I think this discussion misses the main point of an argument like this, which is not just the scale of the universe, but this scale vs. the minutiae of the Bible (assuming we're talking about a Christian god). So the question would simply be, is it more likely that god exists and created this incomprehensibly large universe AND has an exhaustive list of rules/teachings about the smallest aspects of human existence, or, that he doesn't exist. The latter is the correct answer for anyone being intellectually honest. Doesn't mean the odds are 0%, but when this argument is combined with others asking a similar "What is more likely?" question, the odds do approach zero, at least if we're talking about any of the Gods in the world's major religions.
The wasteful universe argument also crushes the human conceit seen in most religions that humanity is central to God's plans. Why did God create such a massively wasteful universe for humanity, especially if this is just a prelude to a spiritual existence in heaven? This also acts a response to a fine tuning argument where a theist claims that God fine tuned the universe for human life; it just makes the fine tuning seem much less fine.
Even more acutely: You want me to believe the God of the universe sent his one and only son to a small portion of the desert in the bronze age to save humanity. He left so little impact on the world that nobody bothered to write about him for decades after his death, left vanishingly little physical evidence, and impacted zero other cultures on this tiny planet. Sure, _I’m_ the delusional one.
Yes, I think Majesty of Reason's steelmanning of the argument in the beginning of the video completely misses the point. The size/scale/duration of the universe isn't an argument against ANY concept of god. It's an argument against religions like Christianity that place human beings at the center of all things.
The Bible even misses the scale of the Earth itself. I was reading Exodus and it was a rule that you couldn't have an open flame inside the house on the sabbath. To me it seems like they didn't realize there are places where it gets so cold that you would freeze to death if you didn't have warmth in the house.
The universe is much SMALLER than anyone can imagine... The universe contracts at the same rate it is being compressed... Black holes and thermal expansion oppose each other. This gives the illusion of expansion. There is nowhere to leave a spectrum but IN. This is why time dilates, why we have gravity, fusion and black holes. A black hole is a spectrum within a spectrum... Nowhere to go but IN. Every spectrum has an opposite and cant exist without it because they are ONE. Carbon based life. Carbon is death. Do you believe E=mc2 is Valid? Anyone free to chime in:)
So the universe is infinitely full of minerals, chemicals, possibly life, beauty, countless planets to explore and settle on. Countless things to keep humans busy forever. So this universe is exactly what we would expect under theism even if we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
Size, "wasted space" is a secondary part of the argument. The main point is not how much time/ space is "wasted" compared to the part that a god created with the "in his image" existence. But that this time/space is not just wasted but completely hostile to the existence of a god created with a "in his image" existence. That one of "things created in God's image" would be completely destroyed instantly if not in this extremely narrow part of time/space. So far from not just wasted, but completely contrary to the existence of ...!
As a Christian wouldn’t that make sense in biblical terms since the Bible speaks of “the god of this world” being in control here aka Satan, wouldn’t he want to obfuscate uppercase God’s existence
@@japexican007 That kind of makes the argument stronger rather then counter it. If God is in charge of the universe whiule Satan is in charge of the Earth, then doesn't that make Satan the only one in charge of where humans are while God just likes lots of space?
@@znail4675depends on the circumstances doesn’t it? In terms of creation, God created In terms of who is currently “in charge of this world” Satan In terms of who is sovereign, that’s God Think of ceo, your group lead and you CEO (overall in charge) Group lead is directly in charge of you
> Humans would be completely destroyed instantly if not in this extremely narrow part of time/space. Sure, but why does that provide evidence against God? If creationism is true, then God DID choose to create us in the perfect part of time/space so we can survive. It doesn't matter that there are other areas that wouldn't have worked.
What is time to God if he is outside of time though? These thoughts are so crazy to think you are smart enough to understand what it is like to be outside time and space. To him the Billions of years could have been an instant. Read the bible again God created the heavens and the earth. FULL STOP. Then he is hovering over the Earth? If he exists the only way we could know anything about him is for him to tell us and that goes into a whole different set of questions. But to use any amount of space or time to say why would God is not a sound argument.
So if the argument goes that a god needs to employ natural law physics to create us then a god is not necessary for our creation whatsoever. Introducing a god is going against Occam’s razor.
Well, there could be certain values that only a natural world can produce, particularly natural creatures that are formed through these physical processes.
Why not? If you can invent a robot which can regulate itself, will you or would you prefer to create a robot that depends on you for everything it does?
Everything & nothing exists at the same time & place simultaneously. Creation is built upon paradox & contradiction. Creation is the expression of complete freedom, in which there is the latentcy for every possibility & probability of happening. ❤
I rather think paradox and contradiction are not attributes of creation - they are just the only way our human brain can perceive it. And even humans can under special circumstances feel the eternal ONESS.
Why an omnipotent being would be concerned with efficiency? Applying the concept of efficiency to an omnipotent being could be considered a category mistake.
@@les2997Because there can't be a reason when you are self-sufficient and nothing else exists. There is no reason to try to improve perfection, incomprehensible or not, because then it wouldn't be perfection.
It's true that an omnipotent being would have spent 0% of his infinite power to create this universe, and if the Universe were 10 times bigger, or 10 times smaller, it would still only require 0% of his power. But I guess the question is why a perfect being creates anything in the first place. Some people think that conscious life just has objective value, but then what value do the stars that don't have inhabited planets have to God?
It's best used in an abductive, "what best explains the characteristics of universe we observe?", "weight of the evidence", "what's more probable?" kind of argument than as a deductive argument. You can come up with any explanation as to why a god would make the universe like this and the explanation would at least be possible, and then it follows that a god can't be ruled out entirely. But that's not a very productive discourse because the vast majority of beliefs we have are not completely certain or deductive, and this one is probably no different. Many people will probably disagree with me on this, but I think that deductive syllogistic arguments are largely a failure when it comes to this subject and people have too much of a tendency to overinflate their usefulness. These argument rely on premises that are difficult to prove yet give a false sense of certainty, as if unless you can completely refute them outright, they're still valid somehow, and then you get a situation of dozens of floating syllogistic arguments in a void and and anything looks better than anything else. If instead, you used a more scientific method and sought solid observations and argued as to the best hypothesis to explain them (god or naturalistic), it would be more productive. Also, I find it highly unlikely that an entity that wanted to produce a universe and life, and was all-powerful, would make it out of so many seemingly random parts when it could make it out of simple all-purpose magic matter. To reiterate, you could say that god loves Legos or something but you can't prove that god loves Legos and just likes to do wacky random stuff, it's just a possibility. But if life and the cosmos were to arise naturalistically, you would probably find them being needlessly complex because they evolved out of simpler parts. That's what we find.
Maybe God does exist, but he's not a super intelligent, purposeful designer. Maybe he just booted up the universe for the 628th time, tweaked the parameters, and this time he got some life developing. He may not have designed us, cell by cell, but the guy still deserves some credit- coding the basic laws of physics is probably really hard!
@@jimbakes2782I wouldn't call that a God though. If I build a simulation on a computer, I'm not a God to that simulation's inhabitants. Rick and Morty aren't accepted as Gods inside their multiverse battery when the inhabitants figure out the nature of their world.
@@benroberts2222 That's fair enough- it most likely doesn't fit into most people's definition of God. I am enjoying thinking about an intelligent, but non-god creator. Not omnipotent or infallible, but just a lot more powerful and knowledgeable than us.
@@benroberts2222 "I'm not a God to that simulation's inhabitants. " That's what you get wrong. You could present yourself to those inhabitants and they would see you as their God.
The question that's been in my head lately is, "What is it about having" faith " that's 'better' than an actual relationship with God, out in the open? Why is it necessary for God to hide?" Theism doesn't make sense if your God desires your heart, soul and body.
What makes you think God is hiding? He has been calling you all along, and that calling you resist and post this instead. He is knocking at your heart. It's up to you to let him in.
@@stephenbailey9969 oh please. That's such a bullshit, special pleading excuse for an imaginary being that supposedly had way more physical contact with OT Jews than NT Christians. "Knocking on your heart"... 🙄
@@stephenbailey9969Yeah,wow. You expect that to be convincing? “He’s knocking on ur heart.” An organ which just pumps blood as far as we can actually tell. All ur doing is what apologists always do and assert things, which,for some reason,make sense to you. Why don’t you give us a reason to take you seriously? Do you think that you MIGHT be wrong about any of ur beliefs? Apologists frequently say atheists are foolish for relying on their senses, while THEY rely on their brains. Do you think intellect is less fallible than senses? The fallibility of both is why ppl came up with scientific method, which constantly checks and tests things with as many ppl as possible
@@dwightfitch3120 The intellect is a useful tool. But we are more than that. Our senses are the gift through which we filter the universe. But our mind is that which engages it. God comes to us, Being to being. Directly in our minds and also through the exterior world. If we are ready to hear it. All people are being called. It is a choice to listen.
This is such a modern objection. All the galaxies and the vastness of space, just sitting there. Not making anyone any profit, not doing anything except being inexpressiably vast and beautiful. In previous ages, even someone as rigorous as Kant took one look at the heavens and decided there must be a God.
Although he says he is steel manning the argument he is in fact straw manning it, which is why he has a beaming liar's smile. The argument is not that the universe is economically unproductive it that it is in a universe so vast and so old, why is God so fixated on humans? We didn't even exist 500,000 years ago, and will probably be extinct 500,000 years from now. If we condense the lifetime of the universe down to a century, we missed the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs by 5 months. Anatomically modern humans evolved about 14 hours ago. Yet we think we are the crown jewel of his creation? It's vanity. If there is a God, he doesn't care about us. We're beneath notice.
Except that if God's objective was aesthetic, there are much better ways of doing that than creating billions of galaxies, each filled with billions of stars that we can't even see. It makes zero sense. Kant also didn't know what the scope of the visible universe was. We do.
@@monkeymox2544 I'm not sure that's true, I'm not sure our best artists have made anything which compares to the richness of experience you get with natural beauty. Interested to hear what other things God could've done, and why they're better
@@a.i.l1074 He could have just created a projection of the same starscape. He could have put thousands of smaller glowing orbs in direct orbit around the planet. Lots of options. All I'm saying is that if I was an omnipotent deity project managing the creation of the night sky, there would be easier ways of achieving the same effect, which would be less indifferent to the interests of humanity. As for what else God could have done differently (and bearing in mind I don't think God did anything, because there isn't one)... almost everything. If the natural world is designed, it has been done pretty amateurishly. Particularly if it was mainly designed with humans in mind, since most of it is either uninhabitable, or is dangerous. Even our own bodies seem to want us dead, a lot of the time.
I don’t believe the argument of size is the main argument against a creator. It is a big swing of the hammer to miss the nut. I believe the second law of thermodynamics certainly can be. The ever present situation of transition from order to chaos, low entropy to high, and the slow heat-death of the universe as it can’t sustain it’s own entropic transfer further. As Hitch said ‘ some design, some creator..’.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a two edged sword because it also implies that the universe came into being in this incredibly ordered low state of entropy. The beginning of the universe was in the most unlikely state the universe can be in, and it was the most unlikely event to ever happen in it. I'm an atheist but the miracle-like implications of thermodynamics at the beginning of time are what bothers me most.
@JerehmiaBoaz That's really just another argument against God. The universe began in an incredibly ordered low entropy state. In other words it started in a state of simplicity. Disorder is complexity. The further back you go the simpler things get we see the same with biological evolution. To postulate a God is to postulate something of (supposedly infinite) complexity as the starting point.
I'm a lifelong atheist, except for a brief explorative time in my early teens, but I regularly attempt to steal man theist positions in atheist chats because I feel like we need to be fighting our opponents best arguments. I kid you not, just two days ago while doing this I had an atheist throw the old God can't make a rock so big he can't lift it at me. I rolled my eyes just as hard as when a theist tells me to look at the trees
I think, ultimately, "look at the trees" style arguments are the only ones that actually work. Reason doesn't convince people in or out of a belief in god. Even with something like the problem of evil, what convinces people isn't the logic, it's the emotion.
No, reason will convince people if they’re open to it. You’ll never convince people of they’re wrong about something they believe dearly but over time the reasonable arguments become more attractive. Especially if they face negative consequences for their religious delusions such as tithing until they’re broke, being denied an abortion to save their life, being beaten for expressing sexuality, etc.
@@garythecyclingnerd6219sadly even the people who are negatively impacted by their beliefs will continue to believe because they think they deserve punishment. Like every victim of abuse, they normalize it.
I'm curious Alex if you have given any thought to the reoccurring theme that much of the difference between an atheist and theist is merely the "by my lights" intuitions at the bottoms of various questions? Might this perhaps be philosophy's limitation on finding truth? And might it perhaps be argued that changing ones character and perceptions and thereby his intutions, is the better way of grasping or perceiving the obviousness of various arguments? Could it, in fact, be better for a theist to claim that there is indeed wisdom in living a g-dly life in order to perceive him? Granted, doesn't this seem to indicate that a person cannot trust himself to decide these questions (based on philosophical inquiry) since the very person judging is biased therby affecting his perception of the case? How are we to proceed?
First, The vastness of the universe is itself due to some of the “tuning” needed for the kind of life we are and observe. Second, there’s an issue of divine psychoanalysis going on. “If IIII were God, I would either make the universe smaller or at least filled with more life.” Why project that onto God? Third, our universe still has many billions of years left before heat death. We have no idea what will happen in the meantime. Look how long it took for life like ours to emerge in Earth. We really don’t know what will happen in the next four billion years (new life forms, terraforming, etc) Fourth, if our universe is a tiny piece of a grander narrative (eg our “big bang” came from a prior universe etc), as many non-theists seem eager to suggest, then we have no reason to either affirm or deny that those other pieces are “mostly lifeless.” We just don’t know… remember when that phrase was encouraged?
@@juanausensi499 I don’t need to speculate on why God would create non-God realities* in order to be rational in inferring either CT or Neo CT. The arguments for these don’t depend on having answer for why God would create. (*I do have thoughts, lined up with tradition, but theism doesn’t require an answer to be reasonable)
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns It's true you don't need to speculate about the reasons per se, but if you want to postulate a sentient, personal, interfering God, then you need to wonder about his intentions. If you don't, then you believe in a God, ok, but it's a intrascendent belief without consequences or applications.
@@juanausensi499 Different stages of different arguments. One mustn’t be greedy with one’s argument or RU-vid comment. Once theism per se is shown to be plausible, *then* one can look into whether there’s a case to be made for any revealed religion…
The non propositional might provide unique insights, but if left unconstrained will leave us in confusion with personal bias and ignorance. Feelsblike every time you compare a propositional argument to a non propositional one, the propositional one must be strawmanned so that the non propositional can even have a stage.
If God had made the universe very small - one earth and one sun. Just popped it into existence. Then the objection would be “what a boring limited God there is - he couldn’t be infinite or omnipotent. He couldn’t exist”
An argument could be that God created many pockets of life within the Universe e.g. one planet per galaxy and didn't want any one of them to interact with or be aware of another. Hence distances of millions of light years.
Not all atheist arguments have to address all possible gods because theists don't believe in all possible gods, they believe in very specific gods. Those of the Abrahamic faith believe in the god of the Bible. The "Universe Big" argument might not address all possible gods but there is nothing in, say, Ken Ham's theology that would predict it.
Spending vastly more time and resources on insignificant parts of the universe shows what God is focused on. Hardly seems the action of a loving God that cares for us. Maybe if the designer spent less time faffing about on other projects, Earth would not be such a disaster.
The galactic supercluster we've found ourselves in is fairly near the center of the largest cosmic void we've observed to date. One narcissistic way to think about that, is to see it as a form of cosmic quarantine. Our supercluster is huge, so we wouldn't exactly explore it in even a billion years, let alone fulfill some vast project of colonizing it, or becoming some higher Kardashev Type civilization. But it's surrounded by a gulf of the most mostly nothing we know, many orders of magnitude larger than the supercluster itself. Is it reasonable to conclude it's within a quarantine? Maybe. I'd say it has roughly the reasonableness of a person who thinks the person on the TV is talking specifically to them, even when the person watching has no reason to believe the TV guy even knows them. Is it possible? Sure, because possible (esp logically possible) is a massive landscape of could be. I think if you considered the human species - as a whole - as a thing with a psychological nature, we could diagnose it as having narcissistic personality disorder. Not the majority of individuals necessarily comprising the species, but the spirit of the human species, as it governs the behavior of its larger groups, like civilizations. A narcissist thinks they're special, super significant. At the root of that is self-loathing, insecurity, & a deep feeling of worthlessness. This is the human species. It's filled with denial & hatred of basic things about itself, like our animal nature. The law may have changed here, but for decades in NYC, public urination was a misdemeanor (a proper crime punishable by up to a year in prison). But if you took your dog for a walk, & didn't pick up their feces, that was only a violation, a lesser crime that only comes with a fine. The dog feces is objectively more disgusting, objectively more a danger to public health (& people's shoes). We cover ourselves up, we hate the things that show us to be animals. We dress up every animal action, from eating to sex to expelling waste, so as to distance it from being animals, so those things will be more "noble" (because denial often looks like nobility). We see how small & fragile we are. We also know just how little our oh so special "conscience" keeps humans from committing massive atrocities on other humans, across history. From all this self-loathing, comes "we're special, we just have to be." This way, we get a God that is perfect & the creator of everything, who is good & specially created us, in his image. But, we're also totally depraved, so infinitely wrong that even an infinitely loving being can't or won't love everyone, because that would go against perfect justice. This outlook is the most common, popular religious belief on the planet. It's time we maybe try to address the failing mental health of the spirit of the human species. So I don't think the size of the universe is a great argument against God, but it's surely at least a solid emotional argument against human cosmic specialness. That's why it's not compelling to so many believers. If humans weren't somehow what this all was for, if we're don't have pivotal cosmic significance to the Creator... I suspect most, forced to accept that realization, would think it a fine (or at least a meaningless) thing if humans just went extinct. It's always deeply painful to a narcissist when they're unable to look away from the deep disgust & self-loathing that informs everything they are.
Perhaps those universes are not lifeless after all and we are not here alone. This epistemological dormant prejudice of human beings limits our capacity to know
It seems to me the best counter argument to the size and lack of meaningfulness in the universe being an argument against the existence of God is that it has to be this way or God would be violating the laws of physics it established at the beginning (big bang). If I was to accept (or more fully embrace) God's existence it would have to a God that is consistent and isn't fickle by breakings it's own rules when it sees fit (why create a rule if you know you are going to have to break it to accomplish your will? that would be a very strange God that certainly wouldn't have any kind of divine foresight). So the size and 'emptiness" of the universe is due to physical limitation. It is not possible to create meaningful 'things' everywhere, 1st because life and meaningfulness had to come out of chaos and be tuned into meaningful. Starting big and then tuning it to be more and more specific makes sense. 2nd the amount of meaningless increases the value of when there is something meaningful. It means what we got is pretty damn amazing. and how would we appreciate that without there being something to contrast it with? Edit: Alex's example at the end there about the growth of people across the planet is actually a really good steelman that I didn't even consider. Maybe another reason for the size of the universe was 'God' wanted to ensure there was never going to be a limit to growth. No matter how much life there was, and no matter how far humanity goes, God intended for us to always be humbled by the share size of what we exist within. It is a good argument; only counter I can think of is that it is so ridiculously big that it seems like overkill. but as Alex points out, if you would have showed a human from 100,000 years ago in Africa a picture of the Globe they would think it is preposterous that humans would be all over it in relatively short amount of time.
@@juanausensi499 Because he has good reason to bother? Maybe it is a result of fulfilment of God's purpose, who knows. But that is not really a relevant question to the discussion at hand.
@@patrickthomas2119 But how can a ultimate being have a purpose? If we have a purpose because we were created for that purpose, where does the purpose of God come from? If that purpose comes from himself, then it's not a purpose, but a whim.
@@juanausensi499 If reason and logic were inseparable characteristics of the "ultimate being" then purpose would be the inevitable product. I would look into the stoic idea of "master reason" to get a better understanding of that. It is the same principal as logic, God did not create logic, It IS logic. God did not create purpose and reason, those are innate characteristics that poor out from It.
@@patrickthomas2119 I don't see how that follows. A purpose means an objective, and an objective means a end result that is better than the present state of things. A perfect being has nothing left to achieve, because no further improvement is possible.
They missed the other half of this argument. Yes, it's hard to explain (other than speculatively) why a universe created by God would contain so much apparently wasted space and time. But turn it around and imagine a godless universe in which we humans nevertheless exist. Absent a designer, the only way we could have come about is by an extraordinarily improbable accident. How do you make an extraordinarily improbable event less improbable, if not outright probable? You give it many, many chances to occur. So we would expect a universe containing humans but no God to be unimaginably large and old. You can't explain what we observe in a theistic universe (except by speculation), but in a godless universe things can only be the way we observe them.
It has been my experience in life that those things which I find most awe-inspiring and beautiful, are those very things about whose having been designed or not we are arguing. I don't feel compelled to think that just because I see something beautiful or awe-inspiring that it somehow was created, in fact I'm likely to think the precise opposite, again since the most beautiful and awe-inspiring things I've ever seen are natural systems the same is true of complexity, theists will often attempt to say that when we see things with complexity we know they have a designer, and nature is complex, so nature must have a designer. This however fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of complex things we have experience with are not known to have designers, so when you see something exceptionally complex, you don't think it has a designer you think that's probably a natural system. It is only crudely designed systems that we definitely can attribute to intelligent creators, in our experience
It seems incredibly unfair as a debate when you have to do years of science to understand how something works to say that it might not just be god wishing whatever he wants to be true and on the god side, you just have to say "god is mysterious" and that's what god want. Like when we thought the universe was static, it's consistent with god will, but now we know we're in an accelerating expanding universe.
Theists tend to believe that God created the entire universe purely for our benefit. This idea is obviously utterly ridiculous, because we clearly see everything only from a human perspective. But from a Universe perspective both in time and scale, we are here today and gone tomorrow. Which is more likely? God created the universe, or mankind created God?
But did anyone really tell us anything, to begin with? Anyone could claim they speak for God. I know I could. Easily. In fact, I hear something now. Wait a sec. Ok… uhum… I will. CYA too... He says you left the oven on!
The reason why this argument doesn't work for me is it could be applied to No Man's Sky. No Man's Sky has 18 quintillion planets with at most thousands of players in that universe. So the amount of living players to empty planets is mind boggling. If No Man's Sky is so big and empty, and we would expect that a creator of No Man's Sky would fill it with more valuable stuff, then No Man Sky obviously doesn't have a creator.
I don't think this argument is supposed to single handedly disprove existence of god, it's just showing the naturalistic explanation makes more sense than the theistic one in context of universe/time size
I have a couple of considerations to take into account. 1) Technically, we are mostly nothing, considering that we are made of atoms and atoms are mostly empty space. That doesn't somehow reduce our value, so given that the universe is mostly nothing and we are in it, why would vast expanse of empty space reduce it's value? 2) We can only observe the time near the big bang because the universe is so vast, the further away something is, further back in time we can look due to the speed of light. Maybe there are no things of meaning like life in and of themselves, but they are meaningful to us in the form of knowledge. 3) Who doesn't love a big sandbox? What's up with the idea that the universe ought to be filled right from the start? Jesus already explained what the kingdom of God is like, it's like a mustard seed. Tiny, but grows to be large over time. Infinite space to explore and colonise? Yes please.
1) The fact that we are mostly nothing further solidifies the original point. Why would an omnipotent god create so much emptiness? He surely could have created the universe in such a way that there weren't any empty space, fill everything with something of meaning rather than emptiness. The argument is not about the value of things per se, but about how from the view point of intelligent design, it seems unlikely that God would create a massive canvas, just to leave most of the picture empty. 2) I don't really understand, what you are trying to say there, especially the first half. Do you mean to say that God created some sort of mystery or puzzle for us, as he knows we like to solve them? 3) If only that were the case... the universe seems rather too big and uninhabitable to allow for this vision. Looking at our solar system, we have pretty bad chances of colonising most of the planets there. And then the vast amount of distance we would have to travel to simply reach the next solar system... again, it just doesn't seem to be designed to be explored, at least not for a race with such short a lifespan as the human race.
@@justsayin...1158 1) No it doesn't? That's absurd. You don't believe it either, you're just trying to forcefully make something up that's in favour of your position. You wouldn't go up to your mother and say you're insignificant because you're mostly empty space. That emptiness doesn't take away from the meaning one bit, you're just looking at things from the wrong level of resolution. 2) Are you saying that astronomy and discovering the mysteries of the cosmos is useless? Of course it has tremendous meaning for us. Even for the ancients, the moon and stars served as a map and a calendar. 3) Look at Alex's reply at the end, he gave a great analogy. Ancients: "Look, earth of mostly devoid of human life, how are we ever to get across the ocean?" meanwhile in 2024 "Moon and mars mission baby! making progress!". You are thinking from the perspective of our current level of technology. Given the exponential nature of r&d, and the AI singularity being right around the corner, you can't seriously believe we wouldn't have advanced enough to colonise even the most uninhabitable planets and moons in 1 billion years, which is not that long given the age of the universe. I wouldn't be surprised if we could do it in 1000 years, which is practically nothing.
@@SeekersTavern... 1) As I said, the argument isn't about the value of atoms or the universe, but rather why would God need to separate things with so much emptiness in between? 2) I was literally unable to comprehend, what your point was, I wasn't trying to attack it, I wanted you to clarify what you meant, giving my own interpretation of what you could have meant. 3) I personally doubt that an intelligent designer would have made us so limited in our means of exploring the universe, if we were meant to explore the universe. We don't even have the capabilities to truly take in this planet of ours. Why would God be willing to sacrifice generations of people, just so that in some distant future they might be able (or might as well not be able) to finally explore the universe? Maybe your image of God isn't one of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, in which case fair enough, but then we simply aren't talking about the same concept of God.
@@justsayin...1158 As for nr2 fair enough. As for the rest, you are making a lot of assumptions that I find no reason to hold. First of all, you just claim that the empty space is somehow a bad thing, why? The second problem is you assume the entire universe should be accessible to our generation, why? The unknown, the lack of abilities, that is essential to have room to grow. The ancients explored the areas, the Vikings and others explored the seas, now we are exploring the solar system (though we are definitely far from done with earth). Because of the infinite vastness of space and depth of reality we don't even know if our scientists and engineers and explorers will ever run out of things to do, and I hope they don't. We get used to and bored of everything we have. You are complaining about us not being able to explore the universe only because you're used to the accomplishments we made. People were elated to cross the ocean on their wooden boats and discover foreign land in the past. If the universe were full and it was quick and easy to explore it wouldn't be possible for the future generations to grow. Growth itself is more important than possession, that's why Mary Sue type characters are boring, why our frontier keeps moving and why it's better that our universe is not easily accessible and mostly empty
@@SeekersTavern... Empty space just goes against creation. Creation is to put something where something wasn't. To make the argument more syllogistic: The universe is a creation (of God). Empty space is not creation. Since there is empty space in the universe, either the universe is not created, or empty space is creation. To me it seems more likely that empty space is not an act of creation. Second: I do not assume that. Your argument is that we are meant to explore the universe. I simply said that isn't true, as we aren't equipped to explore the universe. Anyhow, I don't agree with the notion that the struggle makes it even better. The much more benevolent option seems to just not create us with the ability to become bored of a freely and fully explorable universe...
Im a non-Abrahamic true monotheist. Not all theists are created equal. I believe morality can only be subjective. I believe that everything came from nothing, literally. you would only think something can not come from nothing if didn't know the true relationship between something & nothing. Light & Dark. All of something is full of nothing. Something is built upon infinite nothing. Just as Darkness created the Light, so too does nothing create the something. Darkness LOVES the Light it created. Darkness gently carries the light through the eternal eons it was granted.
It is possible to interpret omnipotence as not the power to do absolutely anything, but the power to do anything which is logical. In our universe which is governed by logical laws it is impossible for life to Simply emerge from nowhere fully formed. If you wanted to make life you would have to create an enormous machine of sorts whose purpose is to get the universe into the appropriate Shape for Life to emerge, and this would be accomplished by controlling the initial conditions of the universe. If this is the case it is totally possible that the size of the universe is actually necessary in order for life to emerge in the one place that it does. For example, with human engineering, we might make a machine to create Fusion. These machines are absolutely enormous and Incredibly complicated, and all serve to allow one single microscopic Point within the machine to do Fusion. By the logic of the atheist arguments in question, since we don't see Fusion happening all over the place inside of the machine, and since the machine is so much larger than the place where Fusion is being done, then the machine clearly can't be made to create Fusion. The universe could be similar. A massive machine whose complexity is necessary to allow for life to evolve in one single place within the machine. Now to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this, I do not. What I am saying is that it is a reasonable explanation if you begin with the idea of omnipotence being limited to logical possibilities. Also, one might consider that if you wanted to make someone feel especially important, you might show them how so many different things you've done in your life all point to their happiness. Similarly, a God that wanted us to know how important we were to him might very well create an incredibly complex and enormous system all for our purpose precisely so that we would know how tremendously important we were that all of creation was made in service to us.
Something and nothing exist simultaneously within Creation. Just as Dark (still silence) and light (sound of motion) are necessarily always present to distill the OMNI-VERSE... SO TOO IS... NOTHING WITHIN EVERYTHING... NECESSARILY PRESENT TO DISTILL THE OMNI-VERSE. Every single universe of the infinite OMNI-VERSE exists at the same place and time simultaneously. This is the ALL-SPARK WITHIN THE INFINITE DARK VOID. THIS IS THE SILENT SONG WITHIN THE LIFESTREAM. THIS IS THE PHOENIX FIRE WITHIN THE TREE OF LIFE. THIS IS THE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED FORCES OF CREATION DELICATELY INTERACTING TO DISTILL THE OMNI-VERSE. LIGHT DOES NOT MOVE. THE DARKNESS CARRYING IT MOVES THE LIGHT. THE "SPEED OF LIGHT" IS ACTUALLY "THE PRESSURE OF DARKNESS ". THIS MEASURE IS THE FREQUENCY FOR ITS ACCOMMODATING UNIVERSE. THERE ARE INFINITE FREQUENCIES FOR INFINITE UNIVERSES... THE TOTALITY OF ALL UNIVERSES IS CALLED THE OMNI-VERSE. ALSO KNOWN AS THE "ALL-SPARK. " i am the BRIGHTEST NIGHT I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT.
You are absolutely right but if I understand your argument you are saying that this must mean that god created these constants. Which is simply not true our existence is improbable but this does not mean that it has to be the work of a creator. If god can raise the dead and turn water to wine god is not limited to the laws of nature there for it makes little sense to create to so many autonomous processes which takes billions of year to produce the intended outcome. It makes more sense for god to do what most religions believed in the past that god in an instant created man and the space he occupies. Here’s a concrete example are we really to believe an omnipotent all power being took 3,689,000,000 years messing around with countless forms of life with the intended goal of creating humanity.
@@somethin671 What im saying is that our existence is NOT improbable with a universe like ours with the constants it has. But the explanation as to why the universe is the way it is, is most logically explained by a God because theoretically the universe could have been different an infinite amount of ways but its not. So to show life can arise in a universe different than ours is pretty much impossible. I honestly think the size of our universe or how long it takes for life to form in our universe has absolutely NOTHING to do with Gods creation. I think its absurd to say "it makes little sense for God to make such a vast universe and make life so difficult to exist". When we say this we are trying to think from Gods prospective and putting ourself in "his shoes" which is unthinkable. When i think of a creator I would expect a creation thats ungraspable by the human mind and thats exactly what we see out in the universe. I dont think to myself: "well why did god make it so big or so complicated or took so long or how come the majority of space is just empty and seem purposeless" i think all these thoughts are irrelevant. The bible says god is OUTSIDE of time. The bible says to god 1000yrs is like 1 and 1 is like 1000. We are trying to put ourself in gods perspective with our brain which is absurd. To me 13b years might seem like a looooong time because im comparing it with human experience and a "long time" is RELATIVE to my experience. But to God its not a relative thing. If gods existence is eternal than 13b years is a blink of an eye in relation to an eternity. in eternity there is no long or short period of time because its almost like time doesnt even exist. Would we be complaining if god made creation in a span of time 1yr, or 10yr or 1 million year or 1 billions years??? Even if god took 100 billions years according to our watch i still think its irrelevant and says nothing against the fine tuning of our universe.
@@exclusive_148 If I though with my feeble human mind can see a flaw within God‘s plan then it can’t be the product of an all powerful creator. My point is that from a neutral observation of the universe its structure does not imply the existence of a Interventionists God of any kind. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that we might be the result of some sort of deist god’s creation but of a God who is actively intervenes in our world who has a particular goal in mind our universe as it exists does not comport to that assertion. Also your arguments that God works in mysterious ways is not to insult your perspective which I think is interesting is intellectually lazy. If you believe in exodus as a historical event which god intervened in there’s no compelling reason the holocaust should have happened. Perhaps there’s a grand reason for it all maybe there is some sort of justification I am arguing for what’s most rational given the facts we can observe. You are a person convinced of a belief and finding areas of uncertainty and doubt and using that too justify a preconceived notion. Humans are great at finding patterns and justifying pretty much anything. Talk to a conspiracy theorist who believes all reality is a lie and what they believe is not true but they are capable of rationalizing every fact you put before them and organizing it in someway that it fits with their worldview. My point is we can think of potential explanations for pretty much any inconsistency we might see the real question is what is more plausible and likely.
It eventually allows very basic life. Sapience takes a lot longer,and it’s an incredibly rough horror show of a ride. Why would god create life which has to consume other life just to stay alive,needs to periodically excrete what it consumes,needs to sleep and whose brain and body soon wear out? Do you think early ppl rhapsodized on how wonderful life was? Apologists are preaching from a very privileged position
@@dwightfitch3120 It seems god created life that consumes other life because the earth is limited in space. God created life be "fruitful and multiply" we will always come up with ANOTHER WAY god COULD HAVE created things. no matter what possible world god could have created there will always be people saying "well god could have done it another way or god should have done it like this instead" this is circular reasoning. if God created 99.9% of life without free will, the .01% of life would say "well god could have created everything else with free will. amd so on and so forth
When I consider the universe I feel deeply that god does not exist. Not so much an argument, but I get great emotional certainty that (a Christian) god’s existence is impossible.
My theory is that God believes in the multi-verse theory for why the constants of this universe are so fine tuned. Therefore, in order to get (interesting) life on one planet he needed to create trillions and trillions of planets hoping to get one with conditions suitable enough for such life. Sort of like holding your own lottery with trillions and trillions of tickets, and then buying every ticket. While you may suspect that I am an atheist, simpliciter, in that I'm portraying God as depending on chance so much, you'd be correct. However, I'm not simply an atheist, simpliciter, because I concede that the power to create trillions and trillions of tickets is non-trivial (well, I coudn't do it). It's just that that power isn't very well thought out, or intentional, or even "sentient", as humans understand the term. Still, I'm grateful to have landed on the right ticket.
But Gods are defined as personal and sentient. Maybe there is an ultimate reality, but the real problem is why we are still using the word 'god' for that.
@@juanausensi499 Yes. Atheists often use the words "naturalism", "universe", "natural law", whatever. Theists come back and accuse atheists of being nihilists, robots, immoral, soulless, or whatever. If I use the word "God" to mean "that which is responsible for our existence", and further posit it is "non-sentient", I can consider myself an "atheist", not because I'm changing the definition of "God", but because I'm broadening the word "atheist" to be something more interesting than what is usually talked about by theists (or even atheists). Theists often use existence-type proofs (e.g., contingency arguments, stage 1), which I can accept as valid, so the move seems necessary, at least for me. See also Spinoza for an example of believing in "non-personal" God (though I don't know his work other than what I've seen on youtube).
@@heresa_notion_6831 The issue with that is that redefining God also redefines 'theist' and 'atheist', without changing the fundamental beliefs of each group in the slightest. I am an atheist in the sense that i don't believe personal gods exist. I am open to the idea of the universe having a underlying explanation/cause, but calling that cause 'god' just makes things less clear, because people use the word 'god' in the personal sense, usually,.That word has lots of baggage, that it shouln't be applied to something that is completely unknown, if it exists at all.
@@juanausensi499 We know what we know. God is not completely unknown, given we're trying to draw inferences about what God is like, given what we think we know about existence, and under a hypothesis that there is God. If I say I'm 100% certain God exists and 99.9999..% certain God is "non-sentient", I've defined a position that has very little baggage that I can see. If you want to know why I think God exists: 1) Something from nothing is impossible 2) Something exists therefore 3) always something, so whatever 3 is, operationalizes God, and nowhere is sentience entailed. The sentience question is what I argue the atheist/theist debate should be about, and there is an important side-debate (which bears on sentience) about whether or not the various scriptures relay historical fact. You're right to say, if I believe in God, but of a non-sentient nature, I'm indistinguishable from conventional atheism (whatever that is); however, I'm VERY distinguishable from scriptural theists. Also, I think this kind of position has advantages for arguing certain atheism problem areas, like "objective" moral realism, though I won't argue that here. I only bring it up as a possibility (or motivation) for monkeying around with the definitions a bit.
@@heresa_notion_6831 I don't mind changing definitions to make a point, but only if those definitions are made in advance. As you said, believing in a non-sentient God is indistinguishable from atheism. In fact, that's why i'm an apatheist. I think the existence of God is (and also solipsism, simulated universe, brain-in-a-vat, etc.) is, in the end, irrelevant. I'm interested in why humans believe/don't believe in god, instead. I myself don't believe in personal gods but that's not really important, if i see one, i'm ready to change my mind.
@thebelmont1995 Oh, the comment was a joke. It just sounds like something that apologist I mentioned would say cause he's prone to making terrible arguments like that lol.
@@FaptainCalcon750 Even though it was a joke, I still find it somewhat intuitively compelling, despite not being a theist. I guess one thing that I wonder about though is that the people who actually created those religions had a different view of the universe. They saw God as a good explanation for a universe with earth at the center and a universe that they imagined to be much smaller than it actually is. So if God is the best explanation for a small universe, why is he also the best explanation for a big universe? Or were the ancients just completely mistaken about God's values and intentions? If so, how do we know they weren't just mistaken about the whole thing?
You are witness and infinitely important. On the 26th of October the whole world would be watching London. I told you many times to end Islam and the war you have to ask for proof that the Quran was memorized, so why atheists, christians and other religious groups continue to refuse to ask for proof that the Quran was memorized?. What would be the consequences if it is proven the Quran was not memorized?. What would be the consequences if atheists, christians and other religious groups continue to refuse to ask for proof that the Quran was memorized?. What do you want, what do you want to achieve protesting and causing trouble for the people living in London? Would you understand the atheist logical fallacy to end the war and not lie to your own innocent and vulnerable children? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?", that means "who created what is not created?". Atheists call themselves rational and they have been deceived with the absurd remark "who created what is not created?". Would you understand the kalam cosmological argument to bring peace to the world?, what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence exists. Did you understand why God exists? Emergency!, humanity censor the knowledge that saves their own children's lives!. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Share this loving poem for peace. Spinoza was right and nobody listened. Do you know Spinoza's God? Thank you.
Sheol, Tartarus, Hades, Gehenna, the Abyss - there are many hells. There are many heavens. You will be a kingdom of priests, the Assembly on the Mount. YHWH judged the gods, was made to be sin, and became the Snake (Morning Star). Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. Christ judges the world, is made to be sin, and becomes a Worm. Are they unjust to inflict wrath? Of course not. How else could they judge? YHWH: The God of Metallurgy Earth, the Abyss covered in darkness, is YHWH’s Everlasting Lake of Fire and Brimstone, his furnace of roaring flames where, in his furious wrath, he will gather you up, put you in, and smelt you. If your name is not found in the Book of Life, he will refine you, remove your dross, and purify you until the Devil, the False Prophet, and the Beast (false beliefs) are cleansed from you. There, you will be ‘tormented’ or, tested for purity by questioning. Warning of the impending Day of the Lord, he was swallowed by the Beast out of the Sea (sacrifice) and spewed out upon the shore as the Beast out of the Earth (resurrection), as the sun beat down upon his head and a burning east wind began the Way of the Lord in the Desert.
To declare the magnitude of His Power and Glory and even then the whole universe is insignificant compared to the eternal vastness of God's Glory with even the lowest of the angels at His hand being capable of vanishing it all from existence with just a blink of an eye... We're nothing compared to Him and yet He died for all of us because He loves us more than anything in existence.
If the universe is evidence of the glory of God, it cannot be the Christian god. That god is a little god, with petty concerns. That god is obsessed with whether or not you masturbate, or you are gay, of engage in the act of reproduction outside of a union he presided over. He cares whether you work on Sundays, whether you give him praises, and from what tribes you buy slaves. He is a petty little tinpot tyrant. The god that created the universe? He watches stars explode. He watches galaxies collide. He watches black holes evaporate over time scales the human mind cannot comprehend. If there's an end goal here, it's not the redemption of your soul. He cares about you as much as you care about a single celled bacterium. That's the argument that he is *straw* manning.
This is all so futile and illogical. If there is God who created EVERYTHING including us, it means He created even our emotions, logic, aesthetics etc. So it is practically God viewing and judging the Univers through the senses of His creation. He being originally immaterial experiences the matterial reality. He "divided" Himself into billions and billions "subsets" and enjoys the creation from billions of different angles - with every "subset observer" having specific abilities and "free will" to observe and judge. So - all those disputes are also just a God's way how to enjoy creation and have some fun. Or you believe God doesn't exist, and all those discussions are just a way how you push our own subjective opinion on your opponents or how you rationalize your subconscious doubts.
1. Why would God make the universe so big for the same reason he took a long time (A) If he didn’t take a long time then you would just say random chance could’ve done it, but time can be a detriment when it comes to abiogenesis, Time can be a detriment to abiogenesis, the process by which life could have arisen from non-living matter, due to the following reasons: 1. Molecular Degradation: Over time, simple organic molecules, such as amino acids, nucleotides, or fatty acids, can break down or undergo side reactions that render them unusable for forming more complex structures like proteins, RNA, or cell membranes. Factors like UV radiation, cosmic rays, and thermal fluctuations can accelerate this degradation, reducing the availability of these building blocks for life. 2. Chemical Equilibrium: Given enough time, chemical reactions tend to reach equilibrium, meaning reactants and products are present in a stable ratio. This can limit the ongoing production of necessary prebiotic molecules. In the early stages of abiogenesis, rapid reactions and unstable conditions might have been necessary to drive the formation of more complex molecules. Over longer periods, these reactive environments may have dissipated. 3. Dilution or Loss of Reactants: Prebiotic molecules, if left in the environment for too long without being incorporated into life-forming processes, could be diluted in large bodies of water, washed away, or otherwise lost. This means the chances of useful interactions between molecules decrease over time, reducing the likelihood of forming life. 4. Competing Reactions: As time progresses, some molecules might participate in reactions that do not lead to life. These “side reactions” can use up essential molecules, creating products that are biologically irrelevant and possibly hindering life-forming reactions. 5. Geological and Environmental Changes: As time passes, Earth’s environment changes due to geological, atmospheric, and climatic forces. Early Earth conditions might have been more favorable for life formation (e.g., warm ponds, volcanic activity, or hydrothermal vents). Over time, shifts in these conditions could make abiogenesis less likely. In essence, while time initially allowed prebiotic chemistry to occur, prolonged periods could lead to the degradation or loss of critical molecules and conditions, making the formation of life less likely as time passes. To create this construct takes enormous power To create this construct unguided takes a miracle
Actually everything you stated supports abiogenesis. A. You can still state it was random chance. Infact the more time that passes the MORE likely it was a chance. The chance of life rises the more time we give that chance to occur. Chemicals reaching stability is how abiogenesis occurs. 1. Molecules aren't the same as proteins. Molecules never disappear. Proteins can replicate and keep replicating and re populate if the molecules are still there. Degradation doesn't matter if the material is always there to work with and that material never entirely dissipates. 2. Chemical equilibrium is evidence for abiogenesis not against it. 3. Molecules do not get washed away. Thats not how molecules work. Water is litterally made of molecules. 4. Competing reactions dont use up molecules. They create more. Molecules dont disappear when used. And even if they did it wouldnt matter. The universe has so many that it would it be irrelevant. 5. Again you have the opposite here. Abiogenesis is more likely because the earth was very different back then. Now it doesn't need to happen because the earth is more stable for life to form.
@@thebelmont1995oh from your comment it made it seem like you knew how things were formed at creation I wrote what ChatGPT said were detriments to abiogenesis and you responded with no these aren’t detriments but rather benefits that do allow for abiogenesis to occur, how odd since you seem to have responded the complete opposite of what ChatGPT said the only conclusion for your knowledge would be that you went back in time to the beginning of creation to know these things yourself
Historically, both monotheists and non-monotheists (includes atheists) in argument have agreed that it is meaningless to say that an omnipotent God could do self-contradictory things. Thus, the monotheist reliance on the human free will argument. If the avoidance of self-contradiction, requires an enormous universe to generate the physical conditions needed for intelligent life to be possible in at least one place during cosmic history, then an enormous universe will be what we find ourselves in. (This is somewhat similar to the anthropic principle used in the fine-tuning argument, concerning the constants of nature.) We should be cautious in concluding that the only things that could have "value" are things that we humans value.
@@thebelmont1995 an almighty god wouldn't need to comply with those requirements though, being almighty. If what he wanted was for there to be humans around, then those humans would be around. He wouldn't design there to be requirements for that to come about; his will is sufficient.
I don't know how we could say The universe is completely barren, or even mostly barren. We have discovered barely anything. Less than scratching the surface, less than 0.1%. I'd say that's arrogant
Seeing as God is eternal and in relation to him were like a small speck of dust, I find God creating this construct a cheeky way to show us himself and us via the universe and ourselves within it
That's dumb. So god is arrogant and made a universe where 99.9% of it cannot even support life as a way to show us how much bigger he is and how powerful he is?
@@thebelmont1995 Your response: that’s dumb (okay, why?) 2. So God did x where y happens (A) if God is God he isn’t bound by resources aka he doesn’t lose anything from creating a whole universe since God is infinite. (B) God gets to focus on his creation From what I got your response is crying saying God didn’t do it the way I want him to therefore no God, is that correct?
@@j8000(a) I think God is the only infinite (B) your response is weird, if I have a whole stack of blocks and I only use enough blocks to make a house You saying shouldn’t you have used up all your blocks is quite weird God can do what he wants regardless of how we feel he should do things
@@japexican007 If god isnt bound by resources then fine tuning is out the window. And so is the universe. If thats the case then a god wouldnt need fine tuning at all. And life wouldnt need water or oxygen. The universe isnt tuned for life. Its tuned against it. Only earth has become tuned but even then its flawed and is also tuned against human life at times.
Size is of course relative. What you perceive to be the universe may be but a single cell in a larger organism, existing within a larger universe, which in turn is but a single cell in a larger organism ad infinitum. And what you perceive to be a single cell contains all infinite universes. It is but a dream of God. Cloaking the observable universe in terms of the Abrahamic God, surely isn't as compatible with the data as the esoteric traditions of the East, particularly Vedanta.
Free will means there needs to be room to make free decisions. If the earth was in a vacuum, I think humanity would grow restless rather soon. If there are nothing to stretch towards, why reach at all? Any allpowerful god would know these things.
So your argument for god is a presupposition of free will, a concept which is not only being proven false by every neurological study on it but is also shown to be false through every action a being makes
@@rorybessell8280 I'm not arguing for god nor free will -I'm arguing on the Christian presupposition made in the video. I'm agnostic, and I'm also leaning against free will, I'm just engaging in the logic posed by the videos hypothetical. You know those, right?
To play God's advocate, even Genesis doesn't say that God made humans first and then the rest of the universe for them. Instead each day he created a different aspect of the universe. The first day was light, the second then the sky, the third sea and earth, the fourth the stars, the fifth sea and flying creatures, and finally the sixth day he's described as creating the animals of the land as well as humankind. So even Genesis, which the majority of people theist or atheist would likely describe as a theological story rather than a historical account, posits that humans were not there in the very beginning. There were at least 5 other days where humans didn't exist. Even though God's attention does eventually turn to humans, humans are clearly not all what God is about. The entire universe existed without humans, other animals even existed without humans. And this grants the Genesis account. I've always held that even if God did tell Moses or whoever else this account of creation, I doubt God would actually tell them literally what happened. I imagine trying to explain nuclear fusion and stellar nucleosynthesis to someone of the time would have been unproductive. Additionally, were humans to one day find a way to more quickly cross great distances of space, then our population would, eventually, expand rapidly. So rapidly that such tremendous distance and scale would, eventually, become potentially trivial. But this last part is definitely extremely speculative and requires humans to survive that long and to invent such technologies.
It's an easy enough argument to think up, even if it's not commonly said aloud. I think it's "common" in the sense that it's a basic idea that might strike anyone that learns the size of the universe.
No, I don’t think this question is common at all. Much more common is atheists asking why some theists believe their god made the universe for humans or why they claim the Earth was specifically made for us, when it’s pretty clear that mostly everything around us is hostile to our lives.
God likes his universe. He sustains every bit of it moment by moment. The mind of God is not distant from any single quantum event or animal perception or mental state of people. Everything exists by his direct will or by his permissive will.
I believe that (no joke) about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is matter, by volume. If you can find vacuum interesting I’m very jealous of you haha :)
@@ecta9604 😂 bit pedantic but quantum foam is interesting. Anyway it's not just about how much is matter or not the matter interacts through the vaccume of space and I think it's definitely plausible that if a god existed they'd create humans to be curious and then create a universe that can be explored and understood. That being said I don't believe in a god I just think that because of other arguments, I don't think this one is strong
Right? Black holes, all the different types of stars, galactic clusters, supernovas and nebulous, those are freaking cool man. What you said about God creating a universe that can be explored and understood is exactly how I think about it as a Christian. I mean I still don't think it's a terrible arrangement, but it's definitely refutable.
Actually some Christian’s like myself think that those empty planets are rewards to those who were faithful, as such that question If universe why big and empty Would be easily answered by God planned ahead of time
I don't understand why people can't understand that God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If a subatomic particle can exist and not exist at the same time, then it's not difficult to see that a unliftable rock can also be liftable at the same time.
I don’t get what you said, first you said God can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it If God is =1 Rock is x You’re asking why can’t 1 = 1+x Then you say if subatomic particle can both exist and not exist Then you equate (existing and not existing and comparing to lifting and not lifting
"... God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it." Given this (for arguments sake) do you then see any problem with God creating free willed creatures that do exactly what God wants them to?
I could be wrong but I think quantum logic works differently than macro logic. Personally, as a Christian I have no problem saying that God can't make contradictions because omnipotence implies the ability to anything, but under typical logic contradictions aren't things.
@@JD-wu5pfI’m talking about what the guy said, were you able to decipher it or was there a reason why you cherry picked a couple of words from what he said and not the entire thing he wrote?
Perhaps you guys are missing the entire point. The universe is NOT about us. It’s all about God. Even the biblical authors realized this fact that an all powerful God still desires to know us: Psalm 8:3-5 3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? 5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.
It would almost be cute that you think you said something of value with this vapid comment if it weren’t for the fact that you’re an adult who can vote and affect rational people’s lives with your religious delusions.
If true, why is this compelling, or something we should look favorably on? It sounds hideous to me to be mere set pieces for some cosmic overlord. But whatever.
Very simple answer. He is an artist and needed a very big canvas to display His handiwork. Of course we can ask you skeptics that same type of question...why did evolution make the universe so big?
Nobody believes that evolution made the universe or that evolution decides to do things, it's a biological process not an entity. Anyway, yes it could be that it has some other purpose but if it was an artistic purpose, why is so much of it devoid of anything? Would a human artist get a giant canvas and then only paint on 0.000...% of it? That seems unlikely. You could speculate that a god could do any number of things for any number of reasons but the question is what's more likely, that the universe we see was created with intention or that it wasn't? Given the vast amount of nothing much, probably the latter
@@IshmaelPricewhen atheists say “why is so much devoid of anything” If God is eternal then this universe is merely a small paper in comparison isn’t it? So what exactly is meant by “so much of it” The fallacy here is atheists are using themselves as reference for this grand universe instead of using the entire ocean (God) to compare the pond (the universe) There’s such a thing as overcrowding an art work, the emptiness allows the art viewer to appreciate the art piece
@@japexican007 It's not so much a claim about how big it is relative to humans or gods, but the internal scale of it (or should be anyway). If a human makes a diorama, despite the human being substantially larger than the diorama and able to view a much larger one than what they made, they still make it at a scale that focuses on the relevant parts. The universe is so vast and so relatively empty, it doesn't appear to be made by someone who was making it for a specific purpose. If it was, that being would have probably focused on the parts that aren't void, rather than making it mostly void. Of course it's possible that a god could have done anything for any reason but the question I'm posing is simply what's more likely? If one answer is more likely, then that's a point in favour of one hypothesis, though doesn't settle it on its own. It's only when we add up all of these questions we can try to decide what the weight of the evidence is.
@@IshmaelPriceI’m sorry but you didn’t add anything of value from what I read, you just repeated Humans small, universe big, universe empty If God is infinite then your understanding is in relation to us and not God An infinite God wouldn’t say universe big especially when compared to an infinite God As said previously it could be that this “grand universe” is only Grand from our perspective but to an infinite God is but a small piece of paper
@@japexican007 The very first thing I said was " It's not so much a claim about how big it is relative to humans or gods, but the internal scale of it". The point is that it's much bigger than it needs to be. If you're going to make a farm diorama, you'd probably put the chickens next to the chicken coup. You would probably not put them so far from the chicken coup and put the chicken coup so far from the farmhouse that it would take thousands of lightyears for the chickens to go back into the chicken coup or the farmers to go check on the chickens. Of course you could postulate a god that likes to do any kind of random thing for any reason, but a creator would probably create what has meaning. You could postulate a void-loving creator who thinks that tons and tons of void relative to the other stuff is great but that seems implausible.
