God and the vastness of the universe

[Foil]

I came across the following in another thread, and was intrigued by it:

If God created humanity, what purpose does the vastness of the universe serve? Why create beautiful planets and stars impossible for anyone to ever see, much less reach?

It's a good question, especially when one considers how little of the universe we can even observe.

My first inclination is to throw out a quick answer about God's infinite creativity, and the mistake of assuming creation is only for humanity... but I'd like to hear some other perspectives on the matter.

[Will Robinson]

Maybe he thought, \"Well if that won't humble them then nothing will!\"

[Bet51987]

I've always imagined other worlds and civilizations beyond our reach. I also imagine worlds that are at the right distance from their sun, have blue skys, oceans, balmy temperatures, and beautiful foliage only to be devoid of any intelligent life. For what purpose would those planets that form, exist, and then burn out without anyone seeing them, serve the bible God. What reasoning would a God of the bible have for a universe so vast that humans can never visit anything. I know I'm rambling but looking at the big picture, the bible God makes no sense.

To our feeble human minds, no, He doesn't.

I'm going to take a guess that such interstellar curiosities are meant to inspire man to at least try to visit them, which has already lead to the development of many technologies with the potential to ease suffering and thus foster the spread of His love.

Hi Sedwick,

I'm answering your question in this thread instead of the other.

How can we try? In our own solar system for example a trip to Pluto would be impossible for you. You wouldn't live long enough to get there. So what does the other 99.9% of the universe serve?

Bee

[Spidey]

The answer is very obvious, but also very offensive to most Christians.

[CUDA]

why does an artist create art if not everyone will be able to view it???

Because he can

[VonVulcan]

The most obvious answer that comes to my mind is, something to reach for.

[ccb056]

Just because we can't do something now, doesn't mean we won't be able to do it in the future. Thats for mathematicians, scientists, and engineers to figure out.

[TechPro]

The answer is very obvious, but also very offensive to most Christians.

Not offensive to this one.

IMO, God created the Heavens and the Earth (oy, that sounds Biblical) ... but he did not create it all just for us here on Earth. Why then do we not get anything about the other worlds out there in the vast Universe? Simple. That information is not pertinent to the salvation of each and every one of us... and only serves to distract us from the true purpose for us existing on this Earth instead of in "Heaven" with God. That purpose is multiple. 1. Learn and live without being in the constant presence of God (just like a youth has to eventually leave "home"). 2. Prove/demonstrate/show if (as an individual) we will choose to be good or evil (that's why there will be a "judgement", duh.) 3. Enjoy life here on Earth.

There are "worlds without number" and detailed knowledge about them (tho interesting) is not pertinent to your existence. It's perfectly fine to learn all you can about them. Education and discovery is part of the scenario.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Kind of a silly argument against God, because we can see them, and the fact that we would would not have escaped an infinite God. The universe also goes a lot smaller than we can see (well, not now). Only a person firmly convinced that there is no God in the first place would have a problem with the idea of a God that created so much more than they think He strictly needed to. It's an Atheist argument for Atheists, Bet. I think the only thing it does prove conclusively is that we wouldn't have created it. So if you ever meet someone who believes men created the universe you've got a real winner.

Why would God create such a vast and at the same time minutely detailed universe? I may be able to come up with a few 20/20, crudely perceived purposes:
1. It certainly does inspire awe.
2. Isn't it great! Is anyone bored yet? No one? Boy that's kind of convenient...
3. I'm not so sure such a vast universe--that as far as we know holds no complex life--is incongruous when set up against the highly complex, inter-working creation that we see here on earth, which is certainly a fraction of what it was years ago (as a result of extinction, lumbering, pollution, etc...). On the scale of complexity is the earth really so small against the universe? (just a thought)
4. Proof that if there is a creator you're underestimating him.
5. To make the probability of a universe without a designer laughable.

[AlphaDoG]

Perhaps God created the universe to serve his people. What did people do before \"science?\" They \"used\" the stars to mark the seasons.

[Sergeant Thorne]

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

I've always imagined other worlds and civilizations beyond our reach. I also imagine worlds that are at the right distance from their sun, have blue skys, oceans, balmy temperatures, and beautiful foliage only to be devoid of any intelligent life. For what purpose would those planets that form, exist, and then burn out without anyone seeing them, serve the bible God. What reasoning would a God of the bible have for a universe so vast that humans can never visit anything. I know I'm rambling but looking at the big picture, the bible God makes no sense.

Just to make a point I'm going to condense this...

Look at the big picture, the Bible God makes no sense because I've always imagined...

[Duper]

Interesting question Foil. Inverse to Spidey, my answer would offend most non-Christians.

I'll let This stand as my answer for now.



(oh, and what Cuda said.)

[Jeff250]

Astrophysicists have a fairly solid understanding of how galaxies, stars, and planets evolve. Some people think that, even if biological evolution happened entirely naturally, then it would still somehow point to a creator. Well, I don't know about that. But we have entirely natural explanations for how galaxies, stars, and so on evolved too, right up to the big bang, so the existence of these things only point to a creator in this limited sense. (Why creationists don't also go vehemently after the chapters on galactic and stellar evolution in public school textbooks is beyond me...)

[Spaceboy]

I don't believe in a god, but the fact that anything even exists at all is an absolute miracle anyway, so who knows.

I can give you thoughts to play with, anyway;

Maybe god cant just spontaneously create animals, worlds, or stars the way people assume he can. Maybe it has to come through natural forces, making it so he'd have to manipulate energy to organize itself into the correct subatomic arrangements, to allow for the ideal circumstances for man to exist. Essentially making the universe a pretty thing to look at, and a by-product.

Maybe god is god to more species than just man, and he doesn't mention it for one reason or another. (One exception I know is in the Mormon Bible, where it says there are more worlds than there are grains of sand in the sea)

Andddd last, but should certainly be considered, maybe ancient superstitions that only have time as foundation do not exist.

[woodchip]

The problem with this line of thought is when we some day discover a alien race and then try to force them that their religious belief (if contrary) is wrong.

[Sedwick]

Maybe god cant just spontaneously create animals, worlds, or stars the way people assume he can. Maybe it has to come through natural forces, making it so he'd have to manipulate energy to organize itself into the correct subatomic arrangements, to allow for the ideal circumstances for man to exist. Essentially making the universe a pretty thing to look at, and a by-product.

He can, but when natural forces work so well, why should He have to? It's obvious He gave things a lot of thought, knowing it would end up as it has.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The problem with this line of thought is when we some day discover a alien race and then try to force them that their religious belief (if contrary) is wrong.

Yeah , that really is the problem.

That's almost as bad as:

Look at the big picture, the Bible God makes no sense because I've always imagined...

So how much of the reasoning around here relies on imagination-augmented reality? Maybe you folks should lay off the TV...

It's all very well to imagine, but when you start building on imagination you're out of touch with reality.

[Foil]

Ergh.

I should have known this would partly revert into another 'origins' debate.

---------------

Rather than re-hashing that topic, I'm going to re-re-phrase the original question:

If one assumes that God created the universe, why would He create more than humanity could ever visit or even observe? (e.g. Why dark matter?)

---------------

I also wanted to respond to the answer in here that particularly struck me:

why does an artist create art if not everyone will be able to view it???

Because he can.

God as artist, and not just pragmatic creator!!

I think that really echoes my own view, as I can't imagine God just quitting in the middle of creation. "Well, that's as far as those people on Earth could ever see, guess I'll just stop here", doesn't fit my understanding of God as infinitely artistic and creative.

So, those potentially beautiful planets and nebulas out there in galaxies millions of light-years away, far beyond what we can observe... why should their value be determined by humanity?

[flip]

A more accurate thread title:

The universe and the vastness of God.

[SilverFJ]

A god who is so infinite needs an infinite bedroom.

It's arrogant to assume that the vastness of the universe has anything to do with us.

Imagine being all powerful, wise, etc, and only having the Earth to worry over. It would be like Sim City with only one building to work on.

[Duper]

Actually FJ, I think that is what is relative to us. What's going on across the galaxy or universe is for God to know and handle; not us. We have enough trouble with out day to day lives individually and globally; much less anything that would involve a possible different civilization.

We are the center because that's our perspective. Whatever reality isn't relative at this point.

[Sergeant Thorne]

A god who is so infinite needs an infinite bedroom.

It's arrogant to assume that the vastness of the universe has anything to do with us.

Imagine being all powerful, wise, etc, and only having the Earth to worry over. It would be like Sim City with only one building to work on.

Sim City says there's life elsewhere in the universe? Got it.

People love to say it's arrogant, but it's not arrogance, it's Biblical. I have no vested interest in us being the only ones in the universe, but that seems to be what the Bible indicates and I consider it to be what it claims to be--the infallible word of God.

Also consider that thus-far there have been no indications of intelligent life, either from astronomical observation, or programs such as SETI. People have done studies on the many variables that have to be just right in order for complex life as we know it to exist in the universe. The probability of a planet capable of supporting complex life is extraordinarily small, according to the astrobiologists interviewed in The Privileged Planet (YouTube). (very conservative (ridiculously conservative, in my opinion) estimates put the probability at about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 according to these guys, when they made the film)

EDIT: Looking back over it I wonder if my sarcasm was misdirected. I guess maybe you weren't talking about life in the universe, FJ. If I misunderstood I apologize.

[Foil]

People love to say it's arrogant [to claim there is no other life in the universe], but it's not arrogance, it's Biblical.

The last time I heard that, it was followed by some very questionable interpretations of Biblical scripture.

Can you provide some details?

[Bet51987]

Just because we can't do something now, doesn't mean we won't be able to do it in the future. Thats for mathematicians, scientists, and engineers to figure out.

No information can travel faster than light in this universe so we are limited to where we can go.

Kind of a silly argument against God, because we can see them...

What did you mean by this?

---
And since you like little gems, thanks for leaving me this one. We atheists agree with you completely.

It's all very well to imagine, but when you start building on imagination you're out of touch with reality.

Also, isn't it easy to attach "God" to anything we don't know or cannot observe.

Bee

[Will Robinson]

....

If one assumes that God created the universe, why would He create more than humanity could ever visit or even observe?...

OK, I'll try my next thought since you asked again

Because he wanted to make sure he could keep us low lifes far away from the 'better' neighborhoods.

[flip]

One thing is for sure. If you believe in the biblical account, then there is no other creature made like man in the image God. There may be life elsewhere, who knows, but for sure if your a christian you can only believe that we are the only ones made to rule creation with God. As far as arguing with atheists I don't see that point. I say yes you say no. No profit to anyone there except for one to try and prove the other wrong so he can say he was right. Sounds like pride to me. Yet, if you are a christian, you have to believe that we are the only ones made in the image of God and therefore are the preeminent creation above all else and that all things whether natural or alien were made for us to rule over.

[VonVulcan]

You seem to always speak in absolutes Bee.
Even your above statement. I looked it up.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482

\"Since most physicists still believe that cause needs to precede effect,
we conclude that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.\"


This is a conclusion based on theory correct? Just because MOST physicists still believe this?
Who's to say what might be possible some day? Why is your mind so closed? Just wondering.

[Bet51987]

You seem to always speak in absolutes Bee.
Even your above statement. I looked it up.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482

"Since most physicists still believe that cause needs to precede effect,
we conclude that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light."


This is a conclusion based on theory correct? Just because MOST physicists still believe this?
Who's to say what might be possible some day? Why is your mind so closed? Just wondering.

I do don't I.. My mind is never closed on any subject. It's just parked next to each respected observation and stays there until another proven observation makes me move forward or backward to the newer location.

In space, for example, large distances between any two objects can increase faster than the speed of light even though the objects are not moving in their local environment. But, right now, based on the observations that have been made, no human can travel faster than c and that's what this thread is about.

We are just a product of an event that created a universe so vast that 99.9% of it can never be reached by a human being. And, I mean never, ever. Each second it moves away from us at ever increasing speeds and remains absolutely hostile to human life.
What is it's purpose pertaining to the bible God without attaching the standard archaic God stamp for every single thing we don't understand. Why is it so easy for Thorne to look at the bible and the universe and witness synergy while I see oil and water. Oh well....

Bee

[Sergeant Thorne]

Kind of a silly argument against God, because we can see them...

What did you mean by this?

Even though you and I can't see everything that's out there, astronomers have been able to see more and more, as tools and instruments advance. Now maybe there are parts of the universe that we just can't see... but then how do you know they're there.

And since you like little gems, thanks for leaving me this one. We atheists agree with you completely.

It's all very well to imagine, but when you start building on imagination you're out of touch with reality.

You're suggesting that I "build" on imagination with regard to my faith in God. I'm not going to say that I don't at all (I don't think I do), but the Bible is not imagination. The correlations between what the Bible says, about humanity, about times, and reality are not imagined (if you looked into it thoroughly enough you would know that). The Bible predicted that Isreal would be a nation again, for instance. Bible prophecy is a huge proof for the validity of the Bible. Inasmuch as any so called "Christianity" is based in imagination (and I think a lot of it is, in America), it is useless.

One of the biggest barriers on this BB, with regard to the topic of Christianity, is that Biblical Christianity is just about nothing like the "Christianity" any of you know. When you sit down and really read the Bible and understand it according to its meaning, in its entirety and not the meaning some religious leader or TV evangelist gives you... it's night and day. I guarantee it. I'm speaking from personal experience. So the point is while I've been arguing for Christianity in many ways, I have certainly not been arguing for the Christianity as I'm sure most if not all of you know it, which I'm sure is confusing, no matter how many times I try to point it out. It would almost be worth it not to even call myself a "Christian." And that's not a tactic to avoid receiving the criticism directed at "Christianity," it's just a very straight-forward statement of fact. I find myself wanting to argue against criticism leveled at "Christianity," only to see that many times it's indefensible because it's absolutely true due to the unbiblical nature of the Church doctrines. It's not truly a criticism of Christianity (true, Biblical Christianity), but of men in the church or doctrines of the church.

Also, isn't it easy to attach "God" to anything we don't know or cannot observe.

Kinda reminds me of, "Do you still beat your wife?"

I would have to say no. It isn't something that I find easy. I am not superstitious, and I've learned not to try to answer something without understanding it. I can wonder, but to give a definite answer for something I don't know would be dishonest.

[Will Robinson]

...

We are just a product of an event that created a universe so vast that 99.9% of it can never be reached by a human being. And, I mean never, ever. Each second it moves away from us at ever increasing speeds and remains absolutely hostile to human life....

Bee

And a few hundred generations from now when humans have mastered worm hole travel they could be hopping from one galaxy to the next at a pace that makes your absolute assertion seem like the same thing people told Orville and Wilbur Wright about 'man isn't meant to fly'.
Anything is possible unless you have tried every possible way to do it and failed. It's all about the spice...

[Canuck]

One thing is for sure. If you believe in the biblical account, then there is no other creature made like man in the image God. There may be life elsewhere, who knows, but for sure if your a christian you can only believe that we are the only ones made to rule creation with God. As far as arguing with atheists I don't see that point. I say yes you say no. No profit to anyone there except for one to try and prove the other wrong so he can say he was right. Sounds like pride to me. Yet, if you are a christian, you have to believe that we are the only ones made in the image of God and therefore are the preeminent creation above all else and that all things whether natural or alien were made for us to rule over.

Tell that to the next Galaxy over with a species totally alien in form to us, their own society and religion, and 1.5 million years more advanced in technology.

[flip]

You gotta stand somewhere Canuck. I myself don't spend much time trying to convince people about my beliefs in God. The bible plainly says that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them, and I totally agree with you on the point of one person trying to convict another. It plainly says in the Bible that's the job of the Holy Spirit. That your not to judge another mans servant ,to his master he stands or falls. I can only say why I believe in Jesus and that the prophecy's Thorne mentions gives it alot of credibility. We at best are gonna live about 100 years then it's over. I just have hope that because Jesus rose from the dead, that if I live after the same model he gave,(I'm failing miserably at the moment =/) I can share in that same resurrection. I know many unbelievers that are very moral and upright people so it's not good works that gains favor in God's eyes. We all do things we ourselves admit is wrong, so can 2 good works undo one bad that we did? One thing is for sure though. If God was not calling out to you, you would not be searching for answers.

That's why I addressed Christians with my post. As a christian you must believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and that he died once for all mankind. Doesn't make sense to me that he would have made other peoples and yet leave them to die without mercy or hope of salvation, so as a Christian its hard for me to believe that God made other peoples but has no regard for them.

[VonVulcan]

You gotta stand somewhere Canuck. I myself don't spend much time trying to convince people about my beliefs in God. The bible plainly says that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them, and I totally agree with you on the point of one person trying to convict another.

Did you mean convict or convince? I am no scholar of the bible and certainly have not read all of it but as I remember it, the bible says,"No one cometh onto the father but thru the son." And are not all Christians charged with the DUTY to go forth and bear witness? (if you meant convince.)

It plainly says in the Bible that's the job of the Holy Spirit. That your not to judge another mans servant ,to his master he stands or falls. I can only say why I believe in Jesus and that the prophecy's Thorne mentions gives it alot of credibility. We at best are gonna live about 100 years then it's over. I just have hope that because Jesus rose from the dead, that if I live after the same model he gave,(I'm failing miserably at the moment =/) I can share in that same resurrection. I know many unbelievers that are very moral and upright people so it's not good works that gains favor in God's eyes. We all do things we ourselves admit is wrong, so can 2 good works undo one bad that we did? One thing is for sure though. If God was not calling out to you, you would not be searching for answers.

EDIT:

Yes, "Judge not lest ye be judged"

Well said. Especially the "good works" part.

That's why I addressed Christians with my post. As a christian you must believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and that he died once for all mankind. Doesn't make sense to me that he would have made other peoples and yet leave them to die without mercy or hope of salvation, so as a Christian its hard for me to believe that God made other peoples but has no regard for them.

No argument here.

[flip]

You gotta stand somewhere Canuck. I myself don't spend much time trying to convince people about my beliefs in God. The bible plainly says that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them

Yes you are right we are commanded to tell others what we believe, but no one can even believe in God unless HE reveals HIMSELF to them. What I mean by not trying to convince others is this. You tell them what you believe, they disagree. At that point it's evident that they don't believe and that God has not yet revealed himself to them. It's better in my opinion that instead of keeping at that person and trying to make them see, to just get out of the way and let the Holy Spirit work further. You can plant seeds, but only God can make it grow.

12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Some of these people just are not prepared yet. Going after them relentlessly does harm more than good. I see That Jesus did that everywhere he went. When someone refused him, he just went on to the next.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Don't leave out 15

15 "Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

[flip]

Yes your correct Thorne. That is what Jesus was telling his disciples as he sent them out into the world. It's not milk though.

[Sergeant Thorne]

\"Milk\" is for believers.

Unless I misunderstood you I felt that your point was made in error if this verse was omitted. All we know about the cities that did not even receive them or hear their words is that they will be judged harshly, so I think if you're going to bother to go there that needs to be understood.

[flip]

I disagree. That verse was not pertinent to the question asked, and no milk is for babies. I debated whether to add that one or not and felt it was just a distraction. It all has to do with fishing and being skillful about it. The question was about convincing unbelievers about the existence of God not about his judgment of those who refuse. Again I wonder why you stress judgment over grace? It's true but then again we're not dealing with superstitious people these days, but rather those who are well educated. My goal is not to condemn those who don't believe, that is a given, but rather to edify.

[flip]

2 Timothy 2:14

Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'm not stressing anything, I personally wouldn't have brought it up at all, but if you're trying to say that the people in that city have been left for God to work in their hearts then you're on unscriptural grounds. It's not pertinent to the gospel, but then I don't see anyone preaching here anyway.

\"babes in Christ\" (1 Cor 3:1)

If you have a problem with discussing things that are not pertinent to the gospel in front of unbelievers, then don't do it.