter.

How do you know for a fact that these universes were not created by the Christian God? You are simply making assumptions. There could be many reasons an intelligent creator of the universe would choose to also create these other galaxies. We simply don't know the reasons. Its ok to hypothesize , but pretty silly to say that an intelligent designer is just not efficient, only because we as humans may not know all of the answers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Although the Bible talks about God creating humankind in his image and placed them on the earth, I can't see the correlation that because there are other planets and galaxies, that the God of the bible isn't real. That's just a really far jump IMO.

Why did he make such a massively huge universe though if we are it? And why should any creator care about us, when we are so very tiny and insignificant in the universe? We're less than the organelles of the bacteria that live in us. We're less than tardigrades wondering around on what is less than a moss-covered spec of iron. How can the statement that we are special and cared for by some creator possibly be justified?

 

[missmay]

What is the "us"?


But we have no indication this is what he wanted, and from looking at just our own solar system, in which only one of its planets has life, there's a lot of waste. What we do know, from the Christian perspective anyway, is that we humans are god's masterpiece.

Ephesians 2:10
“For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us
anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for
us long ago"
​

And if that was his aim, to create a masterpiece animal, then why all the other trillions upon trillions of other planets in the universe? One would think a deity as great as god is said to be would get it right the first time and have no need for the others. That Earth and its solar system would suffice.

.

What if these other planets: a) are necessary to drive/sustain life for humans/animals /all life of any kind on this earth? Would you consider God to be wasteful then? The earth is a pretty big place with alot of life coming and going. Just because humans that are made in God's image may not be occupying some or all of these planets currently does in no way at all prove that a personal /human centric God does not exist and that Christianity, or any other religion has no merit.
What if b) these other planets are to be used as "heavens" for at a later time? The bible addresses the "new heavens and the new earth". What does that mean? What does that look like? There's so much that are finite minds can only get a glimmer of understanding about compared to what's out there. There are many complexities in day to day life that may seem like a "waste", but that are necessary for things to function or remain successful. There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning, but to make a jump like "there's no personal God that loves us or is involved in our daily existence, or that there is no afterlife because humans are not populating these other planets is not a well thought out argument.

 

[jaybird]

the vastness of space proves there is no creator?? what does one have to do with the other?