The Universe

This post is probably inspired by Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagans book, that I just finished reading a few minutes ago.

If God created the universe, why, oh why, did He make it so vast? Wouldn't just the Earth have been adequate? Why did he need to create countless stars in countless galaxys? Relative to the vastness of space, we all know how insignificantly small Earth is; so why bother with all the rest?

It's a Christians view that the universe and all of it's contents were created for us, Humans, is it not? We feature so prominently in Gods plans, we're the focus of them, so it has to be for us, from a religious persepective of course. So why did he bother making it so large; so large that we'll never even be able to imagine an infinitely small percentage of it, let alone visit and explore it.

How can you reconcile it's vastness with the assumption that we were Gods main reason for creating it all? And please don't respond with statements such as "how can we know Gods plans" etc. I'd just like plan, honest, human answers.

Zombrex

Perhaps this thread would do better in Humanities or the A&A forum ... from past experience I anticipate the response in this forum will be along the lines of I don't know but it is something I plan to ask him when I die

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps this thread would do better in Humanities or the A&A forum ... from past experience I anticipate the response in this forum will be along the lines of I don't know but it is something I plan to ask him when I die

Ya, perhaps that's true. I didn't post it in A&A or Humanities as I wanted a religious, specifically Christian, perspective. Posting it in A&A would just reiterate what I believe myself!

Skadi

There is a view in some religions that when you die, if you have lived a worthy life then you have the ability to become a god. This would account for a large universe.

This view could even account for the death of a planet and the rebirth of a new planet.

santing

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This post is probably inspired by Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagans book, that I just finished reading a few minutes ago.

If God created the universe, why, oh why, did He make it so vast? Wouldn't just the Earth have been adequate? Why did he need to create countless stars in countless galaxys? Relative to the vastness of space, we all know how insignificantly small Earth is; so why bother with all the rest?

It's a Christians view that the universe and all of it's contents were created for us, Humans, is it not? We feature so prominently in Gods plans, we're the focus of them, so it has to be for us, from a religious persepective of course. So why did he bother making it so large; so large that we'll never even be able to imagine an infinitely small percentage of it, let alone visit and explore it.

How can you reconcile it's vastness with the assumption that we were Gods main reason for creating it all? And please don't respond with statements such as "how can we know Gods plans" etc. I'd just like plan, honest, human answers.

To quote a song:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psa 19:1-4 ESV)

The universe is not made for mankind, it is made to proclaim the glory of God. It might look big, but God is even greater.

santing

santing wrote: »

To quote a song:

The universe is not made for mankind, it is made to proclaim the glory of God. It might look big, but God is even greater.

So, you're basically saying that God created it to show off to us? That doesn't seem very God-like.

kelly1

It's not that big really, at least according to God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U67aLClWpjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFlzyxSQhTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J82yKdF5Mw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7wNQw12l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAzJy_DECyQ

DeVore

Its going to get a lot more complicated when we discover life on other planets....


DeV.

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's a Christians view that the universe and all of it's contents were created for us, Humans, is it not?

Where did you get that from?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

We feature so prominently in Gods plans, we're the focus of them, so it has to be for us, from a religious persepective of course.

Where did you get that from?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So why did he bother making it so large; so large that we'll never even be able to imagine an infinitely small percentage of it, let alone visit and explore it.

How do you know?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How can you reconcile it's vastness with the assumption that we were Gods main reason for creating it all?

Where did you get that from?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And please don't respond with statements such as "how can we know Gods plans" etc. I'd just like plan, honest, human answers.

If you can tell me where you got the aforementioned assumptions from then I'll give you my opinion on why the universe is so big. Actually no, I'll tell you now, in short, it has to be this big, otherwise we would not be here to observe it. Ok over to you now if you would like me to elaborate a bit.

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, you're basically saying that God created it to show off to us? That doesn't seem very God-like.

Not so much to us, rather to the denizens of eternity, especially the fallen ones. We are but pawns or foot soldiers now in our present fallen state of His showingoffness. Not fallen like the angels, there is a door open for us. He did not die for them. If we make it to eternity we will be shown off as His crowning creation. Become the fulfillment of what He spoke in the beginning. "Let us make man (literally "Adam") in our own image." We will become just like Him if we hold fast till the end. Replacing the third of heaven that fell with Lucifer. That's why Jesus voluntarily paid such a high price for our salvation. God did not create everything for man, rather He created man to rule over everything. That's why Paul can say: "We are more than conquerors." One problem though, we still gotta get there!

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps this thread would do better in Humanities or the A&A forum ... from past experience I anticipate the response in this forum will be along the lines of I don't know but it is something I plan to ask him when I die

Perhaps it would be best if you didn't pre-empt other people's responses. When I say this I'm assuming you are actually interested in hearing other people's responses rather that giving a facsimile of what you think individuals will say.

studiorat

DeVore wrote: »

Its going to get a lot more complicated when we discover life on other planets....


DeV.

or it discovers us...

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where did you get that from?[\quote]

Well you see how I ended it with a question? That's because I was asking one. Christianity, up until the 18th century, always persisted that the universe was geocentric. And in reading the bible, I for one certainly get the impression that Humans are the most important animal that God made. So, in Christian views (albeit dated Christian views), we are the most important creature at the centre of the universe. That certainly implies that it may have been made for us.

Where did you get that from?

The bible was written for us. It is mostly about Humans. So, from what we have at hand, we see that Humans feature prominently. That implies that, perhaps, it was all made for us. But again, I wasn't stating it as fact, more so as a rhetoric.

How do you know?

Because even travelling at the speed of light it would take us over 2 million years to get to the next galaxy. And that one is relatively close. How about one that is 10 billion lightyears away, you hardly expect us to travel for 10 billion years? (And yes, that is based on the assumption that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible).

Where did you get that from?

It follows on from my premise, which may be flawed, I didn't say it wasn't.

If you can tell me where you got the aforementioned assumptions from then I'll give you my opinion on why the universe is so big. Actually no, I'll tell you now, in short, it has to be this big, otherwise we would not be here to observe it. Ok over to you now if you would like me to elaborate a bit.

Ok, I explained as best I could. Now, if my answers are to your satisfaction, could you explain your view?

Thanks.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not that big really, at least according to God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U67aLClWpjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFlzyxSQhTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J82yKdF5Mw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7wNQw12l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAzJy_DECyQ

How can you draw the conclusion that it isn't that big from those videos?

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not so much to us, rather to the denizens of eternity, especially the fallen ones. We are but pawns or foot soldiers now in our present fallen state of His showingoffness. Not fallen like the angels, there is a door open for us. He did not die for them. If we make it to eternity we will be shown off as His crowning creation. Become the fulfillment of what He spoke in the beginning. "Let us make man (literally "Adam") in our own image." We will become just like Him if we hold fast till the end. Replacing the third of heaven that fell with Lucifer. That's why Jesus voluntarily paid such a high price for our salvation. God did not create everything for man, rather He created man to rule over everything. That's why Paul can say: "We are more than conquerors." One problem though, we still gotta get there!

But, even if it was created to show off to other creatures or angels or whatever, creating something with the intention of bragging isn't a very God-like attribute.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, even if it was created to show off to other creatures or angels or whatever, creating something with the intention of bragging isn't a very God-like attribute.

While others may indeed look at it and wonder, I don't believe the universe was created for that purpose. Nor do I believe it was made for man's benefit at all.

God may well have created it for His own pleasure, or for some other purpose of which we haven't the foggiest idea.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

While others may indeed look at it and wonder, I don't believe the universe was created for that purpose. Nor do I believe it was made for man's benefit at all.

God may well have created it for His own pleasure, or for some other purpose of which we haven't the foggiest idea.

Thanks for the honest answer. But, for me personally, the vast size is one of the strongest arguments against God. Or at least one of the strongest arguments against a theistic God, I think a deistic God fits in with it's vast size much more readily.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Thanks for the honest answer. But, for me personally, the vast size is one of the strongest arguments against God. Or at least one of the strongest arguments against a theistic God, I think a deistic God fits in with it's vast size much more readily.

Any reasons for that opinion?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Any reasons for that opinion?

Well just to make it clear, I'm neither a theist or a deist. But, I'd be less reluctant to accept the idea of a deistic God over a theistic God. A theistic God is far more personal, and I think the idea of such a vast universe is very impersonal. If we are Gods only living creation (life on Earth, I mean), I don't see why he needed to make everything so vast. Perhaps he, as Christians continually say, had his reasons. But, I personally feel it's just far too large for a personal God. On the other hand, a deistic God isn't in anyway personal, so I wouldn't have the same objection.

I realise my reasons aren't very convincing, nor are they very strong. I can't articulate them very well to be honest. But, I think you might get what I'm trying to say.

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Thanks for the honest answer. But, for me personally, the vast size is one of the strongest arguments against God. Or at least one of the strongest arguments against a theistic God, I think a deistic God fits in with it's vast size much more readily.

I'm curious, if the universe consisted of only a handful of solar systems would a creator seem more plausible or less? Would the notion of an infinite being seem more plausible or less?

As for the size or even the age of the universe, I don't see how such things would be a consideration for God, an infinite being. Innuendo aside, size does not matter to God. So I would agree with PDN when he says that the universe was created for God's purposes. Who knows, maybe there is other life out there to amuse Him, or maybe it's much more fantastic than that!

Biro

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well you see how I ended it with a question? That's because I was asking one. Christianity, up until the 18th century, always persisted that the universe was geocentric. And in reading the bible, I for one certainly get the impression that Humans are the most important animal that God made. So, in Christian views (albeit dated Christian views), we are the most important creature at the centre of the universe. That certainly implies that it may have been made for us.

Lets not bother with dated views.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The bible was written for us. It is mostly about Humans. So, from what we have at hand, we see that Humans feature prominently. That implies that, perhaps, it was all made for us. But again, I wasn't stating it as fact, more so as a rhetoric.

If it was written for us then it stands to reason that it's mostly about us. As I said before God didn't send His son to enlighten us in the ways of the universe, he sent His son to save us and to teach us how to live and how to pray.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Because even travelling at the speed of light it would take us over 2 million years to get to the next galaxy. And that one is relatively close. How about one that is 10 billion lightyears away, you hardly expect us to travel for 10 billion years? (And yes, that is based on the assumption that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible).

You're also assuming that time is constant. A lot of assumptions here.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It follows on from my premise, which may be flawed, I didn't say it wasn't.
Ok, I explained as best I could. Now, if my answers are to your satisfaction, could you explain your view?
Thanks.

My view is that I don't see what size has to do with God to be honest. There seems to be a formula for the workings of the known universe, a formula that dates back to what we percieve as the beginning of this universe, as we know it. Who knows how many universes there are really, an infinite number? All existing as different permutations of reactions in different ways and at different times to certain actions? It's possible to mathematically demonstrate this concept, but I don't see how we can prove it. Either way, proving the existance of more than one universe (as we understand the term universe) or not being able to prove anything doesn't prove or disprove the existance of God.

Biro

Biro wrote: »

Lets not bother with dated views.

There are numerous passages in the bible that can be interpreted in a way that leads to the conclusion that the universe is geocentric. They are vague, but no more vague than most other passages that people interpret in their own ways.

Biro wrote: »

If it was written for us then it stands to reason that it's mostly about us. As I said before God didn't send His son to enlighten us in the ways of the universe, he sent His son to save us and to teach us how to live and how to pray.

Yes, I know. But that's irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. I was trying to say that since passages in the bible can be interpreted in a way that leads to the view of geocentricism. And, since we are "made in His image", it implies that we are the most important animal on Earth. Therefore, with this view, we are the most important living creatures (Apart from God and whatnot) at the center of the universe. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude, perhaps erroneously, that it was created for us.

Biro wrote: »

You're also assuming that time is constant. A lot of assumptions here.

I didn't assume time was constant, I just didn't want to bring special relativity into a theological debate. And, time runs slower the faster you go, so it isn't constant. But, that's irrelevant.

Biro wrote: »

My view is that I don't see what size has to do with God to be honest. There seems to be a formula for the workings of the known universe, a formula that dates back to what we percieve as the beginning of this universe, as we know it. Who knows how many universes there are really, an infinite number? All existing as different permutations of reactions in different ways and at different times to certain actions? It's possible to mathematically demonstrate this concept, but I don't see how we can prove it. Either way, proving the existance of more than one universe (as we understand the term universe) or not being able to prove anything doesn't prove or disprove the existance of God.

I think this is beyond the scope of my original question. I didn't want to prove the existance of more than one universe, nor did I mention anything about other universes. I just wanted personal opinions on how the vast size of the universe can be reconciled with a personal God.

Thanks for your response.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, if the universe consisted of only a handful of solar systems would a creator seem more plausible or less? Would the notion of an infinite being seem more plausible or less?

Well that's a hard question to answer. I only started this thread to view other peoples opinions.

I just feel, personally, and perhaps erroneously, that such a vast universe is more compatible with deistic God than it is with a theistic God. And with regards to it's size, I don't think it would really make a difference, as we would still be left with the same questions about our origins.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for the size or even the age of the universe, I don't see how such things would be a consideration for God, an infinite being. Innuendo aside, size does not matter to God. So I would agree with PDN when he says that the universe was created for God's purposes. Who knows, maybe there is other life out there to amuse Him, or maybe it's much more fantastic than that!

That's what I was looking for, a personal response. Thanks for your reply.

no.1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, if the universe consisted of only a handful of solar systems would a creator seem more plausible or less? Would the notion of an infinite being seem more plausible or less?

If the creator was visible or if there was any solid evidence for him whatsoever, then of course his existence would be plausible and possibly even confirmed.

Who knows, maybe there is other life out there to amuse Him, or maybe it's much more fantastic than that!

That's cringe-worthy.

PDN

no.1 wrote: »

That's cringe-worthy.

If so then give reasons why. Otherwise don't troll.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

If so then give reasons why. Otherwise don't troll.

Yeah, fire away!

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well you see how I ended it with a question? That's because I was asking one. Christianity, up until the 18th century, always persisted that the universe was geocentric. And in reading the bible, I for one certainly get the impression that Humans are the most important animal that God made. So, in Christian views (albeit dated Christian views), we are the most important creature at the centre of the universe. That certainly implies that it may have been made for us.

The Earth maybe but not the whole Universe, but then not even the Earth. We read in Jeremiah that he (Jeremiah) saw the Earth when there was no man but there was cities, or rather meeting places of intelligent beings. If this is true then the Earth was created for other purposes other than for man. Plus we also read that when God created them, He placed them in the garden to till it and guard it, you could say they were created for Earth, or rather for God’s purposes on Earth. What passages in the Bible suggest to you that the Universe is Geocentric?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The bible was written for us.

Yes that is correct. All scripture was written for our instruction.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It is mostly about Humans.

I would say it is primarily about God and His dealings with ‘His’ people.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, from what we have at hand, we see that Humans feature prominently.

Only in relation to God. God is the primary subject of most of the books in the Bible and how He interacts with His people and deals with them.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That implies that, perhaps, it was all made for us.

Well no it doesn’t really. Not sure how you can make that jump from what you said.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But again, I wasn't stating it as fact, more so as a rhetoric.

Oh??

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Because even travelling at the speed of light it would take us over 2 million years to get to the next galaxy. And that one is relatively close. How about one that is 10 billion lightyears away, you hardly expect us to travel for 10 billion years? (And yes, that is based on the assumption that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible).

Well that’s if we try to get there by means of velocity through space. That cannot be an option because even if we were to develop the ability to travel that fast it would still be unrealistic as you have pointed out. What I would suggest to do would be to develop a way to travel to distance galaxies by means of worm holes and the like. If we could some how bend space and in doing time itself just like the way black holes can do it then that would be a good starting point. Remember 100 years ago people would have thought that technological advances we see today absolutely impossible. Who knows if another Einstein might come along and show us how to travel through intergalactic space?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ok, I explained as best I could. Now, if my answers are to your satisfaction, could you explain your view?

Thanks.

Ok.

Our Universe needs to be the size it is in order for the Earth to exist. The Earth is composed of heavy elements and these heavy elements cannot be created without supernovae activity which generate the heat needed in order to bind the more basic elements (elements which existed in the early stages of the Universes creation) together to create these heavier elements in order to form the basic building blocks for Earth. To get these supernovae explosions we need stars big enough to explode in the just the right region of our galaxy and at just the right time in its history. To have stars big enough to explode like this they need to have their conditions just right too. One of these conditions is the rate at which the Universe expands. Any slower than the speed at which it now expands and the universe could not have enabled gravity to give the conditions for galaxy formation because the universe would have long ago collapsed in on itself due to the force of gravity. Any faster and the galaxies wouldn’t be able to form because the universe would have stretched too much to enable gravity to work its magic in galaxy formation. So for Earth to be here at all the universe needs to be the right age and for it to be the right age it needs to be the size it is which just so happens to be immense beyond our comprehension. Without all these factors (and many others not mentioned) Earth could not exist.

Now for Earth to have the capacity to develop and sustain even basic life forms many many even more complex variables need to be in place including the actual size of the planet. The speed of its spin, the tilt of its axis and how it orbits the Sun. The distance from the Sun i.e. the habitable zone has to be just right. Too near or too far away and life (human life at least) would be a no no because the distance from the Sun needs to be in a zone that allows water to exist in its three forms, liquid, gas and solid amongst other things, and the Earth just happens to orbit the Sun in that very zone. The Sun also has to be the right type of star. For Earth to produce and sustain basic life forms the Sun cannot be a giant and it cannot be a dwarf. Earth needs the Sun to be just the way it is. A long living stable G type star. And our solar system needs to be in a part of the galaxy that is not too near the galactic centre because the force of gravity there is too strong for the Sun to have the stable orbit it has around our galaxy. It needs to be in a location where there is no supernovae activity as this would be catastrophic for our solar system, which means that our solar system has to have developed at a point in our galaxy’s age that is just right. No more supernovae activity in our region of the galaxy.

These are just a few of the things which explain why the Universe is the size it is. Now maybe there are other planets out there that support similar life forms and maybe we will never encounter them but just because the Universe is the size it is says nothing about the importance of size to God. So what if we are so infinitesimally small. If God does exist and is able to stretch out the heavens as it is written then do you think He would be impressed by the size of something? I think not.

stakey

You'd think if a god wanted to create a planet for his people to live on he'd just make the rules of creating such a planet a little easier wouldn't you? I mean the god you refer to is meant to be all powerful and creator of the universe, as such would he not just bend the rules a bit. Also, if this god is going to play by the rules of physics (would a god not define them as oppossed to adhere to them?), he'd have to wait 9 billion years to just see the Earth form and another 2.5 billion years to see if this planet would support life as we know it.

This is a far call from the seven days the Book of Genesis claims. The more and more that is discovered about our universe and the development of life within it the more ludicrous tacking any religion on to it looks.

PDN

stakey wrote: »

You'd think if a god wanted to create a planet for his people to live on he'd just make the rules of creating such a planet a little easier wouldn't you? I mean the god you refer to is meant to be all powerful and creator of the universe, as such would he not just bend the rules a bit.

You don't know what the rules were in the first place, so you don't know if he bent them or not, do you?

Also, if this god is going to play by the rules of physics (would a god not define them as oppossed to adhere to them?), he'd have to wait 9 billion years to just see the Earth form and another 2.5 billion years to see if this planet would support life as we know it.

Yeah, an omniscient eternal God would be waiting on tenterhooks and biting His fingernails as he wondered how the formation of the planet would pan out. :rolleyes:

This is a far call from the seven days the Book of Genesis claims. The more and more that is discovered about our universe and the development of life within it the more ludicrous tacking any religion on to it looks.

If you want to discuss Young Earth Creationism then there is a mega-thread devoted to that subject. Otherwise I would suggest reading a few of the other threads on the board to get an idea what most Christians actually do believe.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

What passages in the Bible suggest to you that the Universe is Geocentric?

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose"

That implies that the Sun orbits the Earth, not the other way around.

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

That, again, implies that the Sun orbits the Earth.

"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

That states that the Earth is stable, unmovable - That it remains at the center while all else moves.

The point is that there are numerous passages in the bible that can be interpreted to imply geocentricism. And my interpreting them the way I am is no less valid than creationists interpreting each of the 6 days in Genesis not to mean actual days, but longer period etc.

Only in relation to God. God is the primary subject of most of the books in the Bible and how He interacts with His people and deals with them.

Yes, well it's his book so you'd expect him to be paramount in it alright. But my point is that Humans feature prominently.

Well no it doesn’t really. Not sure how you can make that jump from what you said.

If it implies that the universe is geocentric, and we are the most important beings (apart from God and whatnot) at the centre, then it doesn't take huge leaps of logic to conclude that perhaps it was created for us.

Well that’s if we try to get there by means of velocity through space. That cannot be an option because even if we were to develop the ability to travel that fast it would still be unrealistic as you have pointed out. What I would suggest to do would be to develop a way to travel to distance galaxies by means of worm holes and the like. If we could some how bend space and in doing time itself just like the way black holes can do it then that would be a good starting point. Remember 100 years ago people would have thought that technological advances we see today absolutely impossible. Who knows if another Einstein might come along and show us how to travel through intergalactic space?

I'd rather not mix what remains to be science fiction in a theological debate.

Our Universe needs to be the size it is in order for the Earth to exist. The Earth is composed of heavy elements and these heavy elements cannot be created without supernovae activity which generate the heat needed in order to bind the more basic elements (elements which existed in the early stages of the Universes creation) together to create these heavier elements in order to form the basic building blocks for Earth. To get these supernovae explosions we need stars big enough to explode in the just the right region of our galaxy and at just the right time in its history. To have stars big enough to explode like this they need to have their conditions just right too. One of these conditions is the rate at which the Universe expands. Any slower than the speed at which it now expands and the universe could not have enabled gravity to give the conditions for galaxy formation because the universe would have long ago collapsed in on itself due to the force of gravity. Any faster and the galaxies wouldn’t be able to form because the universe would have stretched too much to enable gravity to work its magic in galaxy formation. So for Earth to be here at all the universe needs to be the right age and for it to be the right age it needs to be the size it is which just so happens to be immense beyond our comprehension. Without all these factors (and many others not mentioned) Earth could not exist.

I'd disagree with most of that. The universe certainly doesn't need to be the size it is now to produce the amounts of heavier elements needed for Earth. A few ten thousand stars would of been more than enough. And as for the expansion of the universe, yes the amount of mass in the universe at this moment is needed to control the expansion. But, had the universe been smaller, less mass would have been needed.

As for Earth to have the capacity to develop and sustain even basic life forms many many even more complex variables need to be in place including the actual size of the planet. The speed of its spin, the tilt of its axis and how it orbits the Sun. The distance from the Sun i.e. the habitable zone has to be just right. Too near or too far away and life (human life at least) would be a no no because the distance from the Sun needs to be in a zone that allows water to exist in its three forms, liquid, gas and solid amongst other things, and the Earth just happens to orbit the Sun in that very zone. The Sun also has to be the right type of star. For Earth to produce and sustain basic life forms the Sun cannot be a giant and it cannot be a dwarf. Earth needs the Sun to be just the way it is. A long living stable G type star. And our solar system needs to be in a part of the galaxy that is not too near the galactic centre because the force of gravity there is too strong for the Sun to have the stable orbit it has around our galaxy. It needs to be in a location where there is no supernovae activity as this would be catastrophic for our solar system, which means that our solar system has to have developed at a point in our galaxy’s age that is just right. No more supernovae activity in our region of the galaxy.

All of that is very good, but it's irrelevant to my original question. I agree with the specifics of where the Earth had to be in relation to the Sun, and what type of star the Sun has to be etc. But, that could of been achieved with a single galaxy, billions weren't needed.

These are just a few of the things which explain why the Universe is the size it is. Now maybe there are other planets out there that support similar life forms and maybe we will never encounter them but just because the Universe is the size it is says nothing about the importance of size to God. So what if we are so infinitesimally small. If God does exist and is able to stretch out the heavens as it is written then do you think He would be impressed by the size of something? I think not.

Thanks for your view. But, I still don't see any reason as to why He had to make it so large.

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Thanks for your view. But, I still don't see any reason as to why He had to make it so large.

I'm still confused as to why the size of the universe is a problem for you. If anything the enormity of the universe is exactly the type of thing I would expect from God.

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose"

That implies that the Sun orbits the Earth, not the other way around.

How on Earth (pardon the pun) did you get that idea from that verse? The sun rises? We still use that term today don't we? From our perspective the sun does rise and set and yet we know the Earth orbits the sun and yet we still use it.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

That, again, implies that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I don't think it does. From the perspective of the observers the sun merely stood still in the sky. You cannot make the leap to "the sun orbits the earth" from that surely.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

That states that the Earth is stable, unmovable - That it remains at the center while all else moves.

You could interpret that way sure but only from the perspective of the observer of these natural phenomena who were not endowed with the scientific knowledge we have today, an observer whose intention is to write history not a science journal to be peer reviewed. But where does it specifically say in the Bible that the Earth is the centre of the universe? Better still where does it say that God says it is? In the Bible the only relation that the Heavens have to the Earth is that they are above it and that the Earth is beneath the Heavens.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The point is that there are numerous passages in the bible that can be interpreted to imply geocentricism. And my interpreting them the way I am is no less valid than creationists interpreting each of the 6 days in Genesis not to mean actual days, but longer period etc.

Well it also says that 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' The word translated "day" in the original Hebrew (yom) is very ambiguous. You need to read it in context with what is being described. Yes it can be translated "day" as in a 24 hour period but it is not limited to that, it can also be used to describe any definitive period of time. In any case Genesis 1v1 describes the creation of the Heavens and Earth which were created in the Beginning, where as from Genesis 1v2 onwards we are reading the account of a re-creative period. Hence the command to re-plenish the earth given to Adam and Eve, suggesting that it had a previous plenishing period prior to their arrival. Possibly the same plenishing that Jeremiah seen before something hit that caused the Earth to become a waste and a desolation as described in Genesis 1v2. So the Earth and Heavens where created in the beginning. How long was that? It is not explicitly spelled out, it could be any amount of time, the point is they are already there by the time the events in Genesis 1v2 onwards unfold.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If it implies that the universe is geocentric, and we are the most important beings (apart from God and whatnot) at the centre, then it doesn't take huge leaps of logic to conclude that perhaps it was created for us.

Agreed. "If" being the operative word here.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd rather not mix what remains to be science fiction in a theological debate.

Don’t forget that nearly all of current scientific fact was once a lot of scientific fiction.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd disagree with most of that. The universe certainly doesn't need to be the size it is now to produce the amounts of heavier elements needed for Earth. A few ten thousand stars would of been more than enough. And as for the expansion of the universe, yes the amount of mass in the universe at this moment is needed to control the expansion. But, had the universe been smaller, less mass would have been needed.

I'm sure if God is capable of creating such a vast universe He have could just created an Earth floating on its own surrounded by nothing, sustaining life on its own without the need for anything else, but what would that prove to an unbeliever now?

The creation of the Universe from nothing at all was either an act of pure will and it is the way it is because that is the way the One who willed it into existence wanted it to be, or it is a purposeless, directionless, meaningless, 1 in a billion billion chance happening accident encompassing within it trillions more such chance happenings that just so happened to lead to us pondering on it now and wanting to give it something we call “meaning” when there obviously is no such thing. If the latter is true then what is so bad about being wrong about believing in a God? If there is no God then everything is and always was ultimately pointless and meaningless anyway.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Thanks for your view. But, I still don't see any reason as to why He had to make it so large.

Beats me to but I fail to see why it need be a stumbling block of some kind.

Beats me to but I fail to see why it need be a stumbling block of some kind.

I'll reply to the rest of your post again, don't have the time now. But, I didn't really mean that it was a stumbling block. The question I was really asking, well meant to ask, was how can you, as Christians, reconcile the fact that the universe is so vast with the idea of an intimate, personal God. I know it's a somewhat stupid question, and it mightn't make a lot of sense, but it made sense to me before I asked it!

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The creation of the Universe from nothing at all was either an act of pure will and it is the way it is because that is the way the One who willed it into existence wanted it to be, or it is a purposeless, directionless, meaningless, 1 in a billion billion chance happening accident encompassing within it trillions more such chance happenings that just so happened to lead to us pondering on it now and wanting to give it something we call “meaning” when there obviously is no such thing.

If the basics of inflationary theory are correct (and evidence suggests they probably are) the existence of the universe was not a 1 in a billion billion chance happening at all. In fact it was a quite probable happening. Inflationary theory also explains why the universe is so big.

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The question I was really asking, well meant to ask, was how can you, as Christians, reconcile the fact that the universe is so vast with the idea of an intimate, personal God. I know it's a somewhat stupid question, and it mightn't make a lot of sense, but it made sense to me before I asked it!

I maintain that there are no stupid questions only stupid answers. Contrived questions not tending toward edification might be construed as a stupid question though, and I'm not suggestion that that is the case here.

Right so how can we, as Christians, reconcile the fact that the universe is so vast with the idea of an intimate and personal God? Well speaking for myself I can only say that I don't have to reconcile the two. My faith is based on the resurrection of Christ from the dead as a fact of history. Once I crossed that hurdle of faith everything else I observe in the universe is just a mere astonishment to be enjoyed, and I do enjoy it, I love the beauty of the world and of the universe. The real joy for me though is that Christ has risen. Anyone who truly believes this as a fact of history is not too much enamored by the rest of creation, amazing and glorious as it is. The promise of eternal life for faith in Him leaves everything else in the shade if you ask me.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

If the basics of inflationary theory are correct (and evidence suggests they probably are) the existence of the universe was not a 1 in a billion billion chance happening at all. In fact it was a quite probable happening. Inflationary theory also explains why the universe is so big.

When one considers that all matter, energy, space and time have their beginning point in the finite past from nothing, it begs the question: How can what we call 'everything', space time etc, have come from that nothingness by itself? When there was nothing, there was nothing, not even the potential for anything and yet everything came and is as it is. It boggles the mind that our universe with all its laws and constants could ever be possible without a super intelligent will to start it off and keep it going. Surely even if inflationary theory can explain the expansion and size of our universe it cannot explain how it came from nothing in the first place.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

When one considers that all matter, energy, space and time have their beginning point in the finite past from nothing, it begs the question: How can what we call 'everything', space time etc, have come from that nothingness by itself? When there was nothing, there was nothing, not even the potential for anything and yet everything came and is as it is. It boggles the mind that our universe with all its laws and constants could ever be possible without a super intelligent will to start it off and keep it going. Surely even if inflationary theory can explain the expansion and size of our universe it cannot explain how it came from nothing in the first place.

The beginning of it all, and all of the universe's intricate workings, are beyond human comprehension. We'll probably never be able to understand it all. And, I think that in humanity's attempt to understand it, to try and make sense of how it could of happened and how it works; they personify it; as a "person" is one of the closest things which humans can relate to. I think the idea of a God arises out of the idea that we just don't know. And we may never know; but that's ok. And besides, what actually created it is probably far more amazing and awe-inspiring than the idea of a God. That's one of my main reasons for being an atheist. I can derive enough wonder and awe from nature itself without needing to add anything else.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If anything the enormity of the universe is exactly the type of thing I would expect from God.

Accurate, even if, I suspect, unintentionally. See the primary meaning of enormity

Soul Winner

stakey wrote: »

Also, if this god is going to play by the rules of physics (would a god not define them as oppossed to adhere to them?)

If God exists then what He does IS the laws of physics.

stakey wrote: »

he'd have to wait 9 billion years to just see the Earth form and another 2.5 billion years to see if this planet would support life as we know it.

Maybe He never noticed the time. Maybe it was like making some cosmic toast while waiting for the kettle to boil for a cosmic cup of tea

stakey wrote: »

This is a far call from the seven days the Book of Genesis claims. The more and more that is discovered about our universe and the development of life within it the more ludicrous tacking any religion on to it looks.

Not so. I love reading up on current scientific discoveries and if anything they are making belief in God a more plausible way to go than anything else, especially in the area of astrophysics. Doesn't mean you have to buy into any religion over it, but if you can believe that that there is a God then the choice is up to you which religion to go with, and as Anthony Flew (ex prominent atheist) says: "Having a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first class intellectual like Paul makes Christianity the one to beat."

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Accurate, even if, I suspect, unintentionally. See the primary meaning of enormity

Very good! See the third meaning. I could use 'enormousness' if you prefer?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I love reading up on current scientific discoveries and if anything they are making belief in God a more plausible way to go than anything else, especially in the area of astrophysics.

This is only true of books on cosmic physics written by creationists and not in books written by cosmic physicists, which generally say exactly the opposite of what you seem to think they do (where they say anything on the topic at all, which most don't).

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I could use 'enormousness' if you prefer?

Nah, it's fine the way it is.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The question I was really asking, well meant to ask, was how can you, as Christians, reconcile the fact that the universe is so vast with the idea of an intimate, personal God. I know it's a somewhat stupid question, and it mightn't make a lot of sense, but it made sense to me before I asked it!

Like the other Christians here I just don't understand the reasoning behind your question.

The size of the universe and the idea of an intimate personal God are, as far as I can see, two unrelated concepts that in no shape or form imply a contradiction.

You might as well ask, "How can you believe in gravity when the leaves of a tree are so green?"

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

This is only true of books on cosmic physics written by creationists and not in books written by cosmic physicists, which generally say exactly the opposite of what you seem to think they do (where they say anything on the topic at all, which most don't).

So most say nothing on the topic at all? So why would anyone who already believe in a creator have any reason to stop believing after reading these guys, if most of them say nothing on the topic at all? The astrophysicists who believe that it was all created are still qualified astrophysicists all the same. The new discoveries in their own field has only served to convince them more of their previously held intuitive beliefs. You would need to show them that their intuitive beliefs are wrong somehow before concluding that they are deluded for holding such beliefs. And as nobody is saying much on the topic then I see no reason why they should. In any case I don’t only read books written by creationists, I’m currently reading “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” by Barrow and Tipler and “A brief History of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson. Both endorsed and praised by eminent atheist Peter Atkins, and I have seen nothing in them yet to suggest that what I believe in is wrong, just wonderful science and science history.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

When one considers that all matter, energy, space and time have their beginning point in the finite past from nothing, it begs the question: How can what we call 'everything', space time etc, have come from that nothingness by itself?

It certainly does warrant asking that question. The answer is though, we don't know. As was discussed in the A&A forum, the answer "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. What did he do and how did he do it? How does God create a universe from nothing? Where does the matter and energy come from? The idea that God "spoke" it into existence is some what redundant because none of know what that actually means.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It boggles the mind that our universe with all its laws and constants could ever be possible without a super intelligent will to start it off and keep it going.

True, but then that isn't a reason to insert said super intelligence. Humans have an instinctive tendency to view things as the result of a human like action. You have bread because the baker baked it. You have a car because the car mechanic made it, etc etc.

It would be foolish to let this evolutionary trait, which developed most likely to help us deal with human to human communication, influence our assertions about how the universe must have come into existence.

We don't have anything to compare the universe to, so really we can't say that universes tend to spring into existence due to deities.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Surely even if inflationary theory can explain the expansion and size of our universe it cannot explain how it came from nothing in the first place.

It can't explain how the inflation field got there in the first place. But it is possible the inflation field just always existed. The Big Bang requires an explanation for why the matter and energy of the universe appears to shrink back to a single point. So we can't say the universe is static. But that doesn't imply the inflation field also must have an explanation for its creation. It could simply have always existed. This is just speculation of course

MackDeToaster

My two cents. The whole purpose of cosmology is to try and determine real beginnings, if there are any. To say our universe begins with a complex intelligent creative being is doing the exact opposite of this as, even if it were accepted, it only leads to asking where did this being come from. It leads to the exact same enquiries all over again, only this time substituting 'creative intelligence' for 'universe'.

Thus far from being a better explanation, far from being an equivalent explanation, far from being even an alternative explanation, it turns out to be no explanation whatsoever.

Saying "this complex creative intelligence was always there" is no better and is infact worse, by way of Occams razor, than saying "this simple universe was always there".

Time as we understand it is a dimension and emergent property of the universe we are in, it can be traced back to and ends & begins at the same singularity as all spatial dimensions start at. So, to speculate what happened "before" then, is just like saying "what is North of the North Pole?". It's an utterly meaningless question.

As regards coming into existence from nothing, radioactive decay is seemingly uncaused, and we can observe matter appearing and disappearing in a total vaccuum. That doesn't necessarily mean there is a god out there constantly creating and destroying these virtual particles. But just because we don't currently know how this happens doesn't mean an invisible creative personality wins by default.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

But that doesn't imply the inflation field also must have an explanation for its creation. It could simply have always existed. This is just speculation of course

I know it is but you see this is the thing. When the theist maintains this view of God, that God is eternal and thus always existed and does not have or need an explanation, the atheist will not accept that, he or she will want an explanation of how God came to be, so until the question 'where did God come from?' is answered they (well some of them anyway) will just flatly refuse to accept His existence based on that. Yet when it comes to a scientific theory being eternal then nobody is allowed to ask how it got there, we as just supposed to accept that it has always existed and thus doesn't need an explanation and that is ok.

MackDeToaster

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yet when it comes to a scientific theory being eternal then nobody is allowed to ask how it got there, we as just supposed to accept that it has always existed and thus doesn't need an explanation and that is ok.

I'm not sure if I'm getting you, but there is no such thing as a scientific theory being eternal - I'd love to hear an example of this if you have any? All science does is provide an approximate model, if new evidence is found that changes things then either the model is modified to reflect those changes, or it is abandoned entirely and another theory which better fits the facts is formulated. Nothing is immutable. See my post above, science trys to find real beginnings.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know it is but you see this is the thing. When the theist maintains this view of God, that God is eternal and thus always existed and does not have or need an explanation, the atheist will not accept that, he or she will want an explanation of how God came to be, so until the question 'where did God come from?' is answered they (well some of them anyway) will just flatly refuse to accept His existence based on that.

That is not quite accurate, at least not from my position at least.

The argument "but where did God come from" is made when theists present the idea that everything that exists must have had a creator. Atheists then go Hang on, what about God, to which the theist say Well obviously God doesn't need a creator he wasn't created. So it is more a response to some unreasonable claims by theists than an actual reason to reject God.

I've no problem with the idea of God always existing (not quite true, I have problems with the idea that God exists outside of time contrasted with his behaviour described in the Bible, but that is another thread).

But equally I've no problem with the inflation field always existing, and when faced with the choice between a super powerful and complex intelligence, capable of thought, action and emotion or simply an energy field, I think it probably makes more sense to choose the latter, if you had to pick one of them at all (I'm still a big believer in the "We don't know" answer.)

While an energy field that has simply always existed raises a number of questions (not least what "always" means), a super intelligence that has just always existed raises far more. Things tend to get simpler as we delve into the fundamentals of the universe, not more complex. That is not an argument that God can't exist, or isn't behind all this, simply that at the moment I see little reason to suppose he is.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yet when it comes to a scientific theory being eternal then nobody is allowed to ask how it got there, we as just supposed to accept that it has always existed and thus doesn't need an explanation and that is ok.

You are not being asked to accept anything, if that was the case then scientists would be out of a job.

The "why" question is what drives science.

The problem is not asking the question, the problem is how you come up with your answer. I'm not saying the inflation field always existed. What I am saying is that the theist argument that it must have been created and probably by a deity, has little foundation. We don't know it must have been created, and we certainly don't know it must have been created by a deity.

Imagine if people had stopped at the atom and said "God made them" and never looked any further into it.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Like the other Christians here I just don't understand the reasoning behind your question.

The size of the universe and the idea of an intimate personal God are, as far as I can see, two unrelated concepts that in no shape or form imply a contradiction.

You might as well ask, "How can you believe in gravity when the leaves of a tree are so green?"

It mightn't be a very great question; I couldn't exactly say what I was meaning to say. Anyway, doesn't matter. Some interesting debate has emerged so it's not a total loss!

Soul Winner

MackDeToaster wrote: »

My two cents. The whole purpose of cosmology is to try and determine real beginnings, if there are any.

Yeah and it has already established that the Big Bang model is the best one. The Big Bang model postulates a beginning in the finite past from a nothingness state – a singularity. Now either the universe just popped into existence from nothing and by nothing or it was created by something beyond space and time by a being of unimaginable power. Simple enough options if you ask me, you just have to choose which is the more plausible. That nothing created everything or an eternal being did it.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

To say our universe begins with a complex intelligent creative being is doing the exact opposite of this as, even if it were accepted, it only leads to asking where did this being come from. It leads to the exact same enquiries all over again, only this time substituting 'creative intelligence' for 'universe'.

That’s my point. God by definition is the greatest conceivable being that there can be. Anyone greater than God is therefore God. And of course one can question where God came from but if He exists at all then He is also eternal in nature both in the future and in the past, which means He has no beginning and therefore has no cause.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Thus far from being a better explanation, far from being an equivalent explanation, far from being even an alternative explanation, it turns out to be no explanation whatsoever.

So that “the universe was created” is not even an option to be mused upon? Even though you don’t know how it got here yet? The possibility that it just might have been contrived by intelligence just cannot have a foot in the door? Is that what you are saying?

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Saying "this complex creative intelligence was always there" is no better and is infact worse, by way of Occams razor, than saying "this simple universe was always there".

Well when Copernicus was postulating his hypotheses about the heliocentricity of the solar system that too did not adhere with Occam’s razor, it was a much more complicated view than the much simpler and more accepted Ptolemaic (geocentric) view and yet the Ptolemaic view was wrong. The Ptolemaic view was a much simpler explanation than Copernicus’ but it was wrong. So much for applying the principle of Occam ’s razor on that one. In any case the explanation “God created it” is a vastly simpler explanation than the more complicated inflationary theory explanation which asks more questions than it answers if one is inclined to ask them.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Time as we understand it is a dimension and emergent property of the universe we are in, it can be traced back to and ends & begins at the same singularity as all spatial dimensions start at. So, to speculate what happened "before" then, is just like saying "what is North of the North Pole?". It's an utterly meaningless question.

And what pray tell is ‘meaning’ in a meaningless, purposeless, goaless universe?

MackDeToaster wrote: »

As regards coming into existence from nothing, radioactive decay is seemingly uncaused, and we can observe matter appearing and disappearing in a total vaccuum. That doesn't necessarily mean there is a god out there constantly creating and destroying these virtual particles. But just because we don't currently know how this happens doesn't mean an invisible creative personality wins by default.

I’m not saying He does. I would just like a level playing field in the possible explanations competition. I understand when some theists who have no interest in Science just say that “God did and that’s all that matters” is not a very good way to look at it but it might be enough for them. I’m not in that camp, I’m all for probing and exploring and studying the evidence and experimenting etc. because my faith is not based on Science. I can still have my faith and also wonder at the advancements in science. But I also believe that you can’t prove everything by the scientific method. For instance you cannot prove that a rose is beautiful by the scientific method or that Michelangelo’s David is a beautiful work of art and so on. Science has its place and it is a wondrous tool and I for one am all for it but it is limited only to what can be observed by the senses. Theology however is an altogether separate and distinct discipline which needs to be studied using a different method, be they speculative, philosophical or whatever. Cosmology is where the two meet each other because both stake a claim to it, which gives the explanation that “God did it” good reason to be included among the other mostly theoretical explanations in science, and as already said if Occam’s razor is to be applied then the “God did it” explanation wins hands down even though He Himself might be the most complex being imaginable, but the explanation that “God did it” remains the simplest.