Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On the Vastness of the Universe

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nevada is mostly empty; I mean really empty.  Ninety percent of the state’s residents live in the vicinity of Las Vegas or Reno, and the rest of the state is all but uninhabited.  I realized just how empty the state is when I was riding my motorcycle across the desert last month, and I passed a sign that said “Next Gas 167 Miles.”  They weren’t kidding.  My bike’s range is only a little over 200 miles, and if I hadn’t stopped to top off my tank, I would have run out of gas in the middle of the desert. 

This is the kind of riding I love the best.  Riding hour after hour through a vast emptiness, alone with my thoughts, the wind in my face, and the deep-throated throb of my engine in my ears, fills me with a peace and joy that is difficult to describe.  One day my two friends and I decided to just keep on riding after the sun went down, and at about 11:00 we stopped in the middle of the desert and turned off our motorcycles.  There was no moon that night and the wind had died down.  No other vehicles were on the highway, so we were alone in the quiet darkness, the only sound the pinging noises made by our engines as they cooled in the night air.

Hundreds of miles from the lights of the nearest city, the night sky was stunning.  The Milky Way was clearly visible from one horizon to the other.  Antares glowed like a tiny ruby in the heart of Scorpio.  My friends and I just stood there, gaping in awed silence at the numberless points of twinkling light in the celestial sphere.  Then John said, “I wonder why God made the universe so big.” 

John’s comment got me to thinking.  Why is the universe so big, with billons of galaxies and with each galaxy containing billions of stars, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in all the beaches of the world. 

The vast size of the universe along with the earth’s comparative insignificance have often been used as an argument against the Christian view of God.  The argument goes something like this:  When our poor benighted ancestors thought we lived in a cozy little universe that revolved around the earth at its center, the Christian view of God might have made sense.  But now we know better.  We have the Copernican Principle (or the “Principle of Mediocrity”), which tells us that the universe is not cozy, and the earth is not at its center.  The universe is larger than we can possibly understand, and, cosmically speaking, the earth is an insignificant speck of dust orbiting a slightly less insignificant speck of dust in one galaxy out of billons.  Surely God would not create such a vast universe to support only life on earth; now that would be a waste of a truly cosmic proportions.

As it turns out, there are good reasons to doubt every premise of this argument.

1.  The Ancients Were Not Stupid.

Let’s deal with the first assertion, that the ancients believed we live in a small universe.  Consider Psalm 8:  “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”  The psalmist looked at the multitude of stars in the night sky and realized that he was tiny and insignificant in a vast universe.  It is truly a conceit of the modern age that the ancients naively believed they lived in a small and cozy universe in which the earth and man figured significantly, and that only now with our telescopes and other instruments of science do we understand the vastness of the universe and our relative insignificance. 

Consider also Ptolemy’s Almagest, which was written in the early 100’s AD.  It was the standard text on astronomy for over a thousand years.  In chapter 5 of book I of the Almagest, Ptolemy writes:  “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.”  So it turns out that the ancients were not as naive about the size of the universe as modern skeptics would have us believe. 

2.  The Earth is Almost Certainly a Very Special Place

No one supposes that the Earth is at the exact geometric center of the universe anymore.  Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that it is a very special place, perhaps even unique.  In recent years astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez has led the way in demonstrating that the existence of life is far from likely.  In fact, it is exceedingly improbable and the conditions of the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, the solar system, the moon and the earth itself are remarkably fine-tuned for the existence of life.

 According to Gonzalez, “The claims by many Copernican Principle advocates over the centuries, that life is commonplace on other celestial bodies, has been a spectacular failure. . . . Since it is Earth’s ability to support life that many take to be its most important quality, it is clear that this is a major failure of the metaphysical version of the Copernican Principle if the actual conditions which support life are so rare that they may only exist for Earth.”

 3.  The Universe is Exactly the Right Size

 Finally, it turns out that the universe is not “too big” after all.  In fact, it is exactly the size it must be in order to support life.  Rich Deem summarizes just a few of the “just right” parameters which make the universe ideal for the existence of life:

It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Comments
Collin, We used to say something like: "Humility, and how I acquired it in 3 easy steps." :)CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
I'm humble and proud of it!Collin
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Zeroseven, BTW, Christians purporting to be humble would be a paradox, yes. :)CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Zeroseven, I'm not certain you're getting the gist of my argument in #56. I'm not saying that the focus of God's creation is us. What I am saying is that God's purposes are multifaceted, and for us to assume he meant one purpose only is to make unwarranted theological assumptions. I don't believe Christians hold an arrogant position regarding God's purposes towards us. All we are saying is that God does not consider us insignificant despite the vastness of the universe. This says more about God than it says about us.CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
zeroseven you state,
"Where did I say that man could create a better universe? Or a photon or an eyeball? It seems clear to this fair minded man who has honestly studied the matter that the only thing we know of that is capable of producing the complexity we see in the eye is an evolutionary process."
zeroseven despite your protestations to the contrary, Darwinian evolution, as has been amply pointed out by Dr. Hunter, and summarized by CannuckianYankee here is at its core a theological argument:
Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362918
,,, Thus when Darwinist said that the retina is inverted in the eyeball (now known to be an optimal design) or when they said that 180 organs in the human body were vestigial (now known to be completely wrong), or when Darwinist say that 95% of the DNA is junk (in the process of being overturned on almost a weekly basis) or when a Darwinist points to a unsubstantiated multiverse to deal with the extreme fine-tuning of this one (now known to be overwhelmingly wrong from logical considerations) The Darwinist is merely stating the core theological objection to design that Darwinism is in fact based on (that God would not have done it that way), and despite your ardent protestation to the contrary, the whole argument is based on the assumption that man is wise enough to know how to do stuff better than God! You state this and then quickly tried to move on to another point, as if I would not notice the blatant falsehood you stated,,,
'the only thing we know of that is capable of producing the complexity we see in the eye is an evolutionary process.'
The fact is that there is not one single instance of the purely material processes creating any functional information whatsoever!!! (and what is Darwinian evolution save for material processes with replication thrown in!?!) Would you like to be the first Darwinist in the entire world to demonstrate that purely material processes can produce any functional information whatsoever. If you do so, there is a million dollar prize waiting for you,,, "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. http://www.us.net/life/index.htm Perhaps you think that the origin of life is too much to ask of a Darwinist,, so I will settle for you showing me just one example of enough 'trivial' functional information being generated to pass the fitness test,,, Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 and this paper: Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors - 2007 Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,, http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 Thus zeroseven, despite you saying this statement,,,
'''the only thing we know of that is capable of producing the complexity we see in the eye is an evolutionary process.'''
with absolutely no evidence to back your claim up, the truth of the matter is that the only thing we know that is capable of producing functional information is intelligence,,, Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651 etc... etc... etc...bornagain77
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
Onlookers Pardon a few Footnotes: 1] Mr Arrington: Excellent, thought-provoking post. The use of Psalm 8 is especially powerful in correcting chronological snobbery. 2] MF, 20: . . . who knows what sizes are possible if you are allowed to vary the physical constants (which the fine tuning argument presupposes) The problem with such an objection is that a locally fine-tuned cluster of laws and parameters isd just as wonderful as a global one. (In other words, it is a distractive dismissal attempt.) To see this, consider John Leslie's analogy of the lone fly on a portion of a wall:
1: the fine tuning is that a force strength or a particle mass often appears to require accurate tuning for several reasons at once. Look at electromagnetism. Electromagnetism seems to require tuning for there to be any clear-cut distinction between matter and radiation; for stars to burn neither too fast nor too slowly for life’s requirements; for protons to be stable; for complex chemistry to be possible; for chemical changes not to be extremely sluggish; and for carbon synthesis inside stars (carbon being quite probably crucial to life). 2: Universes all obeying the same fundamental laws could still differ in the strengths of their physical forces, as was explained earlier, and random variations in electromagnetism from universe to universe might then ensure that it took on any particular strength sooner or later. Yet how could they possibly account for the fact that the same one strength satisfied many potentially conflicting requirements, each of them a requirement for impressively accurate tuning? 3: . . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. 4: Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.
In short, the observation that a local cluster of laws and parameters seems to be irreducibly complexly fine-tuned to permit C-Chemistry, cell based, intelligent life is more than enough to be wondrous. And, it is more than enough to to highlight the major explanatory gaps in the currently institutionally dominant evolutionary materialistic views, where we are held to have arisen by chance and necessity, by accident, from hydrogen to humans. 3] 07, 65: the only thing we know of that is capable of producing the complexity we see in the eye is an evolutionary process. Speculation and confident assertions notwithstanding, given the gaps in explanatory power to account for functionally specific, complex -- and digitally coded -- information to account for the origin of either the first living cell, or key elaborations and structures such as an eye, we know no such thing to have any such capacity. We do know that intelligence is fully capable of creating systems that embed and use digitally coded, functionally specific complex information in their working. And so we come tothe significance of the design inference. And, on your wider point, the key issue is that we face a great silence. If the formation of planets that support intelligent life in Galactic Habitable zones were as simple as some assert, and if the formation of intelligent life were equally as simple, then there should be galactic colonisation waves that -- simply on the scope of energy required and resulting signals detectable to us [even if there have not been deliberate attempts to communicate or to send out von Newman-style self-replicating probes] -- should be obvious to us, by now. That silence is a key fact to be cogently explained. (Thus, the pessimistic inductions about self-extinction. But, I suspect they are not addressing the core challenge to get TO intelligent embodied life, which so far as we can see has to be based on C-chemistry.) --> Of course, the perceived silence from other intelligences may be in part an artifact of where we are looking, multiplied by where we are NOT looking [cf say Pascal's Fire vision, Nov 23, 1654] and what sort of intelligence we expect. _________________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
BA: Where did I say that man could create a better universe? Or a photon or an eyeball? It seems clear to this fair minded man who has honestly studied the matter that the only thing we know of that is capable of producing the complexity we see in the eye is an evolutionary process. But getting back to my point, I find it a paradox that Christians purport to be humble, but think that the whole universe was created for them. Can you not see that paradox?zeroseven
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Shalom!smordecai
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
smordecai, I invite you (and everyone else) to my blog then where we can discuss it. http://sakalava47.blogspot.com/Collin
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
smordecai, this is exactly what I stated,,,, No as far as ‘physical’ life is concerned, Thus I correctly prefaced my position in addressing you, and contrary to you now saying it is a 'theological' issue, I actually gave 'scientific' evidence for why I believe my position to be true i.e. I referenced the foundation nature of information to the reality of the universe and the completely unique ability of man's mind to generate information as well as understand information!!!bornagain77
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
zeroseven, and just which line of thought do you consider to be more arrogant??? To believe that God may just want a intimate relationship with human beings, which is amply corroborated by solid evidence and apologetics to any fair minded man who honestly studies the matter, or to believe that man can create a better universe (or eyeball) than God did, though there is not a single shred of evidence whatsoever that man can create even a single photon of energy nor a single novel functional protein to perform any task that he may so desire????.bornagain77
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 - Amazing that you can read my intent!. FYI I have read Behe, Meyer, etc. I'm convinced that ID is real. However, I do not assume that the Christian God or the Jewish God, etc. is the designing agent(at least from a scientific view point). I think I must follow the evidence wherever it leads, without allowing my "theology" to interfere. I do believe that the God of Israel is the Creator but this site should focus on the science and not on any particular theology or metaphysical position.smordecai
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
zeroseven,
After reading through all of the above I remain convinced that the Christian attitude to the universe is monumentally arrogant, not to mention narcissistic.
You wouldn't if you were a Christian. There is nothing arrogant about a father leaving his house to his children.Clive Hayden
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Holcumbrink, Yes, I do.Collin
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
After reading through all of the above I remain convinced that the Christian attitude to the universe is monumentally arrogant, not to mention narcissistic.zeroseven
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
I'm a little late to the party here, but I wanted to respond to markf in post #7 regarding what God is capable of vs. what He created. Mark, I'd be very careful in assuming to know the mind of God when conjecturing about what He's capable of based on what He has created. First of all, God might have purposes other than creating neat big things like universes. Scripture indicates that part of God's purpose is directed towards us, and in that direction is His desire for us to know him. I would think that one of the best ways to imagine God is to imagine a vast universe, and understand that God created it all and is greater. Even if the Earth and human beings were all he had in mind concerning sentient beings and a liveable planet, when considering what Scripture states about God's desire's concerning us, it makes all the sense in the universe that he would make such a magnificent one - both to humble us about ourselves, and to magnify our appreciation for Him. God's purposes are not only pragmatic in the material sense, but also in the spiritual sense, which quite often materialists cannot comprehend due to their metaphysical commitments; and thus, are more likely to make unwarranted assumptions about what God would or wouldn't do. It seems that such assumptions are the seeds, which bring forth ideas like Darwinian evolution. Darwin's objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn't do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here's a few: 1) God's purpose in creation (according to scripture) is more than simply to set nature and evolution in motion, but to bring about a spiritual relationship between sentient beings (humans) with nature, other humans, and with God. Two books might help here, one is Francis Schaeffer's "The God Who is There," where he talks about the planes of human relationships (horizontal and vertical), and "The End of Christianity." 2) The fall and the presence of human sin. The present conditions of nature in light of the fall - "the Earth groans," etc... 3) General revelation as in nature manifesting the attributes of God. 4) Special revelation as in Scripture manifesting the atttributes and the purposes of God in creation. 5) The incarnation of Christ in the world in line with God's purposes in creation. 6) Future prophetic prophecies, which point to the fulfillment of God's purposes in creation. All of these things, and many others, Darwin overlooked in order to posit a theological objection to design as if God was finishied with all his purposes in creation. Darwin was quite the theological ignoramous in light of all these, and hundreds of other theological considerations. So it's best not to make assumptions about what God's purposes are; especially if one is not inclined to consider theological issues with much depth.CannuckianYankee
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.,,,bornagain77
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
smordecai, I said physical life in this universe which is exactly what you intended when you said,,,, "Is it not arrogant to think that man is the highest intellect in the whole universe?" thus you cannot reference the infinite wisdom of God to refute me when you intended to convey a higher 'created' being within this universe!!!bornagain77
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Isa 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord. For as the heavans are higher than the earth so are may ways heigher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Yet it also says "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:... (Isa 1:18) I submit that there is an intellect higher than human. And, those who consider otherwise are arrogant.smordecai
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
M. Holcumbrink that is profound from Behe!!! Thanks for pointing that out,,, The point is now referenced with these notes,,, Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. To clearly illustrate the absurdity of what the materialists now consider their cutting edge science: The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to explain the fine tuning of this one also insures the 100% probability of the existence of Pink Unicorns no matter how small the probability is of them existing. In fact a infinity of universes insures the existence of an infinity of Pink Unicorns an infinite number of times. Thus it is self-evident the materialists have painted themselves into a inescapable corner of logical absurdities in trying to find an escape from the Theistic implications we are finding for the fine-tuning of this universe. Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 Atheism In Crisis - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4227733 Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrookbornagain77
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Regarding #49, multiverses Behe has an absolutely profound answer to the infinite multiverse argument in "Edge of Evolution". If there are infinite universes, then we couldn't trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever.M. Holcumbrink
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Collin, I am curious... Do you not consider the God of Israel to be the creator of the known universe?M. Holcumbrink
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Thanks, Bornagain. I keep telling God how to fix my life. That's the only time I think that He doesn't answer my prayers. tjguy, Not that I'm a big fan of concensus science, but I think that most physicists agree that the Big Bang probably happened, but many of the details are not agreed upon/settled. As a side note to the OP, I heard a brilliant statement once in response to the multiverse argument. If there are so many universes that one of them HAD to be fine-tuned for life, then there are enough universes for one of them to have a benevolent Supreme Being who created life. So the multiverse argument does not actually save atheists. Sorry for the tangent.Collin
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
I just remembered this guy, Louie Giglio, has very proper response, as to what our reaction should be to the vastness of the universe: You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio Louie Giglio - How Great Is Our God - Part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNiZrt5FjUbornagain77
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
I agree with points 1 & 2. Not sure about point 3 and all the math having to do with the Big Bang. I know many Christians support the Big Bang, but there are so many versions out there of the Big Bang and they are all filled with holes. The Big Bang also hinges upon stuff that we don't even know exists - dark energy and dark matter. There are even secular scientists who doubt the Big Bang and yet people talk as if it is a fact that it happened. I'm not ready to go that far. There are hundreds of versions precisely because they haven't come up with one that actually works yet. I think there is a better reason to explain the vastness of the universe - a great God who loves beauty and who displays His glory in the heavens! Psalm 19 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.tjguy
September 1, 2010
September
09
Sep
1
01
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
smordecai, No as far as 'physical' life is concerned, and let me state why. for one thing I have absolutely no 'natural' reason to presuppose life to originate, nor evolve, on any planet even if the whole universe were populated with nothing but planets like earth that could host life,,,,: Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video: Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 http://www.vimeo.com/11706014 ,,, evolution has never demonstrated a single gain in functional complexity/information that would violate the principle of genetic entropy,,,: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 ,,, The key thing is information,,, It turns out that everything in the universe from the constants, to the photons, to the particles is reducible information,,, "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Considering computers can't pass this following test for creating new information,,, "... no operation performed by a computer can create new information." -- Douglas G. Robertson, "Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test," Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34. http://www.evoinfo.org/ Evolutionary Informatics - William Dembski & Robert Marks Excerpt: The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.,,, Evolutionary informatics demonstrates a regress of information sources. At no place along the way need there be a violation of ordinary physical causality. And yet, the regress implies a fundamental incompleteness in physical causality's ability to produce the required information. Evolutionary informatics, while falling squarely within the information sciences, thus points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer. http://evoinfo.org/ ,,Whereas humans can fairly easily pass the test for creating new information,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/atheisms-not-so-hidden-assumptions/#comment-357770 ,,,thus these findings strongly imply that we humans have a 'higher informational component' to our being,, i.e. these findings offer another line of corroborating evidence which is very suggestive to the idea that humans have a mind which is transcendent of the physical brain and which is part of a 'unique soul from God'. Moreover this unique mind that we humans have seems to be capable of a special and intimate communion with God that is unavailable to other animals, i.e. we are capable of communicating information with "The Word" as described John 1:1. i.e. smordecai, the burden is on you to tell me just exactly why should I presuppose that God would create a 'higher' intellect in this universe than humans. Humans who clearly seem to be made in 'the image' of God with an inbuilt ability to commune with 'The Word' which created and sustains this universe???bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Is it not arrogant to think that man is the highest intellect in the whole universe?smordecai
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Addendum: This reminds me of the law of non-contradiction... in a way. No two opposing truth statements can be both true at the same time. As such, either statement about the universe being either immensely large, or very tiny, as being some kind of evidence that the universe is mediocre, or the earth is somehow insignificant, or as some kind of explanation for why God didn't do a good job of creating the universe..cannot both be true at the same time. Additionally, for those who consider the universe so vast and immense, and if that means something to you just consider this. You haven't seen anything yet! At the present rate of expansion (and if left undisturbed by an external cause), the universe will continue to expand and (get bigger) for eternity forward. What you may consider a very large universe now may be quite small in a few billion years.Bantay
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
The critic who thinks the vastness of the universe somehow means the earth is insignificant is not putting forth any positive evidence to support that claim, nor that God doesn't exist. He's just voicing an assumption that is entirely subjective and leaving it up to theists to scramble to reply to it as if it was more significant than it is. Let's pretend for a moment and see how far this line of reasoning can go. I'll pretend to be a critic of anthropic design arguments. "The universe is so small, so tiny, that God couldn't have made it. After all, why would a really big, powerful God create a universe so tiny and with so little material?". That line of reasoning didn't go very far did it? As you can see, either way, the size of the universe is not evidence of anything about God, except that the way that God created it happens to be just right for intelligent life to observe, rationally comprehend and enjoy.Bantay
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Bornagain, You're right. Holcumbrink You are too. zeroseven, I agree that it is arrogant. But I think it has justification. Christians get even more arrogant when they assert that God Himself would submit to painful death in order to save His children. But it is not so hard to believe when you have your own children.Collin
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply