Vastness of Space Suggests There Is No Almighty Creator

[missmay]

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?

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?

There could be many reasons he has created a large universe. It could be necessary for these planets/galaxies to energize or keep life going on earth. The bible talks about "heavens" in a plural sense "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"). It's interesting that it refers to the earth as being singular and the heavens as being plural that was written in a book so many years ago). The bible also talks about the heavens and earth passing away and new heavens and a new earth forming at a later time. We just can't possibly know exactly what this looks like or entails fully at this time because our minds are finite. Why wouldn't a creator who creates human beings in his image think we are important or love us? It's hard for me to believe sometimes too. But we can love our children or our pets, even though they may seem small and insignificant. Why wouldnt God love us? Where did love come from? Why do we grieve when we lose someone? Because we loved that person and they are unique and can never ever be replaced. That's how God sees us. And while it's hard for us to understand why he would allow us to suffer if he loves us, he knows it's a temporary suffering. The apostle Paul who suffered alot in his life was used by God in amazing ways..to spread the Gospel and to give hope. He was the one who said that the present sufferings/problems in this world won't begin to compare with the amazing things God has for us in the next life (and this one!).

 

[missmay]

Maybe people trust scientists because an ability & willingness to change your mind in the face of knowledge or evidence that you're wrong is a sign of intelligence? Or maybe it's because the scientific method produces results - how many diseases has dogmatic adherence cured? How many amputees have had their limbs regrown by your god - and how many times has your god been willing or able to reproduce those results while being watched? Was it dogmatic faith or trust in the scientific method which was partially responsible for the destruction of classical European culture and the loss of so much knowledge? Is it religious faith or scientism that's compelling people to fly planes into skyscrapers, murder abortion doctors or detonate their bomb vests in a crowded marketplace?

I think David was just making the point that many scientists have been wrong and many are in disagreement with eachother. And is it really worth putting your trust and your life into the hands of humans that are at times wrong, compared to the one who actually created the universe and knows all things?
I mean, It's commendable if someone admits that they were wrong about something, but it doesnt help the person that believed the wrong information if it hurt them.

 

[Skwim]

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.

I'm well aware of the "can't know the mind of god" assertion, but in light of all the baseless claims made of god by believers, the created uselessness of everything in the universe is no less reasonable; the whole of the universe being vast overkill. IMO this speaks to an unintelligent creation as much as anything else.

.

 

[missmay]

That's like saying it's amazing that the words of the Iliad, written down in the eighth or ninth century BCE, haven't changed.

Why, but for transcription error, would the words change? Who'd bother to change them?

Yes, science is a human activity and makes mistakes; but unlike religion, it argues honestly from examinable evidence, expresses its conclusions in falsifiable form, and tests and retests those conclusions looking for errors and then correcting them.

If religion corrected itself according to conclusions honestly drawn from facts about reality, then, for example, there'd be no creationism. But because such religion pretends to be free of errors, it rests inert in the face of them, and stays in error for centuries, sometimes millennia, longer than need be.

But if you're willing to acknowledge that scientists are capable of error and that science can evolve and grow into new thinking,, wouldn't you at least question if there could be a personal creator? If your not at least willing to be open minded about the fact that science is not always accurate, I would say that you are adhering to a religion of your own making.

Its one thing to be wrong about a small matter in life, but there's much more to lose if you are wrong about whether God exists, in my opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why wouldn't a creator who creates human beings in his image

I find such a notion, that humans are made in the image of god, to be very unlikely, highly improbably, incredibly anthropocentric, and perhaps even the pinnacle of human arrogance.

It's hard for me to believe sometimes too.

"Too?" I don't believe it at all.

Where did love come from? Why do we grieve when we lose someone?

It comes from us being social animals. Even chimpanzees and elephants mourn their dead. And given all the similarities between us and other social animals, it makes it even harder for me to believe we were made special and in the image of god.
To loosely paraphrase Niel DeGrasse Tyson, what makes us special isn't that we are unique, but rather that we are all the same. All living things are from, as Carl Sagan put it, star stuff. We were born of the stars. Isn't that enough?

 

[missmay]

I'm well aware of the "can't know the mind of god" assertion, but in light of all the baseless claims made of god by believers, the created uselessness of everything in the universe is no less reasonable; the whole of the universe being vast overkill. IMO this speaks to an unintelligent creation as much as anything else.

.

I understand, but your contradicting yourself a bit. You say you can't know the mind of God, but you also believe that a creator is necessarily wasting space because you think these other planets aren't necessary.

 

[Skwim]

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?

No, but this is no different than "what if" farts are necessary for a growing economy? Of course god wouldn't be wasteful (from our view point anyway) and farts wouldn't be a waste. BUT, is this what you truly want to contend? Or are you simply headed toward a "we can't know the mind of god" argument?

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.

And to an extent you're quite right, which is why I wouldn't make such arguments, but rather wait for you, or whomever, to convince me such a god does exist. After all, the burden of proof lies with those asserting the affirmative, and not those who remain unconvinced. There's even a name for the claim that the burden of proof must lie with those asserting the negative: The Burden of Proof Fallacy.

The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, or give it any credence

If YOU assert there's an elephant with rabbit ears, then YOU have the burden of proof to convince people that there is such an animal. NO ONE has any burden to convince you there is no such an elephant. Same goes for your assertion there's a god who loves us.



.

 

[Skwim]

I understand, but your contradicting yourself a bit. You say you can't know the mind of God, but you also believe that a creator is necessarily wasting space because you think these other planets aren't necessary.

No, I said "I'm well aware of the "can't know the mind of god" assertion," AND, in speaking of "a creator is necessarily wasting space" I was merely speaking as assuming the condition was true.

.

 

[missmay]

I find such a notion, that humans are made in the image of god, to be very unlikely, highly improbably, incredibly anthropocentric, and perhaps even the pinnacle of human arrogance.

"Too?" I don't believe it at all.

It comes from us being social animals. Even chimpanzees and elephants mourn their dead. And given all the similarities between us and other social animals, it makes it even harder for me to believe we were made special and in the image of god.
To loosely paraphrase Niel DeGrasse Tyson, what makes us special isn't that we are unique, but rather that we are all the same. All living things are from, as Carl Sagan put it, star stuff. We were born of the stars. Isn't that enough?

Its not at all a matter of arrogance, and being highly anthropocentric would include putting God after oneself which is the opposite of the Christian faith (the scriptures don't say that God is made in our image, but that we are made in his image). I believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that as much as I respect and love animals, we are not the same. I believe they are amazingly made and loved by God and have an incredibly special purpose in God's creation (even in the afterlife which the Bible talks about) .

I don't agree with the "we grieve because we are social animals" argument. Although we do grieve the loss of social interaction when we lose someone, it's just too easy to go out and replace that someone with someone else. To many, physical pain would be preferable to deep grieving and I've never heard of a parent who loses a child that thinks, "Well, it'll be ok, I'll just have another one". They not only grieve for years, but for the rest of their lives.
Most people who've lost a pet are enraged and hurt deeply when someone is sensless enough to simply tell them "Well, get another one ". If it was just a matter of our evolutionary drive to be social then I don't believe the grieving process would be so unbearable. I believe both humans and animals have souls and it's the spiritual bond that enables us to love and connects us in a unique way (this ability is a gift from God and not from some evolutionary need ).
To you, saying a man made in God's image seems arrogant and excludes the value of humanity and animals, but in actuality it is quite the opposite. It takes true humility to come to this understanding. When you understand the gospel and Christ's teaching it becomes beautiful, not arrogant. Jesus often referred to himself as being the "Son of man", or "Son of Adam". This in reference to a new race of humans that will become like him when they die (and are in fact gradually becoming more and more like him as the Holy Spirit refines them in this life). This is a result of Christ's safricrice for humanity (and all of creation). So, "being made in God's image" is not just a phrase that is used loosely in the Bible or has anything to do with arrogance. It has a hugely significant meaning that ties the meaning of the Gospel and humankind, and the whole of creation together in a profound way.

 

[missmay]

No, but this is no different than "what if" farts are necessary for a growing economy? Of course god wouldn't be wasteful (from our view point anyway) and farts wouldn't be a waste. BUT, is this what you truly want to contend? Or are you simply headed toward a "we can't know the mind of god" argument?


And to an extent you're quite right, which is why I wouldn't make such arguments, but rather wait for you, or whomever, to convince me such a god does exist. After all, the burden of proof lies with those asserting the affirmative, and not those who remain unconvinced. There's even a name for the claim that the burden of proof must lie with those asserting the negative: The Burden of Proof Fallacy.

The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, or give it any credence

If YOU assert there's an elephant with rabbit ears, then YOU have the burden of proof to convince people that there is such an animal. NO ONE has any burden to convince you there is no such an elephant. Same goes for your assertion there's a god who loves us.



.

Well, I think there's quite a difference between other planets being necessary for energy, from farts growing an economy. And newsflash. ..Yes...I'm trying to get you to understand that you can't possibly know the mind of the creator of the universe ), I'm just not sure that you believe that God could be smarter than you.

But, no its not up to me to "prove " to you that God exists, because even if I was a super astute scientist who also happened to be a Christian and gave you what might sound like evidence, you would probably disagree. I can try to dialog with you to help you see some things I see, or at least to open your mind to the possibility of there being a personal God, but the burden is on you as to whether you are willing to be open to listen.

 

[missmay]

No, I said "I'm well aware of the "can't know the mind of god" assertion," AND, in speaking of "a creator is necessarily wasting space" I was merely speaking as assuming the condition was true.

.

It doesn't matter how you phrase it. Your whole point in your post is that you believe God must be wasting space if he is "human/earth centric. And that along with the men you mentioned , gave a valid argument that there couldn't be a God who was both human/earth centric and intelligent/efficient (and without neurotic tendencies).

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't matter how you phrase it. Your whole point in your post is that you believe God must be wasting space if he is "human/earth centric. And that along with the men you mentioned , gave a valid argument that there couldn't be a God who was both human/earth centric and intelligent/efficient (and without neurotic tendencies).

I give up.

Have a good day.

.

 

[blü 2]

But if you're willing to acknowledge that scientists are capable of error and that science can evolve and grow into new thinking,, wouldn't you at least question if there could be a personal creator?

I only came to my materialist position after enquiry, observation and thought. Nor do I assume it must be correct: if someone can offer a satisfactory demonstration of an alternative then I can be persuaded.

Its one thing to be wrong about a small matter in life, but there's much more to lose if you are wrong about whether God exists, in my opinion.

Two points: the first is that your argument sounds like Pascal's Wager ─ a fallacious argument which would require me to placate each and all of the gods, not just the god nominated.

Second, my deep difficulty with the Abrahamic god (as with supernatural beings generally) is the lack of a definition useful to reasoned enquiry, such that if we ever found a god, we could objectively determine that it was a god, and that it was the one we were after. The uniform lack of such a definition, such a clear understanding, is one of the things that force me to the conclusion that 'God' is a mental construct and that not even God's followers really think or act as though God has objective existence. And without objective existence, all God can be is imaginary.

But as I said, a satisfactory demonstration to the contrary can persuade me.

 

[neologist]

I feel a great disturbance in the farce.

Humanity is no longer the center of the cosmos.

Was it ever?

Should it be?

 

[oldbadger]

I feel a great disturbance in the farce.

...... you do?

Humanity is no longer the center of the cosmos.

You thought it was?

Was it ever?

Of course not............ why would it have been?

Should it be?

No.

But what has that got to do with the simple science that there is a reason for everything?

There is a reason for the initiation of this Universe and all beyond it. I think of that Reason as the Deity. So easy.

 

[blü 2]

.
There is a reason for the initiation of this Universe and all beyond it. I think of that Reason as the Deity. So easy.

Why must there be a reason? The word may imply purpose, hence some being capable of purpose, but that would be to assume such a being.

Instead the universe could have come into existence through a purposeless coincidental set of circumstances, a cosmic accident as it were, could it not? Occam's razor would take you straight to that view, surely?

Otherwise, what exactly is the reason?

 

[missmay]

I give up.

Have a good day.

.

Are those things not what you were implying??

I give up too!

 

[missmay]

I only came to my materialist position after enquiry, observation and thought. Nor do I assume it must be correct:

I'm not trying to sound disrespectful, but if you came to your materialist position after "enquiry observation and thought", I can only assume you believe that you are correct at least for the most part.

If someone can offer a satisfactory demonstration of an alternative then I can be persuaded.

Two points: the first is that your argument sounds like Pascal's Wager ─ a fallacious argument which would require me to placate each and all of the gods, not just the god nominated.

I'm sorry, Im not familiar with Pascal's Wager. I'm not talking about any particular god, Im
talking about a belief in a creator of the universe.


Second, my deep difficulty with the Abrahamic god (as with supernatural beings generally) is the lack of a definition useful to reasoned enquiry, such that if we ever found a god, we could objectively determine that it was a god, and that it was the one we were after. The uniform lack of such a definition, such a clear understanding, is one of the things that force me to the conclusion that 'God' is a mental construct and that not even God's followers really think or act as though God has objective existence.

With all due respect I would disagree with this..although the Christians that I know (myself included)) may have doubt in regards to their faith at times, it usually doesn't last too long. I would definately say that we do live our lives according to our faith, even though not perfectly.

Without objective existence, all God can be is imaginary.

But as I said, a satisfactory demonstration to the contrary can persuade me.

Since you have given alot of thought in coming to the conclusion that a a personal creator of the universe doesn't exist, why don't we start with that and I will give you reasons why I believe the way I do.

I'm sorry if I've botched your reply by interjecting my responses, I thought they would show up separately and be distinguishable from your statements (I'm new to this forum ).

 

[Faithofchristian]

"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.

.

​

First of all, can you explain how human beings are to live out in the Universe?

You explain many things, But gave nothing to say how humans are to live in the Universe?

 

[oldbadger]

Why must there be a reason?

Science says so.............. you do believe in science, I guess?

The word may imply purpose, hence some being capable of purpose, but that would be to assume such a being.

You're assuming lots of things there.
I'm just saying that real scientists know that there is a reason for every thing, action, interaction, initiation.

Instead the universe could have come into existence through a purposeless coincidental set of circumstances, a cosmic accident as it were, could it not?

Gosh, that sounds like some sort of weird religion or other!
You and I don't know how how the Universe and beyond became, but you and I both know that it happened because of 'something'. Thatr reason = Deity. Easy.

Occam's razor would take you straight to that view, surely?

Occam's Razor takes me straight to:
The is/was a reason for the initiation of all. You can call that reason 'The Deity'. Straight there.

Otherwise, what exactly is the reason?

Oh please! Can we sort out how to cure the common cold first?
We just need a bit more science before we figure out how our Universe got started, and then we'll need to figure out all about the beyond-that.
Common colds first, please.