Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On the Vastness of the Universe

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nevada is mostly empty; I mean really empty.  Ninety percent of the state’s residents live in the vicinity of Las Vegas or Reno, and the rest of the state is all but uninhabited.  I realized just how empty the state is when I was riding my motorcycle across the desert last month, and I passed a sign that said “Next Gas 167 Miles.”  They weren’t kidding.  My bike’s range is only a little over 200 miles, and if I hadn’t stopped to top off my tank, I would have run out of gas in the middle of the desert. 

This is the kind of riding I love the best.  Riding hour after hour through a vast emptiness, alone with my thoughts, the wind in my face, and the deep-throated throb of my engine in my ears, fills me with a peace and joy that is difficult to describe.  One day my two friends and I decided to just keep on riding after the sun went down, and at about 11:00 we stopped in the middle of the desert and turned off our motorcycles.  There was no moon that night and the wind had died down.  No other vehicles were on the highway, so we were alone in the quiet darkness, the only sound the pinging noises made by our engines as they cooled in the night air.

Hundreds of miles from the lights of the nearest city, the night sky was stunning.  The Milky Way was clearly visible from one horizon to the other.  Antares glowed like a tiny ruby in the heart of Scorpio.  My friends and I just stood there, gaping in awed silence at the numberless points of twinkling light in the celestial sphere.  Then John said, “I wonder why God made the universe so big.” 

John’s comment got me to thinking.  Why is the universe so big, with billons of galaxies and with each galaxy containing billions of stars, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in all the beaches of the world. 

The vast size of the universe along with the earth’s comparative insignificance have often been used as an argument against the Christian view of God.  The argument goes something like this:  When our poor benighted ancestors thought we lived in a cozy little universe that revolved around the earth at its center, the Christian view of God might have made sense.  But now we know better.  We have the Copernican Principle (or the “Principle of Mediocrity”), which tells us that the universe is not cozy, and the earth is not at its center.  The universe is larger than we can possibly understand, and, cosmically speaking, the earth is an insignificant speck of dust orbiting a slightly less insignificant speck of dust in one galaxy out of billons.  Surely God would not create such a vast universe to support only life on earth; now that would be a waste of a truly cosmic proportions.

As it turns out, there are good reasons to doubt every premise of this argument.

1.  The Ancients Were Not Stupid.

Let’s deal with the first assertion, that the ancients believed we live in a small universe.  Consider Psalm 8:  “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”  The psalmist looked at the multitude of stars in the night sky and realized that he was tiny and insignificant in a vast universe.  It is truly a conceit of the modern age that the ancients naively believed they lived in a small and cozy universe in which the earth and man figured significantly, and that only now with our telescopes and other instruments of science do we understand the vastness of the universe and our relative insignificance. 

Consider also Ptolemy’s Almagest, which was written in the early 100’s AD.  It was the standard text on astronomy for over a thousand years.  In chapter 5 of book I of the Almagest, Ptolemy writes:  “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.”  So it turns out that the ancients were not as naive about the size of the universe as modern skeptics would have us believe. 

2.  The Earth is Almost Certainly a Very Special Place

No one supposes that the Earth is at the exact geometric center of the universe anymore.  Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that it is a very special place, perhaps even unique.  In recent years astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez has led the way in demonstrating that the existence of life is far from likely.  In fact, it is exceedingly improbable and the conditions of the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, the solar system, the moon and the earth itself are remarkably fine-tuned for the existence of life.

 According to Gonzalez, “The claims by many Copernican Principle advocates over the centuries, that life is commonplace on other celestial bodies, has been a spectacular failure. . . . Since it is Earth’s ability to support life that many take to be its most important quality, it is clear that this is a major failure of the metaphysical version of the Copernican Principle if the actual conditions which support life are so rare that they may only exist for Earth.”

 3.  The Universe is Exactly the Right Size

 Finally, it turns out that the universe is not “too big” after all.  In fact, it is exactly the size it must be in order to support life.  Rich Deem summarizes just a few of the “just right” parameters which make the universe ideal for the existence of life:

It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Comments
Just for something completely different: The thread on the new paper of R. Marks II and W. Dembski A Search for the Search doesn't allow for commenting. I suppose that there is quite an interest in discussing this paper here at Uncommon Descent. Can't the thread be opened for comments? Or can another post be created for the discussion? Thanks!DiEb
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
markf, Of course He couldn't do it better. He did it perfectly the first time.ellijacket
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
markf, for me the incredible size of the universe is very fitting for making to point extremely clear of the awesomeness of our God. Indeed as vast as the heavens are the heavens still fall hopelessly short of the infinite 'size' that it would take to 'house' God. But look at it conversely markf, if God would have limited the size of the universe, say maybe adjusted the 'historic' space-time so that we would not be privy to all the past time/history of the universe revealing all the information for all the work that He performed in preparation for creating this planet, would you not just ask of this hypothetical small, 'no history', universe, 'Well could not God have created a bigger universe?' Your argument is in the same vein as is the evolutionary argument for a poorly designed eye. ,,, I debated an evolutionist on this point, and when it turned out that the inverted retina actually is optimal,, Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-ken-miller-is-right-about-our-backward-retina/#comment-354274 ,,, the evolutionist, trying to defend his now indefensible position for a poorly designed eye, then focused his argumentation on pretty much the same line of reasoning that you are currently using right now. He said something to the effect that "Why did not God create an eye that can see in all directions?",,, But if we were dealing with an eye that could see in all directions,, He could just as easily of asked 'Why did not God design an eye that could hear as well as see?" Why did God not design an eye could run for twenty years on a drop of water?,,, and this argumentation could be continued on and on until finally he would ask "Why did not God give me eyes that see as well as He sees?" ,,, the point being is that the foundation for his argument presupposed that could should ultimately have unlimited abilities just as God has! Thus instead of the man rightly conceding the common sense conclusion that the human eye is optimally designed in the first place, and thus by default of his argument admitting that there is indeed a God, the evolutionist instead denied the obvious, and instead argued for an absurd position. An absurd position of argumentation that would not find satisfactory resolution for him unless it turned out that he himself was God. The inherent logical fallacy, as well as the blatant overriding Theological concerns of the battle between good and evil, of the position, should be enough, markf, to make you draw back in horror at such a line of argumentation.bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
markf:
But maybe God isn’t capable of doing any better?
So, you think it would have been "better" and "more efficient" if the universe had been smaller? How much "better" and "smaller" would it have taken until it was "satisfactory". Would God be up to your obviously higher standards in such a case? If the universe was a lot smaller and more efficient, would you be singing God's praises, because, hey, he's so much more efficient? I somehow doubt it.SCheesman
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
#4 and #5. I wasn't claiming that I could design the universe better -only conjecturing that God might be able to do it more efficiently. But maybe God isn't capable of doing any better?markf
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
You know markf, the 'I could design a universe better than God' position has much going against it besides the sheer arrogance of the assertion. Number one is that you can't even cause the creation of a single photon, much less the synchronized creation of all the photons in the universe to the accuracy of 1 in 10^10^123 for the initial phase-space of the universe! Methinks that perhaps you should think a little less of your abilities in such matters, which are non-existent, and a little more of God's ability for which there is abundant evidence!bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Markf, You might think that. Maybe it is. If so, that might be a good thing to work on and show how else it could have been. For us Bible guys...it says the heavens show the glory of God. He's really big!ellijacket
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
So the creator had to make the universe that large to support life on this one planet. It also set the laws of physics so they were just right for that same end. You would think it might have been possible to used a different set of laws of physics and save on having such a vast infrastructure to support one planet.markf
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Interesting stuff, Barry.lars
August 30, 2010
August
08
Aug
30
30
2010
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
This video is fitting: The Known Universe by AMNH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U If you notice in the video, counter intuitive to Copernican thought, the earth does seem to be at the geometric center of the universe: Earth As The Center Of The Universe - illustrated image http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfOXQydzV2OGhz Of course, everyone is quick to point out that 4D space-time says that every place is 'central' in the universe: Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html Yet there are unresolved problems for 4D space-time in 'geometrically" maintaining centrality for every 3 dimensional place in the universe: The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf The following article speaks of a proof developed by legendary mathematician Kurt Gödel, from a thought experiment, in which Gödel showed General Relativity could not be a complete description of the universe: THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html Yet The 'geometric' problem finds resolution in quantum mechanics: Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: 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. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ And of course having a universe in which every point may be considered central to its expansion, and every 'observer' is central to the quantum wave collapse of the universe's photons, is pretty much exactly what we would expect if this universe were indeed created from a higher dimension by a omniscient Being who knew everything that was happening everywhere at the same time. i.e. The old "How can God hear everybody's prayers?" dilemma,,, Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. And of course the unification of general relativity (4D space-time and gravity) with quantum mechanics is the number one problem that has stumped physicists and mathematicians for years,,, yet the 'problem' seems to find a successful resolution in the resurrection of Christ: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. 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." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine I like Frank Turek's take on how awesome our God is is this following video: Journey Through the Universe - George Smoot- Frank Turek - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993965/bornagain77
August 30, 2010
August
08
Aug
30
30
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Those who insist the universe is mediocre due to its size are simply hung up on size issues. They are probably male too. But really, the argument goes something like this (at least from uneducated simpletons). "The universe is so big, and other stars and galaxies so numerous that it is inconceivable that earth is somehow special." at leat that's how I've heard it. I consider it to be an "earth of the gaps" kind of argument. It's arguing from what is unknown, and from incredulity, not from any solid known parameters that can be observed to make earth or the universe mediocre. What is known, is that certain (over 100) just right parameters must be met with out-of-this-world mathematical precision for the universe to exist at all, much less exist the way that it is (scientifically observable and able to be rationally comprehended). The normally unthinking critic would do well to think of why the universe is the way it is, and not some other way.Bantay
August 30, 2010
August
08
Aug
30
30
2010
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply