Vastness of Space Suggests There Is No Almighty Creator

[robocop (actually)]

I do not see how statistics could be applied. We do not have enough information about the visible part of the universe, much less the rest of it, to make sound calculations.

OK. You make a very good point and I want to talk about this. The Universe will vary all over the place. However there will always be places where life can be found. This is true because life is the only infinite thing in the Universe. We know from our imagination that the capacity to think of things does not have to hit a wall. Statistically speaking even with the Universe changing in its properties if you look large enough there will still be areas where life is supported and furthermore places that can think as deep as you can imagine. That is because no matter how many properties there are in the Universe and how much they vary this is countable and we can always come up with life-sustaining processes again if we travel far enough. We may already be in a collision course for being able to think much harder ourselves.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Statistics are a human created descriptive convention like all math. It only applies to probabilities from the human perspective.

OK but if the Universe varies that variance should be countable and eventually life will be able to form in another spot. Let's say it didn't vary far from us. Then why would we be here if the rest of the Universe doesn't vary? So even without statistics I believe the Universe must keep varying and in the process keep producing signs of life.

 

[blü 2]

I see the vastness of space as irrelevant to the question of deities' existence.

Quite right. If we scrap the idea of monotheism and give the various deities their own bailiwick wherever deity-conscious folk are found, the argument from vastness doesn't really apply.

But for monotheists, it seems to me a very effective slur on God's efficiency. I recall an informed guesstimate from a decade or so ago that attributed between 1 and 100 septillion (10^24 - 10^26) stars in the universe. I don't know how many planets an 'average' star would have, but at least five seems a conservative guess.

Which would give us not fewer than 5 septillion (5 e+24) planets where life might form spontaneously.

Suggesting that we're one of those planets. And the universe was already 9.5 bn years old before life appeared here and close to 14bn before useful worshippers were around. Even at a thousand years to a day, that's over 38,000 years cooling the divine heels.

And the inefficiency is jawdropping ─ nothing like Genesis, where the earth is the center of the universe and all the heavenly bodies go round it, and it's all laid on just for the humans.

To make a personal monogod work, I suspect you'd need to avoid thinking about such things; but I'm not an authority.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The Universe will vary all over the place. However there will always be places where life can be found. This is true because life is the only infinite thing in the Universe.

1) How do you know that the "Universe will vary all over the place?" (nice humorous construction, btw)
2) How do you know that "there will always be places where life can be found?"
3) How do you know that "life is the only infinite thing in the Universe?"

Imagination? That is proof of nothing, except that we have imaginations. We can imagine a lot of things...a few of them even exist beyond our imaginations...

So, you make these statements: please PROVE them to be true, so that someone else using the same methods and materials, will inevitably reach the same conclusions.

 

[robocop (actually)]

1) How do you know that the "Universe will vary all over the place?" (nice humorous construction, btw)
2) How do you know that "there will always be places where life can be found?"
3) How do you know that "life is the only infinite thing in the Universe?"

Imagination? That is proof of nothing, except that we have imaginations. We can imagine a lot of things...a few of them even exist beyond our imaginations...

So, you make these statements: please PROVE them to be true, so that someone else using the same methods and materials, will inevitably reach the same conclusions.

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

 

[shunyadragon]

OK but if the Universe varies that variance should be countable and eventually life will be able to form in another spot. Let's say it didn't vary far from us. Then why would we be here if the rest of the Universe doesn't vary. So even without statistics I believe the Universe must keep varying and in the process keep producing signs of life.

OK, were closer here, but again statistics do not determine the nature of our physical existence.

 

[osgart]

I can't help but be shocked that life on earth exists, it's an inconceivable long list of miracles. to think we are just another card in an infinite deck doesn't do it justice. for me you can take that multiverse hooey, and smoke it somewhere else, this life is ridiculous miracle after miracle.

it makes me wonder what could grow, in other places, if things were just right or better somewhere else. it's almost like the universe is trying hard to be something special, and it can't quite get it's self started.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why must the universe be "a non-repeatable, non-random iteration out to infinity?" What is your basis for this statement?

Your statement "or else it would be wasted, illogical respectively" assumes first that there is a purpose to the existence of the universe, or that there is some logic to the universe. Imagine if you will a universe just like ours, that was not created...what would it mean for there to be "wasted space?" And regardless, what does it mean, in an infinite universe, to be logical and not 'illogical?'

Uh...what exactly "Therefore it gets to everywhere?" What gets everywhere?

"...and there an infinite amount of possibilities for different kinds of a Universe supporting different kinds of a life." Okay, in an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of places for life, got that. What do you mean by "different kinds of a Universe?"

And, "Because it is consciousnesses that differ, not matter." You'll have to take another whack at explaining this one to me, please.

 

[robocop (actually)]

ogart, I believe the odds of life starting on earth are less than the atoms in the known galaxy. That is why I think it is Alien to Alien creation, perhaps trying hard to do something special.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Why must the universe be "a non-repeatable, non-random iteration out to infinity?" What is your basis for this statement?

Your statement "or else it would be wasted, illogical respectively" assumes first that there is a purpose to the existence of the universe, or that there is some logic to the universe. Imagine if you will a universe just like ours, that was not created...what would it mean for there to be "wasted space?" And regardless, what does it mean, in an infinite universe, to be logical and not 'illogical?'

Uh...what exactly "Therefore it gets to everywhere?" What gets everywhere?

"...and there an infinite amount of possibilities for different kinds of a Universe supporting different kinds of a life." Okay, in an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of places for life, got that. What do you mean by "different kinds of a Universe?"

And, "Because it is consciousnesses that differ, not matter." You'll have to take another whack at explaining this one to me, please.

I am a nihilist. No there's not a purpose for the Universe, but it seems like scientifically speaking the universe wouldn't just be random or not vary. No two locations are alike. No space is wasted if it gets considered.

"Therefore [life/conciousnesses] gets everywhere.

"different kinds of a Universe": Sorry I meant different habitats in the Universe.

"Consciousnesses that vary, not matter." -- I mean if you find the variety in the Universe it is centered around life. There is a great deal going into our existence.

 

[robocop (actually)]

going to bed.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

going to bed.

Sweet dreams!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I am a nihilist. No there's not a purpose for the Universe, but it seems like scientifically speaking the universe wouldn't just be random or not vary. No two locations are alike. No space is wasted if it gets considered.

"Therefore [life/conciousnesses] gets everywhere.

"different kinds of a Universe": Sorry I meant different habitats in the Universe.

"Consciousnesses that vary, not matter." -- I mean if you find the variety in the Universe it is centered around life. There is a great deal going into our existence.

Okay, think I'll have to think about your responses...

 

[Grandliseur]

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

I read the article. It is the dumbest piece of writing I have ever read.

God searches for the infinite in large scale and in small. That the size of the universe should somehow deny his existence is simply stupid. Instead, it should strike us with awe, with fear of his Majesty, of his Power, of his Knowledge.

Only an atheist can be as stupid to write that article. He might be highly educated, but he is an imbecile nonetheless..

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe in God, but an apophatic God of the Baha'i Faith not manifest physically in our physical universe. There is no interplay of good and evil. There is only our physical existence as God Created. Actually in the Baha'i Faith our physical existence exists eternally with God as the attributes of God's Creation. This thread does not address the Baha'i view of God.The problem that is not good news for Christianity. which is based fundamentally on an ancient world view of God.

This seems like a straw argument, because your view of Christianity is unique and of a fixed type that is convenient only to you. On on hand you say the thread doesn't apply to Bahai but mistakenly insist it necessarily criticizes Christianity when actually it criticizes creationism only.

 

[Skwim]

It proves just the opposite to me. He is an awesome God - the Almighty God, with power you can't even begin to comprehend.

Bigger is better then. Hmmmm.

.

 

[Skwim]

God searches for the infinite in large scale and in small.

He's searching for it? Why wouldn't he know where it is?

That the size of the universe should somehow deny his existence is simply stupid. Instead, it should strike us with awe, with fear of his Majesty, of his Power, of his Knowledge.

Why should one fear the majesty of another being, unless . . . .he's an unfair and unreasonable mental midget. As for his knowledge, evidently he can't even remember where he put the infinite.

Only an atheist can be as stupid to write that article. He might be highly educated, but he is an imbecile nonetheless..

Oh my, he did get to you didn't he.

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It proves just the opposite to me. He is an awesome God - the Almighty God, with power you can't even begin to comprehend.

People keep saying that. I guess it's so much power now it just got to the point where it looks God isn't even there.

I'm starting to think God blew himself up to smithereens with so much power.

I guess that's what you get when you play with explosives.

 

[Grandliseur]

He's searching for it? Why wouldn't he know where it is?

Perhaps, I should have said, seek in his implementation. Oh, so very sorry for my poor wording.

That man came about as an unbridled, unfettered, idiot. That people can be that stupid and claim to have gone through 1st grade should cause shame.

If people make an argument, they should at leas try to make sense!

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps, I should have said, seek in his implementation.

So where should the "seek in his implementation" be inserted?

"God 1 searches 2 for 3 the 4 infinite 5 in 6 large 7 scale 8 and 9 in 10 small. 11. Or better yet, why not just rephrase it.

Oh, so very sorry for my poor wording.

No biggie.

If people make an argument, they should at leas try to make sense!

Actually it does, but believe me I'm not going to try doing it. Got a pretty good idea it would never get through to you.

.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Off topic, but it's interesting that there are no devils becoming angels. It's quite the striking visual of the "no second chances" nature of god's rule.

Yeah, lucky that god isn't real, or we'd be under the thumb of a totalitarian monster!