Philosophy of science prof Mike Keas is one of the contributors to The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021) and a free excerpt from his chapter is available. He reminds us of Christina apologist C.S. Lewis (1898–1963)’s approach:
“Whatever space may be in itself … we certainly perceive it as three-dimensional, and to three-dimensional space we can conceive no boundaries,” he writes. So we naturally feel that the cosmos is huge. What if we discovered nothing but our own sun and moon in such seemingly infinite space? “This vast emptiness would certainly be used of God,” Lewis notes. In that case, atheists would argue that no God would create such vast amounts of wasted empty space.
Lewis runs through the other options: “If we discover other bodies, they must be habitable or uninhabitable: and the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are used as grounds for rejecting Christianity.” If there are billions of habitable planers, then the skeptic would likely say that this means humans are not special. We would be lost in a crowd of aliens, or so the story goes.
Lewis continues: “If, on the other hand, the Earth is really unique, then that proves that life is only an accidental by-product in the universe, and so again disproves our religion.” In that case, atheists might further complain that no God would create trillions of sterile planets-what a lousy design.
Do you see the problem? No matter how God might have made the universe and life, skeptics would surely complain about something to the point of disbelief What we have here isn’t truth-seeking, but rather, game rigging.
Mike Keas, “The Big Myth: Big Universe Is a Problem for Religion” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 12, 2021)
There’s a lot of that about these days.
Interesting points. Atheists look at the wrong side of a cross stitch. They see the chaos and nothing more than the chaos. By turning it around, which is the side that those of us who believe in God do, shows the beauty of everything.
I like the last line of the article,
And indeed there is a popular old hymn that I grew up with that reflects exactly this sentiment of awe and wonder that believers have that God created such a vast universe,
As well there turns out to be a very good scientific reason why the universe is as vast as it is. Specifically, as Rob Sheldon explained, “One grain of sand more, one grain less and we would not be here.”
Thus, aside from any aesthetic value judgement on the size of the universe, there is actually a good scientific reason why the universe is as vast as it is.
Moreover, aside from the fallacious Theological argument from atheists that, if they were god, they would have created a much smaller universe, the real ‘scientific’ argument that atheists have is based upon the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, and is not, necessarily, based upon how small or vast the universe may be.
There are two ‘scientific’ arguments that atheists try to use to try undermine the Judeo-Christian belief that, number 1, God created the universe and, number 2, that humans have a special place in the grand scheme of things.
These two ‘scientific’ arguments are the false narrative of human evolution and the other argument is the false assumption that we have no special place in the universe, i.e. the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
And while, as I pointed out a couple of days ago, the purported scientific evidence for human evolution is far more questionable than atheists pretend that it is,,,
,,, And while the purported scientific evidence for human evolution is far more questionable than atheists pretend that it is, it also important to realize that advances in science have also overturned the atheist’s belief that humanity has no special place in humanity.
Primarily, via the Copernican principle (and/or the Principle of Mediocrity), atheists erroneously hold that “humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.”
The late Stephen Hawking, an atheist, succinctly summarized the atheist’s ‘reasoning’ behind the principle of mediocrity here,
And yet, despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians today, presently hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, (and therefore concede the necessary premise of the Principle of Mediocrity to atheists), the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principal is now shown, via our most powerful theories in science, to be a false assumption.
In establishing this fact, first it is important to realize that Copernicus never actually did experimentally prove that the geocentric model was an incorrect description of the universe, and that his heliocentric model of the universe was a ‘more accurate’ description of the universe.
Simply put, just because the earth is not to be considered central in the solar system itself, that does not automatically mean that the Earth cannot be considered central in the universe as a whole. The sun itself, contrary to what Nicolaus Copernicus held to be true in his heliocentric model, is certainly not to be considered central in the universe.
Shoot, the sun itself, contrary to what Copernicus held, is not even to be considered the ‘true center’ of the solar system, (much less is it to be considered the ‘true center’ of our galaxy, and even much less than that is it to be considered the ‘true center’ of the universe as a whole).
General Relativity itself, one of the most powerful theories ever in the history of science, makes this point clear.
As the late Stephen, (‘chemical scum’), Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
And even as the man himself, Albert Einstein, stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, nor any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.
As Einstein himself noted,
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
In fact, according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people can be considered central in the universe,,,
And to support the claim that even individual people can be considered central in the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, I note the often overlooked fact that when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
We will get back to observers being central in the universe in a little bit, but before we do that, and to more firmly establish that the earth, (and solar system itself) should be given a ‘privileged’ position in the universe, it is first necessary to point out that anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system,
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.
Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,
And it is these large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, which, amazingly, overturn the Copernican principle and strongly support the ‘medieval’ belief that the earth should be considered to have a ‘central’ position in the universe.
As the following article, (with an illustration) explains,
Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”
Thus, (besides the CMBR and the large scale structure of the universe combining to give the earth an ‘surprising’ centrality in the universe, (and due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57 over the entire history of the universe), our best evidence from cosmology now reveals teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the beginning of creation. The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluctuation as atheists have erroneously presumed within their ‘rapid inflation’ models.
On top of all that, and the further support the Theistic claim that God had humans in mind all along, in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’
Of related interest to that fact, we also find that we just so happen to also, “Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to be able to observe the Cosmic Background Radiation”
And to further solidify the fact that humans have far more significance in this universe than atheists have falsely presupposed, (with their erroneous presumption of the Copernican principle), in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
And while that finding by Dr. Neil Turok is certainly very interesting, that finding is a bit disappointing in that is just gives life in general a ‘middle’ position in the universe, and still does not give humanity in particular, a ‘middle’ position in the universe.
Yet, Dr. William Demski, (and company), in the following graph, have refined that estimate of a ‘geometric mean’ with better data, and have given us a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
And that more precise figure for a ‘geometric mean’ does indeed give humanity in particular a ‘central’ position in the universe.
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
Now let’s get back to observers themselves being central in the universe.
Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe.
As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’
Moreover, this recent experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
Because of such consistent and repeatable experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, in quantum mechanics we also find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.
As the late Steven Weinberg, who was an atheist himself, stated in the following article, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
In fact Weinberg, who was an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.
Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how the late Steven Weinberg, and other atheists, may have preferred the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, it is now empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
As well, to state the glaringly obvious, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
In other words, since humans themselves are brought into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, then humans are therefore, obviously, empirically shown to have far, far, more significance, value, and dignity in this universe than atheists have presumed.
As much as it may hurt an atheists’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can now tell us, we are not merely “chemical scum” as Hawking, via the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were.
Hopefully atheists will soon get over the sad fact that there is a purpose for their existence and that they are not merely chemical scum in short order. 🙂
One final note, although, as has been shown in this post, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have combined, (in a rather dramatic fashion), to overturn the Copernican Principle, and to return humanity back to centrality in the universe, never-the-less, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics still simply refuse, mathematically, to be combined into a single overarching ‘theory of everything.
And yet, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
Here is a fairly recent video where I make precisely that case
And here are a few relevant notes from studies on the Shroud of Turin showing that both gravity and quantum mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
In the following video, Isabel Piczek, (a particle physicist who made a sculpture from the Shroud image), states,,, ‘The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.’
Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, (of finding a bridge for the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
As William Dembski noted, (although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
I firmly believe that the Christian founders of modern science, (who very much viewed their practice of science as a way of worshiping God), would all be very pleased to learn that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in modern science today, i.e. the solution to the quote unquote ‘theory of everything’.
Here are a few supplemental notes that further solidify the fact that our lives are not nearly as meaningless and inconsequential as Stephen “chemical scum’ Hawking, and other atheists, try to claim that they are via the fallacious Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity,
Verse:
Why do people say things like this?
A better question.
Why do trained biologists refuse to answer questions on biology?
Bornagain77/6
If human beings are essential to the laws of physics at their most fundamental level then how did the Universe manage for the 13.7 bn years before we appeared?
Also, on the question of purpose and meaning, if some human dictator told you your life would have meaning and purpose as long as you did exactly what he said, no questions asked, would you go along with that?
OT: Just premiered:
Seversky, although advances in quantum mechanics have now proven that humans, via there free will, have a choice in what type of reality gets presented to them, humans are still not responsible for ‘collapsing the wave function’ in the first place. God is responsible for ‘collapsing the wave function’. Hence, the universe can manage quite well for 13.7 billion years, or however long, without any particular human being around.
All the closing of the free will loophole really did was not prove that humans created the universe, as you disingenuously are trying to hold, but prove that humans can not possibly the result of the laws of physics as Darwinists hold. As Weinberg himself stated, “the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,,”
As to your second comment,,,, that you would try to falsely portray God as a cruel dictator, instead of as infinitely holy and good as He actually is,, is very telling of your ’emotionally’ grounded, not ‘logically’ grounded, mindset against God.
You, via your imagination, imagine a straw man version of God that is cruel and evil, instead of infinitely holy and just as He actually is.
You rightly reject this imaginary evil and cruel God that you have constructed in your imagination all the while forgetting that you have constructed a fictitious strawman version of God that bears no resemblance to the God the vast majority of Christians worship.
Of course we reject your evil and cruel straw man version of God that you have constructed in your imagination because that is not the living and real God that we have come to personally know and love.
Chuckdarwin @9,
Because perspective makes a huge difference!
In light of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Ptolemaic astronomy isn’t wrong, but the Copernican model makes the math much simpler. Similarly, one’s perspective on God has a profound impact on how we interpret life–whether it makes sense or no sense.
-Q
Seversky,
Or imagine a Sherpa guide providing guidance to a team of mountain climbers on the approaches to Mount Everest.team. How stupid would it be to ignore the Sherpa’s advice based on an erroneous supposition or a slander that the guide was a dictator on a power trip?
The scriptures tell us that God is incredibly creative and loving, but also needs to ensure justice. Furthermore, there’s a terrible spiritual war in progress in which humanity has been ensnared and captured. But God launched a rescue operation with the intent of leading us to safety. “Follow me if you love life” is what the rescuer tells us.
Unfortunately, some people reply, “Who made you the boss of me? I’ll find my own way out.”
-Q
🙂
have to:
…wake up and come to work if you want to be paid .
…pay bus ticket if you want to travel.
…stop at red light if you want to keep your licence.
…have to sign in if you want to post a comment.
etc.
Regarding the title, any atheist who makes the argument that a big Universe means that God does not exist is making a theological argument rather than a logical one. Who is to say that God considers bigger as better? Or that God cares about cubic parsecs of mostly vacuum?
Perhaps God values complexity rather than size? Then a single human brain is more complex (and therefore interesting to God?) than an entire, lifeless galaxy. As a spiritual being, the spiritual aspects of his creation would be most important to him. At least that would make more sense than saying a huge three-dimensional volume is somehow beyond the pale for an eternal, non-material, spiritual being.
Atheists should avoid making naïve assumptions about God!
Like time, God is not bounded by concepts of distance and space. He is above and beyond all of these dimensions, so it is foolish for us to sit here and make proclamations that the universe is “too big.”