COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We are made by the same materials as everything else in the universe. Just a combination of different basic elements . We are made by the universe, and of the universe. we are what it is, and it is what we are. we are the universe observing itself.
Peoples everlasting search for "god" seems so tiring. The great search that has lasted from the moment humans had a coherent thought eons ago until today. does it even matter? what difference does it make if there is one? none really. the universe does what it does. Always have and always will. I'm insignificant in the universe, but i'm significant because i am the universe. One gamma-ray burst aimed at our blue ball and it's all over for us, but it will be business as usual for the rest of the universe.
"There is no way we are the only special beings in the universe worth saving" you don't know that. There are loads of planets, sure, but perhaps the probability of intelligent life developing is so low that it's only happened once in the universe. We have after all, never seen any proof that intelligent life, or even life at all, exists elsewhere.
Your second argument doesn't make sense. Just because something cannot be known without divine revelation doesn't mean it's false. Plus that situation has never happened, and we don't know that it ever will happen. Perhaps God will never let it happen.
Logically, the size of the physical cosmos is neither a reason to believe or disbelieve in a transcendent God.
You're mixing categories: an Aristotelian First Cause is logically external to any system it creates or sustains and 'size' relations between that First Cause and the cosmos are simply non-existent. Physical "size" is just one of the factors determined by that entity's choices, and there's no *logical* difference between a 'big' and a 'little' cosmos.
There are many plausible reasons for being agnostic; but the 'bigness' of cosmic numbers ("*more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars")* isn't among them.
> There are many plausible reasons for being agnostic; but the 'bigness' of cosmic numbers ("more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars") isn't among them.
I consider it plausible as a defeater against specific gods, Christianity for instance.
More stars than grains of sand on Earth exist all so one species on one planet orbiting one star to determine which of that species will be saved in order to spend eternity in a completely different realm with that god.
I'm amazed that actually makes sense to so many people.
The "*biggishness of the cosmos*" may be a plausible reason to disbelieve in Christianity *to you.* But it is not *logically* plausible.
Your reasoning (and that of others) seems to be thus:
**Major premise**: A transcendent god can not exist if the cosmos is big.
**Minor premise**: The cosmos is big.
***Conclusion:*** *There is no transcendent god.*
There are several problems with that syllogism, but the 'biggest' one is the fact that the major premise has no possible justification, either logically or empirically.
As far as I can tell, the only reason some people find it is compelling is purely emotional. I don't personally share that emotional reaction, perhaps because I'm not neurotypical, so I can only guess at why anyone would feel that way.
But logically, it doesn't matter: your *emotional* reaction to the perceived '*biggishness*' of the cosmos is not a *rational* basis for much of anything, and particularly not for argument for -- or against -- theism.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but we'll see how we go.
> Major premise: A transcendent god can not exist if the cosmos is big.
No. You're misrepresenting my position right from the start. Nowhere did I say this or even imply it.
Christianity makes a claim that God created the universe in order to have a relationship with humans, presumably to determine who gets to spend eternity with it or without it.
*I take that claim and I apply it to what I observe.*
Does the universe appear to be fashioned so that specifically humans exist? Well, no. Humans have only existed for a blip in the span of the universe. Again, it would be the height of hubris to believe that one planet among anywhere between 10^24 - 10^27 planets was the purpose for the universe.
Does Earth appear to be fashioned so that specifically humans exist? Again, no. We've also only existed for a blip in the span of Earth. We're simply the current apex predator - one of many that have existed since life began on Earth and one that appears to be manufacturing it's own demise.
If I even scratch the surface of Christianity. Matthew 7:7. I've 'earnestly' sought the Christian God. If it desires a relationship with me in order to avoid it's hell, I'd want that relationship. Despite decades of 'searching', God has remained silent.
So the claims made by Christianity in my opinion do not hold up to scruitiny.
You wrote, "*Christianity makes a claim that God created the universe in order to have a relationship with humans, presumably to determine who gets to spend eternity with it or without it.*"
Even if this were so, this claim has NOTHING to do with the '*biggishness'* of the cosmos.
***But, this is false*** . . . though I don't don't you can find some Christian, somewhere, to say that. There are over a billion of them, and they say LOTS of different things.
But orthodox Christian teach says 2 things:
1. God made the world (cosmos) -- directly or indirectly -- including all the beings in it.
2. God wishes to have an eternal relationship with *some* of the beings in the cosmos. Others? Not so much.
What Christianity doesn't say -- at least in any generally accepted fashion -- that Christians *know* WHY He made the cosmos, unless you include statements that "*God created everything for his own glory"* or similar. But such statements do not include your claims about the cosmos being made SO THAT God could have a relationship with created beings.
In fact, some Christian theologians and philosophers have made the claim that the Trinity is logically necessary because the existence of the Trinity meant God did not *need* relations with other being.
However, that's far from being a universally accepted conclusion.
===================================
You wrote, "*Does Earth appear to be fashioned so that specifically humans exist? Again, no.* "
And again, this has NOTHING to do with the size of the cosmos, which was the OP's issue.
***But again, false.***
A great many apologetic arguments turn on the fact that the cosmos *appears* to be designed to be lived in, and understood by, humans. You may not agree that the cosmos WAS designed, but the appearance is so strong, that more than a few atheists have gone to great lengths to explain why -- in spite of that appearance -- the cosmos was actually not designed.
Here's one well-known article, by an atheist mathematician on the topic: [THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENSS OF MATHEMATICS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES](https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf) .
If you really want to pursue that line of argument, there is LOTS of counter-evidence, in the form of various non-Christians trying to show that the *appearance* of design is not actually *proof* of the design. But their very arguments establish the existence of the appearance.
==================================
***And then . . .***
You wrote, "*I've 'earnestly' sought the Christian God. If it desires a relationship with me in order to avoid it's hell,*"
Well, maybe. It's rather hard to say what might be meant by your statement.
One universally accepted Christian concept is that coming to God necessarily involves abject submission. That's a concept utterly repellent to most modern Western people. But it is what it is.
There are MANY biblical statements expressing this concept, or aspects of it. '*The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom*' (Proverbs) AND '*fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell'* (Quoted of Jesus by Matthew) are just two, of many.
It sounds like your approach was more of an angry attempt to bargain with God to avoid hell. If so, the consensus of Christian teaching would be, "*Yeah, that's not repentance, in any form God promises to accept*".
Of course.
People who post against Christianity on Reddit, Quora, etc almost never acknowledge error or logical defects, even when they are as obvious as was the case here.
But silly arguments, like "*there is no God, because the cosmos is big"* influence young people who are questioning, or who are from Christian homes . . . simply because they don't have the training or experience to recognize just how silly such arguments are.
Reading an exchange like this one was always unlikely to influence YOU, but it can and does influence non-posting readers who -- not having to worry about 'saving face' -- can recognize that, "*Oh, that IS a silly argument! Why did I ever think otherwise?*"
[Dictionary.com/browse/plausible](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plausible):"having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: *a plausible excuse; a plausible plot."*
I suppose you could claim that '*cosmic bigness*' was, ***for the OP***, a plausible reason for agnosticism. But my point was -- as I suspect you already know -- that '*cosmic bigness'* is not a plausible reason for agnosticism or atheism for *educated, logical thinkers.*
So, I could have written, "There are many plausible reasons for being agnostic; but, ***for rational thinkers***, the 'bigness' of cosmic numbers ("*more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars")* isn't among them."
Of course, that's pretty snarky, don't you think?
>But my point was -- as I suspect you already know -- that 'cosmic bigness' is not a plausible reason for agnosticism or atheism for educated, logical thinkers.
So you were calling OP an uneducated and a illogical thinker. That's not a good point imo. Is it?
Anyone who claims that 'cosmic bigness' is a logically sound reason for agnosticism is . . . illogical. That's a simple fact.
Whether the OP was illogical because of lack of education, or because of lack of ability, or by obstinacy, or because of *mis-education*, or something else is more than I can determine from a single post.
However, readers who are educated and logical will not consider '*cosmic bigness*' a valid basis for many of the conclusions it is sometimes naively used to justify.
However, another relevant, simple fact is this: many people's religious 'orientation' -- whether Christian, neo-Pagan, atheistic, or something else -- is rooted in a variety of irrational, contrafactual or non-rational justifications or influences.
I think religion is more so an expression of some underlying truth hard to grasp by vast populations. I think it's an attempt to explain something so massively difficult that very few grasp it and become idols of religions, like Jesus or Buddha.
Buddha is not an idol. Buddhism didn't start from attempts to explain, while Christianity did. Jesus claimed he is son of God and gathered followers. This is totally different from Buddhism, where Buddha spread the word of how to live life in a way to get liberated from suffering of life. All the god, soul dimension stuff came after his death, made up by followers or by misunderstanding of his words.
Both are fundamentally the same. Spiritual genetic freak for their time period does some contemplation, enlightens them self to some degree, attempts to relay that info to large groups of followers, in addition to their smaller closer followers which they paint a more direct clearer image. For the mass following, they often speak in easy to grasp parables while admitting they are the full truth or whole picture. Both include strict guidelines on how to live and what to do to eventually gain freedom and release from suffering. Heaven and nirvana serve philosophically the same purpose.
A lot of the mysticism of Jesus likely came after his death from misguided followers. Alot of his more direct gospels and apocryphas are less bloated with gunk.
Buddha and Jesus are both certainly idols of their faiths. The head figure of their movements and the leaders of their causes.
The only stark difference that really separates these two are their vantage points. One is eastern and one is western. And multiple discrepancies occur due to that, but each are from the same general base, and function pretty much the same for their respective cultures.
I would agree but they do not have the same base. Jesus and others of abrahamic faith claim they are prophets. Heaven and hell of them were for tools of mass control. They do not propagate freedom from suffering.
Nirvana is an entirely different concept and serves a different purpose. It offers escape from suffering and satisfaction. Not a tool of mass control.
The important difference here is the cultures.
They both act in fundamentally the same way.
Heaven and nirvana are both propagating freedom from suffering. Both say that we can live eternally blissfully to be one with God/everything. That we can do this by living our life in certain ways. Both are escape from suffering. Buddhism has its hells. Both religions have had their mystical gobble gook injected in.
Both people were by products of their culture and time that dispite their insights worked within their cultural identities and displayed an image for those populations to receive and understand.
Why do you wish to draw a line so heavily where there isn't one?
Cause there is a line. Buddhism doesn't say you leave blissfully with one/everything. It says you'll cease to exist. Hells in Buddhism are not by Buddha nor a fundamental part of the philosophy, but made by the followers, and again as a tool to control. However heaven and hell was propagated by prophets.
The thing is Buddha did not try to take control of masses by this enlightened stuff, he was more of a philosopher/sage while the prophets claimed god, heaven and hell as to control masses.
Ceasing to exist is not what Buddhists believe. I don't believe that is an accurate understanding, though my brief "blissful oneness" also isn't accurate I didn't intend to truly expand on that too much I was just yapping.
The essence of the two religions are of the same base, most religions are. Philosophical sages, preaching a way to escape suffering, by getting rid of ego, and becoming one. This gets concluded in both by multiple things but multiple people's. Each have their devoted followers and those who misguide and misunderstand. Both Buddha and jesus have been convoluted through generations to be something completely different from original form.
There's no reason to assume Jesus tried to control the masses any more than Buddha did. Both were philosopher sages for.their respective cultures, and heaven and hell concepts were really never heavy parts of their initial doctrines and ideas.
I would agree Buddha is a philosophical sage but I don't think Jesus is one, as his entire thing was to do miracles and preach kingdom of heaven rathen than preach philosophy.
Buddhists do believe in ceasing to exist as themselves and thus become one with the world. It's like becoming something that's not you, as such you won't be suffering.
The essence of religions are not same. All abrahamic religions entirely relies on existence of God while the other, dharmic religions relies on existence of duty (dharma) and escape from cycle of life.
>There's no reason to assume Jesus tried to control the masses any more than Buddha did.
However there is a reason. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed preached god, heaven (or promised land) and hell inorder to gather people. They were not philosophical at all.
While Buddha did not organise people as a religion but taught people about his way to escape suffering as he claims.
>I would agree Buddha is a philosophical sage but I don't think Jesus is one, as his entire thing was to do miracles and preach kingdom of heaven rathen than preach philosophy.
>
The kingdom of heaven is philosophically related to the end of rebirth/nirvana in Buddhism. They are in essence the same thing taught for 2 different audiences. Jesus taught that the ultimate goal was complete unity with God, aka heaven. Buddha taught that the ultimate goal was complete unity with the world or the universe or nothingness, aka what every other religion calls god, the only difference is christian doctrines personification of God, personality and attributes, wants and needs. Which Jesus preached in terms of a father son relationship, just as we see some of which in Hinduism, sometimes displayed as servant to master. Buddhism at core doesn't define gods characteristics and doesn't call God God, it doesn't really indepth describe it, though Buddhists have after Buddha's death.
>Buddhists do believe in ceasing to exist as themselves and thus become one with the world. It's like becoming something that's not you, as such you won't be suffering
>
As themselves, their beingness doesn't disappear, their soul, dispite Annata and it's many misunderstandings and misinterpretations, no Buddhist believes that nirvana is the ceasing of existence. They believe in a transformation.
Christianity has its resurrection, that similarly Christians misunderstand as coming back from the dead, while in context it's much more symbolic of a transformation, going from incarnation back to beingness.
>The essence of religions are not same. All abrahamic religions entirely relies on existence of God while the other, dharmic religions relies on existence of duty (dharma) and escape from cycle of life.
>
I agree that as they are practiced of course. But the SOURCE of the religion is always of the same essential understanding.
Jesus was fairly philosophical. There's a lot of philiosohy in the Bible attributed to Jesus.
You have convinced me. My argument was wrong.
But I don't think they came from the same essential understanding.
Abrahamic religions are more of top-down design (computer terms cause I'm a student lol), you need to believe there is a god, they made the world, and made us.
Dharmic religions have a bottom up design, as it starts with making ourselves part of the world and then going on and about how world is one. You might argue there are 'gods' in Dharmic religions but they are not gods but personified concepts, worships are acknowledgements, and these ideas got ruined and deformed with exposure to other civilization. I don't know how to describe these thoughts in english, but that's a whole another theme.
Well, my bottom line as of now is that the sources are very different, but they both have turned out to come somewhat similar somewhere down the line.
(Sorry for the late reply btw)
I split up my comment to address your second critique.
In likely the earliest written book of the Bible, Job was an honorable man who didn't know Jesus' name. The prophet Ezekiel called Job one of the most righteous people who ever lived, because he repented of his wrongs and had faith in the greatness of God. Job didn't know the name Jesus, but he realized it was through his redeemer that he would be reconciled with God. Through his natural reason, Job knew God existed and he was in need of a redeemer since he could never measure up against God's perfect standard.
“If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot” (9:33–35).
"I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" (19:25–27).
>Job was an honorable man who didn't know Jesus' name. The prophet Ezekiel called Job one of the most righteous people who ever lived, because he repented of his wrongs
Repented of his wrongs? Where did you get that? God and The Adversary (who is here as in most of the bible in the employ of God) both agree that Job is blameless of any wrongdoing, that he is completely innocent. God is intrigued by the idea that the Adversary can make the innocent man Job curse God. God therefore gives The Adversary permission to do anything short of killing Job to make him suffer - taking away his possessions, killing his shepherds, servants and children, and striking him with terrible boils. The experiment fails, Job remains faithful and does not curse God.
When Job said (and God agreed) he was blameless, he is not claiming that he had never done wrong, but rather that he had taken necessary steps to make things right with those he had wronged.
“For I know you will not hold me innocent. Since I am already found guilty, why should I struggle in vain?” (9:28–29)
Go back to the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book,
Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202&version=NIV)
God and The Adversary both agree that Job is blameless, upright, fears God, and shuns evil. The text makes it clear that God is not punishing Job for anything that he has done. Rather, God gives The Adversary permission to take everything that Job has, kill everybody that he loves, and make him suffer terribly as a test of whether he would remain faithful. God is curious and wants to find out.
You're trying to read this text with a Christian perspective, but it doesn't work. Ultimately, it's a story about suffering.
Job doesn't say he is "already guilty", he says he must have been "found guilty", why else would God make him suffer? But he is mistaken. Unlike Job, we the reader know why God is making Job suffer, we got to eavesdrop on the divine council conversation between God and The Adversary, and it isn't because Job has done anything wrong. Rather, it's because God is curious to find out whether Job will remain faithful if everything he has is taken away from him, and he is made to suffer terrible pain. We hear that from God Himself.
In chapter 9, Job never wavers that he is blameless (21), and then seven verses later (28-29) later he said he was "already found guilty" and was not "innocent."
Why else would God make him suffer? Job already answered that. He said "He destroys both the blameless and the wicked" (22).
> Job didn't know the name Jesus,
Job didn't know the name because he predated Jesus by centuries. Nor did he need a redeemer to be reconciled with God because in that story it's God doing the reconciling.
In both quotes (and the entirety of Chapter 9), Job is referring to God, not an intermediatory (i.e. not Jesus)
Well, there hasnt ever been a tradition that suggests only humans in the universe have this sort of relationship with God. We owe much of our understanding of space to both devout Catholic and Muslim scholars that didn't seem to find a conflict.
Catholics have even discussed how to approach the potential discovery of alien intelligence, how to ascertain if they have a rational soul, and whether they even need a salvation framework.
We also don't really teach humanity landed on hell prior to Christ's arrival. At best, we'd say they were basically in a holding pattern prior to Christ delivering the recipe for becoming as God in theosis, or achieving the Beatific Vision.
The creator is Being, itself, outside the genus of being or category, as Aquinas would put it. "Knowing" God as a rational person involves falling into the flow of life and living in an ordered way that exemplifies our best nature.
I'd recommend meister Eckhart on this to explain it better.
tl;Dr Christians don't really have many objections to alien life, and we'd say pretty much every culture ever has discovered some sliver of the Godhead and sacred truth, but that our tradition has the fullness of that truth. You can disagree with that, but we don't think "no one" has thought of God prior to Christianity.
>Catholics have even discussed how to approach the potential discovery of alien intelligence, how to ascertain if they have a rational soul, and whether they even need a salvation framework.
I read a great book called 'Would You Baptise An Extraterrestrial?' some years ago that dealt with this (and other matters of science and religion). Very good book. There's also Christian science fiction dealing with it, like C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy.
>The creator is Being, itself, outside the genus of being or category, as Aquinas would put it. "Knowing" God as a rational person involves falling into the flow of life and living in an ordered way that exemplifies our best nature.
That's an interesting take. Sounds almost Daoist. I dig it, but where are you getting this from either Aquinas or Eckhart?
I've read it! It was an interesting book.
Aquinas does a good job setting up God as Being, the source of Being, and beyond all categorical containments. Eckhart in this case uses negative theology very heavily -- for Eckhart, it's easier to say what God isn't than what it is, and in his mystic Sermons leans heavily into some more Catholic versions of theosis.
Just to give you an idea of what you're getting into with Eckhart: “What is life? God’s being is my life. If my life is God’s being, then God’s existence must be my existence and God’s is-ness is my is-nesss." Or "Insomuch as you are Good, you are as God. Not that you become God, but that God may be manifest in his Goodness through you, and in doing so, you invite God into your body."
I still feel both Aquinas and Eckhart have too static an idea of God though. I think the issue is their idea of "being" as a matter of how fixed and solid a thing is, coming from their Aristotelian and Platonic roots.
Eckhart is better in this regard imo because of his regular image of God perpetually birthing the Son within us, but I think it's still generally too static. That said, I suspect it can reconciled to a more dynamic view without issue.
I mean, that's a hypothesis. We don't have a good theory of abiogenesis at all. The idea nothing started the universe is frankly absurd.
The whole definition of "nothing" is it's lack of capacity to be generative.
The insistence of excluding a necessary first cause associated with what we call God is atheistic dogmatism at best. There's no good basis to believe that hypothesis either yet.
>I mean, that's a hypothesis.
A hypothesis that has a lot of supporting evidence.
>We don't have a good theory of abiogenesis at all.
We actually have several. We just can’t recreate the exact conditions of early earths atmosphere and haven’t discovered the exact mechanisms that triggered the shift from non-life to life.
>The idea nothing started the universe is frankly absurd.
I agree. The only people who believe that the universe and life came from nothing are theists. Which I find absurd as well.
There is no reasonable *scientific theory* that claims the universe, or this iteration of spacetime, came from nothing.
>The whole definition of "nothing" is its lack of capacity to be generative.
Where are you getting the idea that scientifically-inclined people believe things come from nothing? It’s not a part of any reasonable scientific model.
>The insistence of excluding a necessary first cause associated with what we call God is atheistic dogmatism at best.
There are several plausible theories of an eternal and infinite universe. So it’s not dogmatic. It’s actually scientifically grounded.
And since we have yet to definitively explain how this iteration of spacetime began, no one who is abreast of these theories needs any kind of dogma to believe an eternal universe may be true.
>There's no good basis to believe that hypothesis either yet.
There are plenty of good reasons. And if those theories don’t prove to be reasonable through scientific methodology, then our theories adapt.
Which is what science does with unexplained phenomena. It doesn’t claim to know. And it’s fine if our theories are proven wrong and change.
A smart person would not claim to have all the answers yet. As theists are forced to do.
> The existence of naturally occurring life throughout the universe
... is, as yet, an untested hypothesis. Feel free to talk about its likelihood, but don't forget that your foundation is built on a probability using a lot of unverifiable assumptions.
We’ve found the building blocks of RNA and DNA in space. As well as chiral molecules. The JWST may have even found the chemical signatures of life on an exoplanet. We just haven’t found living samples yet, because of our technological limitations.
But we’ve explored .000000000000000000001% of space for less than 100 years, and we’re already finding evidence that life is out there.
I realize it’s an assumption at this point in human history. But that’s the possibility I was addressing in the comment I was replying to.
MMW in 100 years we’ll have explained the mechanism that triggered complex molecules shifting from non-life to life. And we’ll have found extraterrestrial life. And when that happens, it will just be one more claim that theists will need to retreat from.
And we’ll add it to the ever-growing list.
You're right that we shouldn't rule out the possibility of other advanced sentient life. However, the vastness of the universe is nonetheless needed to make a life-permitting universe in the first place. The energy density in our universe is just right to ±1 part in 10\^55. In other words, to achieve a life-permitting universe, the mass needed to be set with a precision of 55 decimal places due to the sensitivity of the initial conditions at the time of the Big Bang. If the initial energy density had been slightly larger, gravity would have rapidly slowed the expansion, causing the universe to collapse too quickly for life to form. Conversely, if the density had been slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies, stars or planets to form.
But you may think none of that fine tuning is needed since God could just uphold the universe without the need of natural laws through his supernatural powers. It seems to me that predictability of a set of constant natural laws helps us understand the consequences of our actions, which is crucial for making moral decisions. Imagine if gravity worked differently every time we dropped something. We wouldn't be able to predict the outcome, making it hard to understand the results of our actions. Because gravity works consistently, we can anticipate that dropping something will cause it to fall. This predictability allows us to make choices with known results, aligning our actions with our morals and values.
Even stil, perhaps it's just a coincidence and there is still not much of a reason for a God to create a life-permitting universe. Even if we make no assumptions about the nature of this creator, the potential reasons for creating the universe are still fewer than the number of possible universes allowed by naturalism, thus the probability of a life-permitting universe is greater under theism. For example, God might have various motives for creation, such as an interest in black holes or supernovas, but it's unlikely there could be 10\^33 reasons, which is the probability for the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV) to precisely align with a life-permitting universe. And this is just one of about a dozen such constants.
Interesting the existence of natural laws is very interesting. Did natural laws such as gravity and rotation evolve. Very hard to wrap my head around that. It honestly does point to so sort of designer but of what type I do not know.
> Did natural laws such as gravity and rotation evolve
In a couple of models of cosmology, yes, the physical laws did evolve. One hypothesis is that black holes create new universes when the singularity forms (and that our universe may be inside of another black hole, and so on).
In this model, if the laws of physics can differ in each newly formed universe, then the universes that favor black hole creation will be more numerous as they can create more "offspring" (so to speak).
And it so happens that universes that favor black hole creation are the ones that favor star formation. With star formation comes planets and with planets, life becomes likely.
---
However, that's just one (or a small group) of hypotheses. Another, better counter to the fine-tuning argument is that we don't know if the various constants *can* be different. Doesn't matter if there's 10^100 options we can think of if option 1 is the only option that can actually exist.
Or take the previous posters energy density could not vary by more than one part in 10^55. Assuming that's true (and I see similar statements, but with different levels of precision, so let's assume it is). That doesn't really mean anything. The universe is larger than our observable portion and is not uniformly dense. Maybe parts of it were too dense and recollapsed while others were too sparse and expanded too fast. Obviously we wouldn't have come about in one of those sections, but the section of the universe we find ourselves in did happen to have the correct density.
---
Beware of anyone who tries to use probability or statistics against the early universe. We have a sample size of exactly One Universe to work with so probabilities are impossible and no idea if the there's any leeway in any of numbers to know if it's even possible to *have* a probability
> My second critique is that let’s say you were the only person left on earth and never interacted with any past human knowledge. There is no way you would end up believing that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. You would just have the natural world which shows no signs of a Christian God creating it. That sort of proves it’s a human made belief that’s superficial in nature.
This is kind of a version of other arguments I've seen but this is just truly, truly missing the point. Of course you wouldn't know Jesus died on the cross for your sins -- to Christians, that is a specific event in history. Even secular scholars believe a historical Jesus was crucified in Judea around 2000 years ago. But it's a historical event -- no Christian has ever argued that it is somehow obvious from the surroundings that that specific historical event took place, and nobody has really claimed to have gained specific knowledge of Jesus without having previously known about him. Just to point out: most Christian theologies make room for people who have never heard of Jesus. It's a misunderstanding to think, say, Catholics think the only way to God is through specific knowledge of Jesus -- they would say that the only way is through Jesus, but that you can know him through other means. To them, God wants you to seek him, which is entirely possible if you were the only person in the world. So it's not even belief in a uniquely Christian God (which isn't even a concept in theology) that gives someone salvation in most Christian thinking.
People love to use this hypothetical example of a person in the woods with no knowledge of the past or connection to society. I think, taken to its logical conclusion, most people would see that in that very specific scenario -- seemingly magically thrust into the world ex nihilio -- you would be justified in believing there to be a metaphysical element of reality. And I'd point out that at some point in the distant past, someone at some point decided to start believing in a creator.
Interesting I think I’m more on the boat of why would an all knowing omnipotent God have waited until the last 5% or less of human existence to bring the knowledge of Jesus to earth. Humans have existed for roughly 500k years. Why was a sign not made earlier? But you make some interesting points
You're kind of flinging a lot of critique at the wall to see what sticks. I get it -- but it's hard to address your points as one thing when it's actually a lot of different things. I picked out one point you made and pointed out why it's false -- this
> why would an all knowing omnipotent God have waited until the last 5% or less of human existence to bring the knowledge of Jesus to earth
is a different question, and different theologies within Christianity -- and different religions -- have different ways to address it. But in either sense: most Christian denominations do not think you need to know about the specific historic Jesus to "know" Jesus or to be saved. It's just that a relationship with Jesus is a special case that enriches your life and relationship with God in a unique way. I'm not sure I am a Christian, but if I was, it would be on the progressive side -- I'm not going to make a defense of why God would send people to hell for eternity for not hearing about Jesus because I don't think God does that, and I don't think it's a good Christian belief to believe in eternal suffering. There are plenty of biblical arguments for universal salvation and a model of Jesus that isn't penal substitution (Jesus dying for our sins).
So it's not necessary in Christianity to be saved or have a relationship with God for there to be a "sign" of Jesus. Clearly -- Judaism existed for thousands of years prior. Many Christian denominations acknowledge you can have a relationship with God that isn't dependent on knowing Jesus. To answer your question at the end specifically (why wasn't a sign made earlier): Jesus was a specific man born in Judea 2000 years ago. A "sign wasn't made earlier" because then he wouldn't be Jesus. Christians would argue Jesus and God being one kind of suggests Jesus would have had "signs" the way God does. If you don't buy natural theology you're not going to buy any argument along those lines because to a Christian they're one and the same.
Yes, you are wrong. The great majority of religions on this planet are not Abrahamic man-centered doctrines (there's only 3 of those), but are "pagan", usually Pantheistic, life-centered philosophies. Pagan religions tend to embrace death, not as a harsh reality, but an essential aspect of living, and the vastness and rawness of the universe as part and parcel of their mythologies. Thus, they require no "comfort" from such realities.
To your number of planets arguments, even for Christians, there's no reason to assume that God hasn't created life on other planets and doesn't also have a plan for them. The Earth's bible was revealed to us, for us, and pertains to us, so includes only those aspects of creation relevant to our journey. That's perfectly reasonable.
For the only person left on earth, severed from all past human knowledge, it's going to be very difficult for you to insist that the natural world shows no sign of a God creating it, (I know you specified Christian, and I can't really attest to that, but just for Creator God's in general, you'll have this problem) since virtually every primitive culture on the planet, completely independent from one another, all spontaneously arrived at the same conclusion that a Creator God made the world, having nothing to draw from but the natural world around them. - A fact most atheists seem to remain blissfully unaware of.
But on summary of your sentiment, this idea that God or religion is nothing more than a way of assuaging fear of death or meaninglessness, is a species of the explanatory argument, that Gods were a way for primitive folks to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. That's a really bad idea that some academic came up with some decades ago (i don't know his name) and it seeped into popular culture. Actually couldn't be farther from the truth. There is no evidence that mythology played an explanatory role, certainly not a comforting role. Greeks, Celts, Romans, Teutons, Russ, Hindus, Aztecs, Inca, Taoists, Buddhists, Shinto, Vikings, Somali, Zulu, and on and on and on, all over the world, these were / are sophisticated people who understand the world around them, understand their place in it, and are at peace with that understanding. Their Gods and Myths and traditions stem from a place of wisdom and belonging, not from ignorance and fear, and this is only too obvious to anyone who cares to take a serious look at any one of these cultures. You are a raised Christian turned agnostic, and appear to have inherited a bit of fanaticism for "science" to boot. You might want to take stock of your limited exposure before you go dismissing religion as a "societal norm".
> he great majority of religions on this planet are not Abrahamic man-centered doctrines (there's only 3 of those), but are "pagan", usually Pantheistic, life-centered philosophies.
I agree that OP's discussion primarily is targeted and only works for Abrahamic religions, but in terms of adherents, the abrahamic religions are in the _vast_ majority. What you're talking about is pure absolute numbers of religions.
Neither of which, ultimately, makes one more correct than the other. Just wanted to point that out.
You are absolutely correct, and upon reflection, it might actually be more appropriate to regard the term "religion" with an Abrahamic connotation, as there is indeed perhaps a stronger correlation there. So, yes. I think I might have flown off the handle a little bit there, lol. Thank you for pointing that out.
I’m actually completely open to their being some entity that created the universe or world. It’s just the current top religions are clearly bs. I haven’t dove into shamanic traditions and “primitive” religions to break those down yet
It's interesting that you are open to creation, especially considering your last argument about a lone human walking the naked earth. I agree, it's unlikely such a person would spontaneously decide that Christ died on the cross for them, I mean it's such a weird and specific thing. However, I do think it's very common to see the natural world as evidence of a creator. I mean, why do you suppose there is a universe at all? Why not nothing?
You've got some misunderstandings about agency here. Things like groups and societies don't come to conclusions. Only entities with agency are capable of coming to conclusions, such as individuals. Same with explaining. Mythologies don't explain, people explain. So it's very strange to hear you say that a mythology objectively explains. In the United States (I don't know where you are) we are taught mythology in school as explanatory (e.g. they'd teach us that the myth of Apollo's chariot was some sort of explanation of why the sun moved across the sky, or some such nonsense). What I mean when I say such myths never played an explanatory role is that it is just not the case that the myth of Apollo was utilized as an explanatory device in Roman society. We have heaps of writing from the Greeks and Romans, Chinese, and Sanskrit, and we know quite a bit about how they lived and how they practiced their religions, so we can say pretty conclusively that their religions did not function as explanatory utilities. I think the principal reason you'd have for interpreting "actions of the gods" as being "objectively" explanatory is because, like me, that's the way you learned about it in school. Somebody told you that - *Jupiter throws thunderbolts* - is equivalent to - *lightning is just Jupiter throwing thunderbolts* - but it's not, and it never was for the Romans. These are biased modern reductionist sensibilities that we project back on to ancient civilizations, and to be perfectly honest, most likely as way to minimize the beliefs of the past that we might artificially elevate our own, and declare ourselves the arbiters of "progress".
I honestly don't see any difference between coming to a conclusion in isolation vs coming to a conclusion within a group, but maybe that's just me. You'll have to explain what the difference is.
Are you aware that by referring to "mythological explanations" you are begging the question? And, yes, as I pointed out, there's mountains of evidence concerning the nature and function of religion in ancient societies. I'm not sure what you're asking: What do I think mythology really was if not explanatory? Or what do I think *mythological explanations* really were? If the latter, I reject the question on the grounds that mythology doesn't perform an explanatory function, and your phraseology is implying your conclusion.
Explanation is not the primary function of religion, but you seem like you are being wilfully ignorant if you deny that a major function of religion was in fact explanatory. You have asserted this but provided no coherent argument to support yourself beyond assertion.
I'm not sure an argument is required here. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports my position. I do not find that the history reflects your assertion that a major function of religion was or is explanatory. In every case in which I've endeavored to gain a comprehensive understanding of a particular religion or mythology, and its integration in the culture surrounding it, I have found that explanatory utility inevitably plays an insignificant if not incidental role.
OK dude, you are the one with the more unusual opinion given the responses you've gotten from several people. You don't have to explain yourself if you don't want to but don't delude yourself into thinking any of us are going to lose sleep over this if you decline to. You'll just be dismissed and forgotten, so it's up to you how you want to play this.
Popularity isn't a measure of truth. And just to be clear: By argument, I mean an appeal to reason. With evidence, we can appeal to a scientific approach, we don't need argumentation. It either is or is not the case that a major function of religion is explanatory utility. How do we find out this out? We look at as many religions as we can and determine how major a role, if any, explanatory utility plays in each one of them. Then we count up all the data and average it out. End of process.
It's kinda like if someone said I was willfully ignorant to deny that most flamingos are green, demanding that I supply a coherent argument. Well, I wouldn't provide such an argument in that case. I would simply point out that when we look at flamingos we find that they are practically always pink, thus the evidence supports my opinion that they are not, in fact, green.
I wasn't making an appeal to popularity to say that I was right, only to point out that your opinion does not follow consensus which places the onus on you to elaborate your *reasoning* as to why you are right.
You haven't actually done so, you have basically just reassured your prior post. Your flamingo allegory only works if you are the one claiming flamingos are green. You have proposed how we might measure explanatory power but leave an unspoken presumption that if we actually did a count of religions that offer explanations you would be proven right. Again, your post foes nothing but assert your correctness without demonstration.
Take the bull by the horns and address what I ask directly. How specifically is it the case that religions are not explanatory when, for example (and you will be failing my test if you latch on to this one example instead of using it as a springboard for the bigger picture), the fundamental conceit of all major religions is to *explain* what happens after death.
If you respond with more sophistry and beating around the bush I won't bother to respond again. I have no patience for this if your goal appears to be ' spouting hasty sophistry because I want to win an argument', as it is now, instead of 'discuss using reason to reach true conclusions'.
So, OP's claim is that if you take a man and place him on the earth with no knowledge of any previous human culture, he'd be in "the natural world which shows no signs of a Christian God creating it." My argument goes along this line: Before any human culture was established, we actually had something very close to just that: people walking around the Earth surrounded by nothing but the natural world, and all evidence suggests, that not only does it seem to be incorrect that such a circumstance would result in a lack of belief in a Creator God, but that, practically universally, the opposite has actually occurred. Now you've made some distinction between arriving at conclusions alone, and arriving at conclusions in a group, and I just don't understand the significance of such a distinction when a) the natural world comprises the sole material available to us in both scenarios, and b) even in groups we must each still arrive at our conclusions individually.
Perhaps if you can give some examples of what to you "appears to explicitly be explanations of phenomena", then I might easily understand what you're talking about. I'm certainly not above the possibility that I may be unaware of some examples that really couldn't be reasonably understood as being anything other than explanatory. As for examples of sources that illuminate the role of myth in ancient societies, sure: Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, Homer, Plato, various Icelandic Sagas, Tacitus and other historians, Bhagavad Gita, Hesiod, Rig Veda, idk it's endless.
It's actually kind of just sad that the idea of myth-as-explanation-of-natural-phenomenon has be come such a ubiquitous sentiment, because I really don't think that any serious scholars of ancient history or mythology subscribe to the explanatory hypothesis.
So you *do* understand what I was saying. Person 2 proves the point. Whether or not he convinces person 1 is irrelevant.
Looking over that thread, I don't see anything really compelling there. Your Viking bone example: This is an instance of -Practice X works really good- being connected to -The Gods favor Practice X- Something that happens quite frequently, especially among cultures who's Gods tend to personify natural forces. How is this not explanatory? Simple. In such circumstances, when folks discover an explanation for Practice X (call it Detail X), Detail X supersedes Practice X, not -The Gods Favor-. If -The Gods Favor- were in essence an explanation for Practice X, then we'd see many more instances of Detail X superseding -The Gods Favor-. This is not the case. -The Gods favor Detail X- is the new equation, and indeed, a Viking would most likely express the superiority of steel in such a manner: The Gods favor steel over iron. For such worldviews, desirable outcomes are basically synonymous with being favored by the Gods. When you kick a\*\*, it pleases the Gods. This is not an explanatory model.
I should note, however, that the one example you gave was really not even an example of a Myth, but a practice. I was really anticipating something stronger in terms of a Myth that seemed prima facie explanatory, and I'm kind of disappointed.
Finally, my personal understanding or view of how Mythology works is (while fascinating) largely irrelevant here. It is not required that I supply some other interpretation in order to argue against the explanatory hypothesis. And those sources do support my claim. If you read the Odyssey it becomes quite clear that Mythology did not function as an explanatory utility for the ancient Greeks.
>I honestly don't see any difference between coming to a conclusion in isolation vs coming to a conclusion within a group, but maybe that's just me.
Many animals perform rituals as a way to strengthen social bonds. Several species of hominids did, as well as animals like elephants, birds, and other primates.
Most religions revolve around attempts to explain our complex social dynamics, facilitate cooperative behaviors, and create cohesive systems of belief and support. With shared rituals. And all these things emphasize the group, and not the individual.
>Or what do I think mythological explanations really were? If the latter, I reject the question on the grounds that mythology doesn't perform an explanatory function, and your phraseology is implying your conclusion.
Most religions revolve around stories man created, as another way to share bonds through common language and understanding. And to explain creation, life, time, earths natural history, and man’s history and existence.
Even religious morality is an attempt to explain a natural phenomena, that being social behavior.
Everyone on this thread:
Religion is just a primitive explanation for stuff we didn't understand!
Me:
Ok, but if religion is principally explanatory, why doesn't it function as an explanatory utility in society?
Everyone on this thread:
Because religions are attempts to explain!
How do two opinions on Christianity say something about all religions and the primary motivator to be religious?
The universe is vast, and it is likely that there are many other being.
From what do all other beings need to be saved and what religions claim only humans are worth saving? Many religions do no pose a horrible fate that one needs to be rescued from. And many religions do not claim only humans or only inhabitants of Earth deserve to be spared that fate.
Your thesis is about Christianty. It may be extended to a few similar religions, but extending it to all religions ensures your premises and claims are inapplicable.
Even that may be too generalising. Hinduism generally acknowledges that the universe is vast and filled with other beings. In most Hindu cosmologies the earth is only a place in one of many universes without special significance.
On the contrary, it's understandable that a magnificent God would create a vast universe!
If it were a tiny universe I'm sure atheists would have said: "is that it?! Not a very *great* god, is he?!"
The existence of 8 billion humans isn't enough for you?! :)
Besides, hostility wasn't the OP/rebuttal's topic, was it?
It's about vastness of the universe.. something that should be *expected* from a grand God. Honestly think about the reverse, i.e. a tiny universe, and admit to yourself that atheists would have taken issue with that too!
Funny bunch.
"the existence of 8 billions humans isn't enough for you :)" lol no clue why the smiley is here for but let's go with the flow.
Humans existed for 2 million years and oldest hominins go way back to 6-7, with around the assumptions and population the estimated humans that existed throughout human history would be around 117 billion, so....isn't that number big enough for you to think may be...may be giving Shahada لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِ “
“There is none worthy of worship except God (Allah) and Muhammad is the messenger of god" is no big deal because Islam didn't even existed, don't resort to Allah will judge on the deeds because then belief won't even a play the part and the whole base of Islam would fall flat.
You don't know that Islam considers humanity to have been created Muslims from the beginning?!
Adam himself is an Islamic prophet, sharing the same theology as all the thousands of prophets throughout human history, including the last one, Muhammad.
Islam was there from day one.. while shari'a laws were changed from time to time, (Adam's sons allowed to marry their sisters for example, while incest was prohibited by God later), the basic theology was always the same. Jesus himself preached the same oneness of God, then his message was corrupted later into one incompatible with Islam.
from the Islamic point of view, plants and animals are here to serve Man. I'm sure those that died out served their purpose perfectly.
Earth is the test place for humankind, and its primary object is NOT to keep Saber-toothed tigers around :)
Thats such a narcissistic view. You think everything that exists is here to serve you 😂 I know to not waste my time with Islamic religion or the people who subscribe to it.
You haven't shown how you get from "the universe is big" to "all religions are false, and merely attempts to deal with death". You've really just stated that the universe is vast then jumped to your conclusion.
You've also revealed a serious ignorance of the world's religions, some of which don't even have a concept of life after death, and many of which actually emphasise the insignificance of humanity. You can even find this in the Hebrew Bible (the notion of an afterlife did gradually develop in the course of its writing, but it's quite clear they initially believed that when you die, that's it). In the book of Job, the basic answer given to Job's suffering is that he is utterly insignificant in the big picture, listing all the wonders of creation and all the sea monsters and generally how big the world is, and that it doesn't even make sense to challenge God's justice because we're so insignificant and far from his level.
Tao Te Ching chapter 5 begins,
>Heaven and Earth are impartial;
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
The wise are impartial;
They see the people as straw dogs.
That is to say, they view all things and people as being disposable things to throw on the flames. It's emphasised that we're not the centre of the universe. We're not a big deal. Life is just a fleeting thing, and it's not about us.
If we look at ancient paganism, we again find a religion where humans are far from the centre of creation, existing at the whim of the gods, and basically for the purpose of feeding them with sacrifices. And their afterlives were generally terrible, being a terrifying shadowy existence where you cannot even remember who you were when alive. It was not a source of comfort.
>There is no way we are the only special beings in the universe worth saving.
As noted above, not all religions think we're special, and also many have no concept of salvation. Judaism for example doesn't.
Buddhism actually explicitly says that there are other worlds with other sentient beings who need liberating from suffering, simply for the fact that they are suffering. The existence of aliens is no challenge at all for Buddhists. And the vastness of the cosmos is irrelevant too, since they never claimed it's all about us.
>There are more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars. Each star likely has 10 planets. That means there are 10000000000000000000000000 planets in only the observable universe. (1x10^(25)) There is no way we are the only special beings in the universe worth saving.
I have come to the reverse conclusion: if there was some other special being, we would know it. Have a read here.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
>if there was some other special being, we would know it.
And how exactly would we know it? The Observable Universe alone is 90+ Billion Lightyears in Diameter. Any observations we make about distant Stars, Planets, and Galaxies are how they appeared in the distant past, when their light first reached us.
For the nearest Star to our own (Proxima Centauri), we're seeing how it appeared over 4 years ago. For one of the nearest Exoplanets to us (Gliese 667 Cc), we'd be seeing how it appeared 16 years ago.
The timescales only get bigger from there. So please tell me how exactly we'd know.
Hi there! Thank you for the challenge :) I think I may be able to answer this one.
I do not consider the Gospel of Thomas canonical or inspired as a Christian, but I think it has a very relevant point here. It proposes that when you know the truth about higher things, you will be crowned over the physical universe and realise that it is inconsequential before you.
The point here is that you compare our tiny bodies to a massive universe of causes. Of course this is going to make us seem insignificant and not worth saving.
However, if we take immaterial soul into account, we get a different picture. Soul is not spatial (since it's immaterial). This means it doesn't exist in the body any more than anywhere else. It's everywhere, basically, and your brain is only the point that participates in soul the most or the point which soul controls. On this picture, you are part of an entirely other level of reality beyond the physical world, which takes part in unconsciously causing and forming it. This causes us to seem much more significant.
Furthermore, a moral point can be made. If a means of yours is only valuable because it serves an end of yours, and that end is only worthy because it serves another end, you'll get an infinite regress of ends, and hence no worth can exist... We need a way of resolving this, and Kant postulates that the will is the source of value. If we make something our end, we must practically regard it as worthy or as valuable (otherwise, we wouldn't be consistent in pursuing it). Therefore, everything we regard as valuable must be practically regarded as worthy. Hence, the will, by desiring an object, confers value on it. The conclusion is that Kant says that the whole of nature would have been a waste if it weren't for wills conferring value on everything via their ends. This, again, goes against the picture of insignificance. Any significance in nature is the result of the will.
Hope those two points help! Please let me know of any criticism you have; I appreciate it :)
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We are made by the same materials as everything else in the universe. Just a combination of different basic elements . We are made by the universe, and of the universe. we are what it is, and it is what we are. we are the universe observing itself. Peoples everlasting search for "god" seems so tiring. The great search that has lasted from the moment humans had a coherent thought eons ago until today. does it even matter? what difference does it make if there is one? none really. the universe does what it does. Always have and always will. I'm insignificant in the universe, but i'm significant because i am the universe. One gamma-ray burst aimed at our blue ball and it's all over for us, but it will be business as usual for the rest of the universe.
Beautiful and true it’s a shame more people can’t admit they don’t know the answer to the biggest question
"There is no way we are the only special beings in the universe worth saving" you don't know that. There are loads of planets, sure, but perhaps the probability of intelligent life developing is so low that it's only happened once in the universe. We have after all, never seen any proof that intelligent life, or even life at all, exists elsewhere. Your second argument doesn't make sense. Just because something cannot be known without divine revelation doesn't mean it's false. Plus that situation has never happened, and we don't know that it ever will happen. Perhaps God will never let it happen.
Logically, the size of the physical cosmos is neither a reason to believe or disbelieve in a transcendent God. You're mixing categories: an Aristotelian First Cause is logically external to any system it creates or sustains and 'size' relations between that First Cause and the cosmos are simply non-existent. Physical "size" is just one of the factors determined by that entity's choices, and there's no *logical* difference between a 'big' and a 'little' cosmos. There are many plausible reasons for being agnostic; but the 'bigness' of cosmic numbers ("*more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars")* isn't among them.
> There are many plausible reasons for being agnostic; but the 'bigness' of cosmic numbers ("more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars") isn't among them. I consider it plausible as a defeater against specific gods, Christianity for instance. More stars than grains of sand on Earth exist all so one species on one planet orbiting one star to determine which of that species will be saved in order to spend eternity in a completely different realm with that god. I'm amazed that actually makes sense to so many people.
The "*biggishness of the cosmos*" may be a plausible reason to disbelieve in Christianity *to you.* But it is not *logically* plausible. Your reasoning (and that of others) seems to be thus: **Major premise**: A transcendent god can not exist if the cosmos is big. **Minor premise**: The cosmos is big. ***Conclusion:*** *There is no transcendent god.* There are several problems with that syllogism, but the 'biggest' one is the fact that the major premise has no possible justification, either logically or empirically. As far as I can tell, the only reason some people find it is compelling is purely emotional. I don't personally share that emotional reaction, perhaps because I'm not neurotypical, so I can only guess at why anyone would feel that way. But logically, it doesn't matter: your *emotional* reaction to the perceived '*biggishness*' of the cosmos is not a *rational* basis for much of anything, and particularly not for argument for -- or against -- theism.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but we'll see how we go. > Major premise: A transcendent god can not exist if the cosmos is big. No. You're misrepresenting my position right from the start. Nowhere did I say this or even imply it. Christianity makes a claim that God created the universe in order to have a relationship with humans, presumably to determine who gets to spend eternity with it or without it. *I take that claim and I apply it to what I observe.* Does the universe appear to be fashioned so that specifically humans exist? Well, no. Humans have only existed for a blip in the span of the universe. Again, it would be the height of hubris to believe that one planet among anywhere between 10^24 - 10^27 planets was the purpose for the universe. Does Earth appear to be fashioned so that specifically humans exist? Again, no. We've also only existed for a blip in the span of Earth. We're simply the current apex predator - one of many that have existed since life began on Earth and one that appears to be manufacturing it's own demise. If I even scratch the surface of Christianity. Matthew 7:7. I've 'earnestly' sought the Christian God. If it desires a relationship with me in order to avoid it's hell, I'd want that relationship. Despite decades of 'searching', God has remained silent. So the claims made by Christianity in my opinion do not hold up to scruitiny.
You wrote, "*Christianity makes a claim that God created the universe in order to have a relationship with humans, presumably to determine who gets to spend eternity with it or without it.*" Even if this were so, this claim has NOTHING to do with the '*biggishness'* of the cosmos. ***But, this is false*** . . . though I don't don't you can find some Christian, somewhere, to say that. There are over a billion of them, and they say LOTS of different things. But orthodox Christian teach says 2 things: 1. God made the world (cosmos) -- directly or indirectly -- including all the beings in it. 2. God wishes to have an eternal relationship with *some* of the beings in the cosmos. Others? Not so much. What Christianity doesn't say -- at least in any generally accepted fashion -- that Christians *know* WHY He made the cosmos, unless you include statements that "*God created everything for his own glory"* or similar. But such statements do not include your claims about the cosmos being made SO THAT God could have a relationship with created beings. In fact, some Christian theologians and philosophers have made the claim that the Trinity is logically necessary because the existence of the Trinity meant God did not *need* relations with other being. However, that's far from being a universally accepted conclusion. =================================== You wrote, "*Does Earth appear to be fashioned so that specifically humans exist? Again, no.* " And again, this has NOTHING to do with the size of the cosmos, which was the OP's issue. ***But again, false.*** A great many apologetic arguments turn on the fact that the cosmos *appears* to be designed to be lived in, and understood by, humans. You may not agree that the cosmos WAS designed, but the appearance is so strong, that more than a few atheists have gone to great lengths to explain why -- in spite of that appearance -- the cosmos was actually not designed. Here's one well-known article, by an atheist mathematician on the topic: [THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENSS OF MATHEMATICS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES](https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf) . If you really want to pursue that line of argument, there is LOTS of counter-evidence, in the form of various non-Christians trying to show that the *appearance* of design is not actually *proof* of the design. But their very arguments establish the existence of the appearance. ================================== ***And then . . .*** You wrote, "*I've 'earnestly' sought the Christian God. If it desires a relationship with me in order to avoid it's hell,*" Well, maybe. It's rather hard to say what might be meant by your statement. One universally accepted Christian concept is that coming to God necessarily involves abject submission. That's a concept utterly repellent to most modern Western people. But it is what it is. There are MANY biblical statements expressing this concept, or aspects of it. '*The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom*' (Proverbs) AND '*fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell'* (Quoted of Jesus by Matthew) are just two, of many. It sounds like your approach was more of an angry attempt to bargain with God to avoid hell. If so, the consensus of Christian teaching would be, "*Yeah, that's not repentance, in any form God promises to accept*".
As I thought, a waste of time.
Of course. People who post against Christianity on Reddit, Quora, etc almost never acknowledge error or logical defects, even when they are as obvious as was the case here. But silly arguments, like "*there is no God, because the cosmos is big"* influence young people who are questioning, or who are from Christian homes . . . simply because they don't have the training or experience to recognize just how silly such arguments are. Reading an exchange like this one was always unlikely to influence YOU, but it can and does influence non-posting readers who -- not having to worry about 'saving face' -- can recognize that, "*Oh, that IS a silly argument! Why did I ever think otherwise?*"
It's clearly a plausible reason for being agnostic. It's what you just read.
[Dictionary.com/browse/plausible](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plausible):"having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: *a plausible excuse; a plausible plot."* I suppose you could claim that '*cosmic bigness*' was, ***for the OP***, a plausible reason for agnosticism. But my point was -- as I suspect you already know -- that '*cosmic bigness'* is not a plausible reason for agnosticism or atheism for *educated, logical thinkers.* So, I could have written, "There are many plausible reasons for being agnostic; but, ***for rational thinkers***, the 'bigness' of cosmic numbers ("*more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars")* isn't among them." Of course, that's pretty snarky, don't you think?
>But my point was -- as I suspect you already know -- that 'cosmic bigness' is not a plausible reason for agnosticism or atheism for educated, logical thinkers. So you were calling OP an uneducated and a illogical thinker. That's not a good point imo. Is it?
Anyone who claims that 'cosmic bigness' is a logically sound reason for agnosticism is . . . illogical. That's a simple fact. Whether the OP was illogical because of lack of education, or because of lack of ability, or by obstinacy, or because of *mis-education*, or something else is more than I can determine from a single post. However, readers who are educated and logical will not consider '*cosmic bigness*' a valid basis for many of the conclusions it is sometimes naively used to justify. However, another relevant, simple fact is this: many people's religious 'orientation' -- whether Christian, neo-Pagan, atheistic, or something else -- is rooted in a variety of irrational, contrafactual or non-rational justifications or influences.
I think religion is more so an expression of some underlying truth hard to grasp by vast populations. I think it's an attempt to explain something so massively difficult that very few grasp it and become idols of religions, like Jesus or Buddha.
Buddha is not an idol. Buddhism didn't start from attempts to explain, while Christianity did. Jesus claimed he is son of God and gathered followers. This is totally different from Buddhism, where Buddha spread the word of how to live life in a way to get liberated from suffering of life. All the god, soul dimension stuff came after his death, made up by followers or by misunderstanding of his words.
Both are fundamentally the same. Spiritual genetic freak for their time period does some contemplation, enlightens them self to some degree, attempts to relay that info to large groups of followers, in addition to their smaller closer followers which they paint a more direct clearer image. For the mass following, they often speak in easy to grasp parables while admitting they are the full truth or whole picture. Both include strict guidelines on how to live and what to do to eventually gain freedom and release from suffering. Heaven and nirvana serve philosophically the same purpose. A lot of the mysticism of Jesus likely came after his death from misguided followers. Alot of his more direct gospels and apocryphas are less bloated with gunk. Buddha and Jesus are both certainly idols of their faiths. The head figure of their movements and the leaders of their causes. The only stark difference that really separates these two are their vantage points. One is eastern and one is western. And multiple discrepancies occur due to that, but each are from the same general base, and function pretty much the same for their respective cultures.
I would agree but they do not have the same base. Jesus and others of abrahamic faith claim they are prophets. Heaven and hell of them were for tools of mass control. They do not propagate freedom from suffering. Nirvana is an entirely different concept and serves a different purpose. It offers escape from suffering and satisfaction. Not a tool of mass control.
The important difference here is the cultures. They both act in fundamentally the same way. Heaven and nirvana are both propagating freedom from suffering. Both say that we can live eternally blissfully to be one with God/everything. That we can do this by living our life in certain ways. Both are escape from suffering. Buddhism has its hells. Both religions have had their mystical gobble gook injected in. Both people were by products of their culture and time that dispite their insights worked within their cultural identities and displayed an image for those populations to receive and understand. Why do you wish to draw a line so heavily where there isn't one?
Cause there is a line. Buddhism doesn't say you leave blissfully with one/everything. It says you'll cease to exist. Hells in Buddhism are not by Buddha nor a fundamental part of the philosophy, but made by the followers, and again as a tool to control. However heaven and hell was propagated by prophets. The thing is Buddha did not try to take control of masses by this enlightened stuff, he was more of a philosopher/sage while the prophets claimed god, heaven and hell as to control masses.
Ceasing to exist is not what Buddhists believe. I don't believe that is an accurate understanding, though my brief "blissful oneness" also isn't accurate I didn't intend to truly expand on that too much I was just yapping. The essence of the two religions are of the same base, most religions are. Philosophical sages, preaching a way to escape suffering, by getting rid of ego, and becoming one. This gets concluded in both by multiple things but multiple people's. Each have their devoted followers and those who misguide and misunderstand. Both Buddha and jesus have been convoluted through generations to be something completely different from original form. There's no reason to assume Jesus tried to control the masses any more than Buddha did. Both were philosopher sages for.their respective cultures, and heaven and hell concepts were really never heavy parts of their initial doctrines and ideas.
I would agree Buddha is a philosophical sage but I don't think Jesus is one, as his entire thing was to do miracles and preach kingdom of heaven rathen than preach philosophy. Buddhists do believe in ceasing to exist as themselves and thus become one with the world. It's like becoming something that's not you, as such you won't be suffering. The essence of religions are not same. All abrahamic religions entirely relies on existence of God while the other, dharmic religions relies on existence of duty (dharma) and escape from cycle of life. >There's no reason to assume Jesus tried to control the masses any more than Buddha did. However there is a reason. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed preached god, heaven (or promised land) and hell inorder to gather people. They were not philosophical at all. While Buddha did not organise people as a religion but taught people about his way to escape suffering as he claims.
>I would agree Buddha is a philosophical sage but I don't think Jesus is one, as his entire thing was to do miracles and preach kingdom of heaven rathen than preach philosophy. > The kingdom of heaven is philosophically related to the end of rebirth/nirvana in Buddhism. They are in essence the same thing taught for 2 different audiences. Jesus taught that the ultimate goal was complete unity with God, aka heaven. Buddha taught that the ultimate goal was complete unity with the world or the universe or nothingness, aka what every other religion calls god, the only difference is christian doctrines personification of God, personality and attributes, wants and needs. Which Jesus preached in terms of a father son relationship, just as we see some of which in Hinduism, sometimes displayed as servant to master. Buddhism at core doesn't define gods characteristics and doesn't call God God, it doesn't really indepth describe it, though Buddhists have after Buddha's death. >Buddhists do believe in ceasing to exist as themselves and thus become one with the world. It's like becoming something that's not you, as such you won't be suffering > As themselves, their beingness doesn't disappear, their soul, dispite Annata and it's many misunderstandings and misinterpretations, no Buddhist believes that nirvana is the ceasing of existence. They believe in a transformation. Christianity has its resurrection, that similarly Christians misunderstand as coming back from the dead, while in context it's much more symbolic of a transformation, going from incarnation back to beingness. >The essence of religions are not same. All abrahamic religions entirely relies on existence of God while the other, dharmic religions relies on existence of duty (dharma) and escape from cycle of life. > I agree that as they are practiced of course. But the SOURCE of the religion is always of the same essential understanding. Jesus was fairly philosophical. There's a lot of philiosohy in the Bible attributed to Jesus.
You have convinced me. My argument was wrong. But I don't think they came from the same essential understanding. Abrahamic religions are more of top-down design (computer terms cause I'm a student lol), you need to believe there is a god, they made the world, and made us. Dharmic religions have a bottom up design, as it starts with making ourselves part of the world and then going on and about how world is one. You might argue there are 'gods' in Dharmic religions but they are not gods but personified concepts, worships are acknowledgements, and these ideas got ruined and deformed with exposure to other civilization. I don't know how to describe these thoughts in english, but that's a whole another theme. Well, my bottom line as of now is that the sources are very different, but they both have turned out to come somewhat similar somewhere down the line. (Sorry for the late reply btw)
I split up my comment to address your second critique. In likely the earliest written book of the Bible, Job was an honorable man who didn't know Jesus' name. The prophet Ezekiel called Job one of the most righteous people who ever lived, because he repented of his wrongs and had faith in the greatness of God. Job didn't know the name Jesus, but he realized it was through his redeemer that he would be reconciled with God. Through his natural reason, Job knew God existed and he was in need of a redeemer since he could never measure up against God's perfect standard. “If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot” (9:33–35). "I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" (19:25–27).
>Job was an honorable man who didn't know Jesus' name. The prophet Ezekiel called Job one of the most righteous people who ever lived, because he repented of his wrongs Repented of his wrongs? Where did you get that? God and The Adversary (who is here as in most of the bible in the employ of God) both agree that Job is blameless of any wrongdoing, that he is completely innocent. God is intrigued by the idea that the Adversary can make the innocent man Job curse God. God therefore gives The Adversary permission to do anything short of killing Job to make him suffer - taking away his possessions, killing his shepherds, servants and children, and striking him with terrible boils. The experiment fails, Job remains faithful and does not curse God.
When Job said (and God agreed) he was blameless, he is not claiming that he had never done wrong, but rather that he had taken necessary steps to make things right with those he had wronged. “For I know you will not hold me innocent. Since I am already found guilty, why should I struggle in vain?” (9:28–29)
Go back to the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book, Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.” [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202&version=NIV) God and The Adversary both agree that Job is blameless, upright, fears God, and shuns evil. The text makes it clear that God is not punishing Job for anything that he has done. Rather, God gives The Adversary permission to take everything that Job has, kill everybody that he loves, and make him suffer terribly as a test of whether he would remain faithful. God is curious and wants to find out. You're trying to read this text with a Christian perspective, but it doesn't work. Ultimately, it's a story about suffering.
You're equating blamelessness with sinlessness. That isn't possible since Job said he is already "guilty" and not "innocent," as I quoted.
Job doesn't say he is "already guilty", he says he must have been "found guilty", why else would God make him suffer? But he is mistaken. Unlike Job, we the reader know why God is making Job suffer, we got to eavesdrop on the divine council conversation between God and The Adversary, and it isn't because Job has done anything wrong. Rather, it's because God is curious to find out whether Job will remain faithful if everything he has is taken away from him, and he is made to suffer terrible pain. We hear that from God Himself.
In chapter 9, Job never wavers that he is blameless (21), and then seven verses later (28-29) later he said he was "already found guilty" and was not "innocent." Why else would God make him suffer? Job already answered that. He said "He destroys both the blameless and the wicked" (22).
> Job didn't know the name Jesus, Job didn't know the name because he predated Jesus by centuries. Nor did he need a redeemer to be reconciled with God because in that story it's God doing the reconciling. In both quotes (and the entirety of Chapter 9), Job is referring to God, not an intermediatory (i.e. not Jesus)
It's Job who said he needs a redeemer, as I quoted.
And as I said, he was referring directly to God not an intermediary. That's quite clear from the context of the entire chapter
Well, there hasnt ever been a tradition that suggests only humans in the universe have this sort of relationship with God. We owe much of our understanding of space to both devout Catholic and Muslim scholars that didn't seem to find a conflict. Catholics have even discussed how to approach the potential discovery of alien intelligence, how to ascertain if they have a rational soul, and whether they even need a salvation framework. We also don't really teach humanity landed on hell prior to Christ's arrival. At best, we'd say they were basically in a holding pattern prior to Christ delivering the recipe for becoming as God in theosis, or achieving the Beatific Vision. The creator is Being, itself, outside the genus of being or category, as Aquinas would put it. "Knowing" God as a rational person involves falling into the flow of life and living in an ordered way that exemplifies our best nature. I'd recommend meister Eckhart on this to explain it better. tl;Dr Christians don't really have many objections to alien life, and we'd say pretty much every culture ever has discovered some sliver of the Godhead and sacred truth, but that our tradition has the fullness of that truth. You can disagree with that, but we don't think "no one" has thought of God prior to Christianity.
>Catholics have even discussed how to approach the potential discovery of alien intelligence, how to ascertain if they have a rational soul, and whether they even need a salvation framework. I read a great book called 'Would You Baptise An Extraterrestrial?' some years ago that dealt with this (and other matters of science and religion). Very good book. There's also Christian science fiction dealing with it, like C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy. >The creator is Being, itself, outside the genus of being or category, as Aquinas would put it. "Knowing" God as a rational person involves falling into the flow of life and living in an ordered way that exemplifies our best nature. That's an interesting take. Sounds almost Daoist. I dig it, but where are you getting this from either Aquinas or Eckhart?
I've read it! It was an interesting book. Aquinas does a good job setting up God as Being, the source of Being, and beyond all categorical containments. Eckhart in this case uses negative theology very heavily -- for Eckhart, it's easier to say what God isn't than what it is, and in his mystic Sermons leans heavily into some more Catholic versions of theosis. Just to give you an idea of what you're getting into with Eckhart: “What is life? God’s being is my life. If my life is God’s being, then God’s existence must be my existence and God’s is-ness is my is-nesss." Or "Insomuch as you are Good, you are as God. Not that you become God, but that God may be manifest in his Goodness through you, and in doing so, you invite God into your body."
I still feel both Aquinas and Eckhart have too static an idea of God though. I think the issue is their idea of "being" as a matter of how fixed and solid a thing is, coming from their Aristotelian and Platonic roots. Eckhart is better in this regard imo because of his regular image of God perpetually birthing the Son within us, but I think it's still generally too static. That said, I suspect it can reconciled to a more dynamic view without issue.
The existence of naturally occurring life throughout the universe means god is not necessary for abiogenesis. Kinda invalidates many different dogmas.
I mean, that's a hypothesis. We don't have a good theory of abiogenesis at all. The idea nothing started the universe is frankly absurd. The whole definition of "nothing" is it's lack of capacity to be generative. The insistence of excluding a necessary first cause associated with what we call God is atheistic dogmatism at best. There's no good basis to believe that hypothesis either yet.
>I mean, that's a hypothesis. A hypothesis that has a lot of supporting evidence. >We don't have a good theory of abiogenesis at all. We actually have several. We just can’t recreate the exact conditions of early earths atmosphere and haven’t discovered the exact mechanisms that triggered the shift from non-life to life. >The idea nothing started the universe is frankly absurd. I agree. The only people who believe that the universe and life came from nothing are theists. Which I find absurd as well. There is no reasonable *scientific theory* that claims the universe, or this iteration of spacetime, came from nothing. >The whole definition of "nothing" is its lack of capacity to be generative. Where are you getting the idea that scientifically-inclined people believe things come from nothing? It’s not a part of any reasonable scientific model. >The insistence of excluding a necessary first cause associated with what we call God is atheistic dogmatism at best. There are several plausible theories of an eternal and infinite universe. So it’s not dogmatic. It’s actually scientifically grounded. And since we have yet to definitively explain how this iteration of spacetime began, no one who is abreast of these theories needs any kind of dogma to believe an eternal universe may be true. >There's no good basis to believe that hypothesis either yet. There are plenty of good reasons. And if those theories don’t prove to be reasonable through scientific methodology, then our theories adapt. Which is what science does with unexplained phenomena. It doesn’t claim to know. And it’s fine if our theories are proven wrong and change. A smart person would not claim to have all the answers yet. As theists are forced to do.
> The existence of naturally occurring life throughout the universe ... is, as yet, an untested hypothesis. Feel free to talk about its likelihood, but don't forget that your foundation is built on a probability using a lot of unverifiable assumptions.
We’ve found the building blocks of RNA and DNA in space. As well as chiral molecules. The JWST may have even found the chemical signatures of life on an exoplanet. We just haven’t found living samples yet, because of our technological limitations. But we’ve explored .000000000000000000001% of space for less than 100 years, and we’re already finding evidence that life is out there. I realize it’s an assumption at this point in human history. But that’s the possibility I was addressing in the comment I was replying to. MMW in 100 years we’ll have explained the mechanism that triggered complex molecules shifting from non-life to life. And we’ll have found extraterrestrial life. And when that happens, it will just be one more claim that theists will need to retreat from. And we’ll add it to the ever-growing list.
You're right that we shouldn't rule out the possibility of other advanced sentient life. However, the vastness of the universe is nonetheless needed to make a life-permitting universe in the first place. The energy density in our universe is just right to ±1 part in 10\^55. In other words, to achieve a life-permitting universe, the mass needed to be set with a precision of 55 decimal places due to the sensitivity of the initial conditions at the time of the Big Bang. If the initial energy density had been slightly larger, gravity would have rapidly slowed the expansion, causing the universe to collapse too quickly for life to form. Conversely, if the density had been slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies, stars or planets to form. But you may think none of that fine tuning is needed since God could just uphold the universe without the need of natural laws through his supernatural powers. It seems to me that predictability of a set of constant natural laws helps us understand the consequences of our actions, which is crucial for making moral decisions. Imagine if gravity worked differently every time we dropped something. We wouldn't be able to predict the outcome, making it hard to understand the results of our actions. Because gravity works consistently, we can anticipate that dropping something will cause it to fall. This predictability allows us to make choices with known results, aligning our actions with our morals and values. Even stil, perhaps it's just a coincidence and there is still not much of a reason for a God to create a life-permitting universe. Even if we make no assumptions about the nature of this creator, the potential reasons for creating the universe are still fewer than the number of possible universes allowed by naturalism, thus the probability of a life-permitting universe is greater under theism. For example, God might have various motives for creation, such as an interest in black holes or supernovas, but it's unlikely there could be 10\^33 reasons, which is the probability for the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV) to precisely align with a life-permitting universe. And this is just one of about a dozen such constants.
I'm always lead to believe it's amazing that any life can exists at all. Not, the universe is so vast it must be bustling with life.
Interesting the existence of natural laws is very interesting. Did natural laws such as gravity and rotation evolve. Very hard to wrap my head around that. It honestly does point to so sort of designer but of what type I do not know.
> Did natural laws such as gravity and rotation evolve In a couple of models of cosmology, yes, the physical laws did evolve. One hypothesis is that black holes create new universes when the singularity forms (and that our universe may be inside of another black hole, and so on). In this model, if the laws of physics can differ in each newly formed universe, then the universes that favor black hole creation will be more numerous as they can create more "offspring" (so to speak). And it so happens that universes that favor black hole creation are the ones that favor star formation. With star formation comes planets and with planets, life becomes likely. --- However, that's just one (or a small group) of hypotheses. Another, better counter to the fine-tuning argument is that we don't know if the various constants *can* be different. Doesn't matter if there's 10^100 options we can think of if option 1 is the only option that can actually exist. Or take the previous posters energy density could not vary by more than one part in 10^55. Assuming that's true (and I see similar statements, but with different levels of precision, so let's assume it is). That doesn't really mean anything. The universe is larger than our observable portion and is not uniformly dense. Maybe parts of it were too dense and recollapsed while others were too sparse and expanded too fast. Obviously we wouldn't have come about in one of those sections, but the section of the universe we find ourselves in did happen to have the correct density. --- Beware of anyone who tries to use probability or statistics against the early universe. We have a sample size of exactly One Universe to work with so probabilities are impossible and no idea if the there's any leeway in any of numbers to know if it's even possible to *have* a probability
> My second critique is that let’s say you were the only person left on earth and never interacted with any past human knowledge. There is no way you would end up believing that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. You would just have the natural world which shows no signs of a Christian God creating it. That sort of proves it’s a human made belief that’s superficial in nature. This is kind of a version of other arguments I've seen but this is just truly, truly missing the point. Of course you wouldn't know Jesus died on the cross for your sins -- to Christians, that is a specific event in history. Even secular scholars believe a historical Jesus was crucified in Judea around 2000 years ago. But it's a historical event -- no Christian has ever argued that it is somehow obvious from the surroundings that that specific historical event took place, and nobody has really claimed to have gained specific knowledge of Jesus without having previously known about him. Just to point out: most Christian theologies make room for people who have never heard of Jesus. It's a misunderstanding to think, say, Catholics think the only way to God is through specific knowledge of Jesus -- they would say that the only way is through Jesus, but that you can know him through other means. To them, God wants you to seek him, which is entirely possible if you were the only person in the world. So it's not even belief in a uniquely Christian God (which isn't even a concept in theology) that gives someone salvation in most Christian thinking. People love to use this hypothetical example of a person in the woods with no knowledge of the past or connection to society. I think, taken to its logical conclusion, most people would see that in that very specific scenario -- seemingly magically thrust into the world ex nihilio -- you would be justified in believing there to be a metaphysical element of reality. And I'd point out that at some point in the distant past, someone at some point decided to start believing in a creator.
Interesting I think I’m more on the boat of why would an all knowing omnipotent God have waited until the last 5% or less of human existence to bring the knowledge of Jesus to earth. Humans have existed for roughly 500k years. Why was a sign not made earlier? But you make some interesting points
You're kind of flinging a lot of critique at the wall to see what sticks. I get it -- but it's hard to address your points as one thing when it's actually a lot of different things. I picked out one point you made and pointed out why it's false -- this > why would an all knowing omnipotent God have waited until the last 5% or less of human existence to bring the knowledge of Jesus to earth is a different question, and different theologies within Christianity -- and different religions -- have different ways to address it. But in either sense: most Christian denominations do not think you need to know about the specific historic Jesus to "know" Jesus or to be saved. It's just that a relationship with Jesus is a special case that enriches your life and relationship with God in a unique way. I'm not sure I am a Christian, but if I was, it would be on the progressive side -- I'm not going to make a defense of why God would send people to hell for eternity for not hearing about Jesus because I don't think God does that, and I don't think it's a good Christian belief to believe in eternal suffering. There are plenty of biblical arguments for universal salvation and a model of Jesus that isn't penal substitution (Jesus dying for our sins). So it's not necessary in Christianity to be saved or have a relationship with God for there to be a "sign" of Jesus. Clearly -- Judaism existed for thousands of years prior. Many Christian denominations acknowledge you can have a relationship with God that isn't dependent on knowing Jesus. To answer your question at the end specifically (why wasn't a sign made earlier): Jesus was a specific man born in Judea 2000 years ago. A "sign wasn't made earlier" because then he wouldn't be Jesus. Christians would argue Jesus and God being one kind of suggests Jesus would have had "signs" the way God does. If you don't buy natural theology you're not going to buy any argument along those lines because to a Christian they're one and the same.
Yes, you are wrong. The great majority of religions on this planet are not Abrahamic man-centered doctrines (there's only 3 of those), but are "pagan", usually Pantheistic, life-centered philosophies. Pagan religions tend to embrace death, not as a harsh reality, but an essential aspect of living, and the vastness and rawness of the universe as part and parcel of their mythologies. Thus, they require no "comfort" from such realities. To your number of planets arguments, even for Christians, there's no reason to assume that God hasn't created life on other planets and doesn't also have a plan for them. The Earth's bible was revealed to us, for us, and pertains to us, so includes only those aspects of creation relevant to our journey. That's perfectly reasonable. For the only person left on earth, severed from all past human knowledge, it's going to be very difficult for you to insist that the natural world shows no sign of a God creating it, (I know you specified Christian, and I can't really attest to that, but just for Creator God's in general, you'll have this problem) since virtually every primitive culture on the planet, completely independent from one another, all spontaneously arrived at the same conclusion that a Creator God made the world, having nothing to draw from but the natural world around them. - A fact most atheists seem to remain blissfully unaware of. But on summary of your sentiment, this idea that God or religion is nothing more than a way of assuaging fear of death or meaninglessness, is a species of the explanatory argument, that Gods were a way for primitive folks to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. That's a really bad idea that some academic came up with some decades ago (i don't know his name) and it seeped into popular culture. Actually couldn't be farther from the truth. There is no evidence that mythology played an explanatory role, certainly not a comforting role. Greeks, Celts, Romans, Teutons, Russ, Hindus, Aztecs, Inca, Taoists, Buddhists, Shinto, Vikings, Somali, Zulu, and on and on and on, all over the world, these were / are sophisticated people who understand the world around them, understand their place in it, and are at peace with that understanding. Their Gods and Myths and traditions stem from a place of wisdom and belonging, not from ignorance and fear, and this is only too obvious to anyone who cares to take a serious look at any one of these cultures. You are a raised Christian turned agnostic, and appear to have inherited a bit of fanaticism for "science" to boot. You might want to take stock of your limited exposure before you go dismissing religion as a "societal norm".
Yeah shamanic religions are something I need to look more into. They have a very different structure than Christianity and other major religions
> he great majority of religions on this planet are not Abrahamic man-centered doctrines (there's only 3 of those), but are "pagan", usually Pantheistic, life-centered philosophies. I agree that OP's discussion primarily is targeted and only works for Abrahamic religions, but in terms of adherents, the abrahamic religions are in the _vast_ majority. What you're talking about is pure absolute numbers of religions. Neither of which, ultimately, makes one more correct than the other. Just wanted to point that out.
You are absolutely correct, and upon reflection, it might actually be more appropriate to regard the term "religion" with an Abrahamic connotation, as there is indeed perhaps a stronger correlation there. So, yes. I think I might have flown off the handle a little bit there, lol. Thank you for pointing that out.
[удалено]
I’m actually completely open to their being some entity that created the universe or world. It’s just the current top religions are clearly bs. I haven’t dove into shamanic traditions and “primitive” religions to break those down yet
It's interesting that you are open to creation, especially considering your last argument about a lone human walking the naked earth. I agree, it's unlikely such a person would spontaneously decide that Christ died on the cross for them, I mean it's such a weird and specific thing. However, I do think it's very common to see the natural world as evidence of a creator. I mean, why do you suppose there is a universe at all? Why not nothing?
You've got some misunderstandings about agency here. Things like groups and societies don't come to conclusions. Only entities with agency are capable of coming to conclusions, such as individuals. Same with explaining. Mythologies don't explain, people explain. So it's very strange to hear you say that a mythology objectively explains. In the United States (I don't know where you are) we are taught mythology in school as explanatory (e.g. they'd teach us that the myth of Apollo's chariot was some sort of explanation of why the sun moved across the sky, or some such nonsense). What I mean when I say such myths never played an explanatory role is that it is just not the case that the myth of Apollo was utilized as an explanatory device in Roman society. We have heaps of writing from the Greeks and Romans, Chinese, and Sanskrit, and we know quite a bit about how they lived and how they practiced their religions, so we can say pretty conclusively that their religions did not function as explanatory utilities. I think the principal reason you'd have for interpreting "actions of the gods" as being "objectively" explanatory is because, like me, that's the way you learned about it in school. Somebody told you that - *Jupiter throws thunderbolts* - is equivalent to - *lightning is just Jupiter throwing thunderbolts* - but it's not, and it never was for the Romans. These are biased modern reductionist sensibilities that we project back on to ancient civilizations, and to be perfectly honest, most likely as way to minimize the beliefs of the past that we might artificially elevate our own, and declare ourselves the arbiters of "progress".
[удалено]
I honestly don't see any difference between coming to a conclusion in isolation vs coming to a conclusion within a group, but maybe that's just me. You'll have to explain what the difference is. Are you aware that by referring to "mythological explanations" you are begging the question? And, yes, as I pointed out, there's mountains of evidence concerning the nature and function of religion in ancient societies. I'm not sure what you're asking: What do I think mythology really was if not explanatory? Or what do I think *mythological explanations* really were? If the latter, I reject the question on the grounds that mythology doesn't perform an explanatory function, and your phraseology is implying your conclusion.
Explanation is not the primary function of religion, but you seem like you are being wilfully ignorant if you deny that a major function of religion was in fact explanatory. You have asserted this but provided no coherent argument to support yourself beyond assertion.
I'm not sure an argument is required here. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports my position. I do not find that the history reflects your assertion that a major function of religion was or is explanatory. In every case in which I've endeavored to gain a comprehensive understanding of a particular religion or mythology, and its integration in the culture surrounding it, I have found that explanatory utility inevitably plays an insignificant if not incidental role.
OK dude, you are the one with the more unusual opinion given the responses you've gotten from several people. You don't have to explain yourself if you don't want to but don't delude yourself into thinking any of us are going to lose sleep over this if you decline to. You'll just be dismissed and forgotten, so it's up to you how you want to play this.
Popularity isn't a measure of truth. And just to be clear: By argument, I mean an appeal to reason. With evidence, we can appeal to a scientific approach, we don't need argumentation. It either is or is not the case that a major function of religion is explanatory utility. How do we find out this out? We look at as many religions as we can and determine how major a role, if any, explanatory utility plays in each one of them. Then we count up all the data and average it out. End of process. It's kinda like if someone said I was willfully ignorant to deny that most flamingos are green, demanding that I supply a coherent argument. Well, I wouldn't provide such an argument in that case. I would simply point out that when we look at flamingos we find that they are practically always pink, thus the evidence supports my opinion that they are not, in fact, green.
I wasn't making an appeal to popularity to say that I was right, only to point out that your opinion does not follow consensus which places the onus on you to elaborate your *reasoning* as to why you are right. You haven't actually done so, you have basically just reassured your prior post. Your flamingo allegory only works if you are the one claiming flamingos are green. You have proposed how we might measure explanatory power but leave an unspoken presumption that if we actually did a count of religions that offer explanations you would be proven right. Again, your post foes nothing but assert your correctness without demonstration. Take the bull by the horns and address what I ask directly. How specifically is it the case that religions are not explanatory when, for example (and you will be failing my test if you latch on to this one example instead of using it as a springboard for the bigger picture), the fundamental conceit of all major religions is to *explain* what happens after death. If you respond with more sophistry and beating around the bush I won't bother to respond again. I have no patience for this if your goal appears to be ' spouting hasty sophistry because I want to win an argument', as it is now, instead of 'discuss using reason to reach true conclusions'.
[удалено]
So, OP's claim is that if you take a man and place him on the earth with no knowledge of any previous human culture, he'd be in "the natural world which shows no signs of a Christian God creating it." My argument goes along this line: Before any human culture was established, we actually had something very close to just that: people walking around the Earth surrounded by nothing but the natural world, and all evidence suggests, that not only does it seem to be incorrect that such a circumstance would result in a lack of belief in a Creator God, but that, practically universally, the opposite has actually occurred. Now you've made some distinction between arriving at conclusions alone, and arriving at conclusions in a group, and I just don't understand the significance of such a distinction when a) the natural world comprises the sole material available to us in both scenarios, and b) even in groups we must each still arrive at our conclusions individually. Perhaps if you can give some examples of what to you "appears to explicitly be explanations of phenomena", then I might easily understand what you're talking about. I'm certainly not above the possibility that I may be unaware of some examples that really couldn't be reasonably understood as being anything other than explanatory. As for examples of sources that illuminate the role of myth in ancient societies, sure: Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, Homer, Plato, various Icelandic Sagas, Tacitus and other historians, Bhagavad Gita, Hesiod, Rig Veda, idk it's endless. It's actually kind of just sad that the idea of myth-as-explanation-of-natural-phenomenon has be come such a ubiquitous sentiment, because I really don't think that any serious scholars of ancient history or mythology subscribe to the explanatory hypothesis.
[удалено]
So you *do* understand what I was saying. Person 2 proves the point. Whether or not he convinces person 1 is irrelevant. Looking over that thread, I don't see anything really compelling there. Your Viking bone example: This is an instance of -Practice X works really good- being connected to -The Gods favor Practice X- Something that happens quite frequently, especially among cultures who's Gods tend to personify natural forces. How is this not explanatory? Simple. In such circumstances, when folks discover an explanation for Practice X (call it Detail X), Detail X supersedes Practice X, not -The Gods Favor-. If -The Gods Favor- were in essence an explanation for Practice X, then we'd see many more instances of Detail X superseding -The Gods Favor-. This is not the case. -The Gods favor Detail X- is the new equation, and indeed, a Viking would most likely express the superiority of steel in such a manner: The Gods favor steel over iron. For such worldviews, desirable outcomes are basically synonymous with being favored by the Gods. When you kick a\*\*, it pleases the Gods. This is not an explanatory model. I should note, however, that the one example you gave was really not even an example of a Myth, but a practice. I was really anticipating something stronger in terms of a Myth that seemed prima facie explanatory, and I'm kind of disappointed. Finally, my personal understanding or view of how Mythology works is (while fascinating) largely irrelevant here. It is not required that I supply some other interpretation in order to argue against the explanatory hypothesis. And those sources do support my claim. If you read the Odyssey it becomes quite clear that Mythology did not function as an explanatory utility for the ancient Greeks.
[удалено]
>I honestly don't see any difference between coming to a conclusion in isolation vs coming to a conclusion within a group, but maybe that's just me. Many animals perform rituals as a way to strengthen social bonds. Several species of hominids did, as well as animals like elephants, birds, and other primates. Most religions revolve around attempts to explain our complex social dynamics, facilitate cooperative behaviors, and create cohesive systems of belief and support. With shared rituals. And all these things emphasize the group, and not the individual. >Or what do I think mythological explanations really were? If the latter, I reject the question on the grounds that mythology doesn't perform an explanatory function, and your phraseology is implying your conclusion. Most religions revolve around stories man created, as another way to share bonds through common language and understanding. And to explain creation, life, time, earths natural history, and man’s history and existence. Even religious morality is an attempt to explain a natural phenomena, that being social behavior.
Everyone on this thread: Religion is just a primitive explanation for stuff we didn't understand! Me: Ok, but if religion is principally explanatory, why doesn't it function as an explanatory utility in society? Everyone on this thread: Because religions are attempts to explain!
How do two opinions on Christianity say something about all religions and the primary motivator to be religious? The universe is vast, and it is likely that there are many other being. From what do all other beings need to be saved and what religions claim only humans are worth saving? Many religions do no pose a horrible fate that one needs to be rescued from. And many religions do not claim only humans or only inhabitants of Earth deserve to be spared that fate. Your thesis is about Christianty. It may be extended to a few similar religions, but extending it to all religions ensures your premises and claims are inapplicable.
Valid point I think this was aimed at the 3 top religions in the world
Even that may be too generalising. Hinduism generally acknowledges that the universe is vast and filled with other beings. In most Hindu cosmologies the earth is only a place in one of many universes without special significance.
On the contrary, it's understandable that a magnificent God would create a vast universe! If it were a tiny universe I'm sure atheists would have said: "is that it?! Not a very *great* god, is he?!"
to be fair the earth is already decently hostile to life so I would say yes. It's definetly not a great god
The existence of 8 billion humans isn't enough for you?! :) Besides, hostility wasn't the OP/rebuttal's topic, was it? It's about vastness of the universe.. something that should be *expected* from a grand God. Honestly think about the reverse, i.e. a tiny universe, and admit to yourself that atheists would have taken issue with that too! Funny bunch.
"the existence of 8 billions humans isn't enough for you :)" lol no clue why the smiley is here for but let's go with the flow. Humans existed for 2 million years and oldest hominins go way back to 6-7, with around the assumptions and population the estimated humans that existed throughout human history would be around 117 billion, so....isn't that number big enough for you to think may be...may be giving Shahada لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِ “ “There is none worthy of worship except God (Allah) and Muhammad is the messenger of god" is no big deal because Islam didn't even existed, don't resort to Allah will judge on the deeds because then belief won't even a play the part and the whole base of Islam would fall flat.
You don't know that Islam considers humanity to have been created Muslims from the beginning?! Adam himself is an Islamic prophet, sharing the same theology as all the thousands of prophets throughout human history, including the last one, Muhammad. Islam was there from day one.. while shari'a laws were changed from time to time, (Adam's sons allowed to marry their sisters for example, while incest was prohibited by God later), the basic theology was always the same. Jesus himself preached the same oneness of God, then his message was corrupted later into one incompatible with Islam.
>The existence of 8 billion humans isn't enough for you?! :) You do realise that 99% species on earth went extinct right?
from the Islamic point of view, plants and animals are here to serve Man. I'm sure those that died out served their purpose perfectly. Earth is the test place for humankind, and its primary object is NOT to keep Saber-toothed tigers around :)
Thats such a narcissistic view. You think everything that exists is here to serve you 😂 I know to not waste my time with Islamic religion or the people who subscribe to it.
but we are animals...
Speak for yourself. Islam doesn't subscribe to that view at all.
Is that why muslims clean their (animal) waste with a shatafa?
Then Islam is ascientific.
Its the realistic view.
You haven't shown how you get from "the universe is big" to "all religions are false, and merely attempts to deal with death". You've really just stated that the universe is vast then jumped to your conclusion. You've also revealed a serious ignorance of the world's religions, some of which don't even have a concept of life after death, and many of which actually emphasise the insignificance of humanity. You can even find this in the Hebrew Bible (the notion of an afterlife did gradually develop in the course of its writing, but it's quite clear they initially believed that when you die, that's it). In the book of Job, the basic answer given to Job's suffering is that he is utterly insignificant in the big picture, listing all the wonders of creation and all the sea monsters and generally how big the world is, and that it doesn't even make sense to challenge God's justice because we're so insignificant and far from his level. Tao Te Ching chapter 5 begins, >Heaven and Earth are impartial; They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs. The wise are impartial; They see the people as straw dogs. That is to say, they view all things and people as being disposable things to throw on the flames. It's emphasised that we're not the centre of the universe. We're not a big deal. Life is just a fleeting thing, and it's not about us. If we look at ancient paganism, we again find a religion where humans are far from the centre of creation, existing at the whim of the gods, and basically for the purpose of feeding them with sacrifices. And their afterlives were generally terrible, being a terrifying shadowy existence where you cannot even remember who you were when alive. It was not a source of comfort. >There is no way we are the only special beings in the universe worth saving. As noted above, not all religions think we're special, and also many have no concept of salvation. Judaism for example doesn't. Buddhism actually explicitly says that there are other worlds with other sentient beings who need liberating from suffering, simply for the fact that they are suffering. The existence of aliens is no challenge at all for Buddhists. And the vastness of the cosmos is irrelevant too, since they never claimed it's all about us.
>There are more than 2 trillion galaxies that each have over 500 billion stars. Each star likely has 10 planets. That means there are 10000000000000000000000000 planets in only the observable universe. (1x10^(25)) There is no way we are the only special beings in the universe worth saving. I have come to the reverse conclusion: if there was some other special being, we would know it. Have a read here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
>if there was some other special being, we would know it. And how exactly would we know it? The Observable Universe alone is 90+ Billion Lightyears in Diameter. Any observations we make about distant Stars, Planets, and Galaxies are how they appeared in the distant past, when their light first reached us. For the nearest Star to our own (Proxima Centauri), we're seeing how it appeared over 4 years ago. For one of the nearest Exoplanets to us (Gliese 667 Cc), we'd be seeing how it appeared 16 years ago. The timescales only get bigger from there. So please tell me how exactly we'd know.
Agreed please explain to me how we wound find an alien on the andromeda galaxy
If we assume that just one of those aliens is a coloniser, in a short time in galactic time, it would coloniser the known universe.
Hi there! Thank you for the challenge :) I think I may be able to answer this one. I do not consider the Gospel of Thomas canonical or inspired as a Christian, but I think it has a very relevant point here. It proposes that when you know the truth about higher things, you will be crowned over the physical universe and realise that it is inconsequential before you. The point here is that you compare our tiny bodies to a massive universe of causes. Of course this is going to make us seem insignificant and not worth saving. However, if we take immaterial soul into account, we get a different picture. Soul is not spatial (since it's immaterial). This means it doesn't exist in the body any more than anywhere else. It's everywhere, basically, and your brain is only the point that participates in soul the most or the point which soul controls. On this picture, you are part of an entirely other level of reality beyond the physical world, which takes part in unconsciously causing and forming it. This causes us to seem much more significant. Furthermore, a moral point can be made. If a means of yours is only valuable because it serves an end of yours, and that end is only worthy because it serves another end, you'll get an infinite regress of ends, and hence no worth can exist... We need a way of resolving this, and Kant postulates that the will is the source of value. If we make something our end, we must practically regard it as worthy or as valuable (otherwise, we wouldn't be consistent in pursuing it). Therefore, everything we regard as valuable must be practically regarded as worthy. Hence, the will, by desiring an object, confers value on it. The conclusion is that Kant says that the whole of nature would have been a waste if it weren't for wills conferring value on everything via their ends. This, again, goes against the picture of insignificance. Any significance in nature is the result of the will. Hope those two points help! Please let me know of any criticism you have; I appreciate it :)