1. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    29 Jul '15 07:58
    ... in the universe, why is there so much wasted space in it? It's about 99% empty (and getting more so, expanding at near light speed). Seems very inefficient. One planet and one sun would have sufficed to cover the creation story in Genesis. Any ideas?
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    29 Jul '15 08:34
    Originally posted by moonbus
    ... in the universe, why is there so much wasted space in it? It's about 99% empty (and getting more so, expanding at near light speed). Seems very inefficient. One planet and one sun would have sufficed to cover the creation story in Genesis. Any ideas?
    One reason is that there are a lot of things and these things must have a lot of space to move around and do their things. 😏

    The Near Genius
  3. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    29 Jul '15 09:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    One reason is that there are a lot of things and these things must have a lot of space to move around and do their things. 😏

    The Near Genius
    What things? Cosmic dust?

    OK, there had to be a comet just at Jesus's' birth. There was no need to make billions of galaxies to produce that one comet. God could have just said "comet!"--and bingo, there was a comet.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    29 Jul '15 15:16
    Originally posted by moonbus
    What things? Cosmic dust?

    OK, there had to be a comet just at Jesus's' birth. There was no need to make billions of galaxies to produce that one comet. God could have just said "comet!"--and bingo, there was a comet.
    Who knows?
  5. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8514
    29 Jul '15 15:37
    Originally posted by moonbus
    ... in the universe, why is there so much wasted space in it? It's about 99% empty (and getting more so, expanding at near light speed). Seems very inefficient.
    Are you drawing a parallel with Hinds head?
  6. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    29 Jul '15 15:42
    Originally posted by moonbus
    ... in the universe, why is there so much wasted space in it? It's about 99% empty (and getting more so, expanding at near light speed). Seems very inefficient. One planet and one sun would have sufficed to cover the creation story in Genesis. Any ideas?
    You could say the same thing about the Big Bang why so much wasted space
  7. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    29 Jul '15 17:38
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    You could say the same thing about the Big Bang why so much wasted space
    There is a lot of empty space either way, that's true. My question is, what would lead someone to think an intelligent designer was at work when there is so much more space than required? If the universe consisted of only one sun and only one planet, it would be easy to believe that it was made for man (specifically, for Adam and Eve); there'd be no dross, nothing superfluous, no waste.

    Given the universe as it is, however, It doesn't speak very highly of an intelligent designer that he intentionally created vast tracts of superfluous emptiness. Superfluity is not merely inelegant design; it's sloppy design. 99% superfluous emptiness looks so sloppy as to call into question the presupposition of intelligence behind it.

    The Big Bang Theory does not posit intelligence; therefore, a lot of empty space is not an objection to the theory. A lot of emptiness is simply a logical consequence of inflation, given a finite quantity of matter.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '15 17:47
    Originally posted by moonbus
    There is a lot of empty space either way, that's true. My question is, what would lead someone to think an intelligent designer was at work when there is so much more space than required?
    The key is that you have no idea what was required.This not only gets 'intelligent design' off the hook, but it is also its biggest Achilles heel. Without knowing what the intended design is, it is impossible to genuinely recognise design.
  9. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    29 Jul '15 18:53
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The key is that you have no idea what was required.This not only gets 'intelligent design' off the hook, but it is also its biggest Achilles heel. Without knowing what the intended design is, it is impossible to genuinely recognise design.
    I guess the prior question would be: why did God make man in the first place? God is farther above us than we are above bacteria. God didn't need man to worship Him, any more than humans need bacteria to worship them.

    If I were God and I wanted creatures made in my image to know me as the intelligent designer, I sure wouldn't have filled up the sky with emptiness. I'd have plastered my own face on the sky, looking down on man through the ages. I'd have impressed my visage in every cavern and on every mountaintop; I'd have stamped my 'trademark' on every blade of grass and bee's wing. Everywhere man cared to look, he would see the same image, a likeness to himself. That way, there could not possibly have been any doubters.
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8563
    29 Jul '15 19:041 edit
    Astrophysicist and Christian apologist Dr. Hugh Ross has some interesting thoughts about why the universe is the way it is.

    Better listen before someone comes blabbering along about Young Earth, poohoo-ing of Ross's outfit "Reasons to Believe"


    "Why the Universe is the Way It Is"

    YouTube
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '15 19:17
    Originally posted by moonbus
    If I were God and I wanted creatures made in my image to know me as the intelligent designer,.
    Well obviously the bacteria speculating about the motives and actions of man really doesn't tell us a whole lot. Again, this observation not only gets the theist off the hook, but is the theists Achilles heel in that the theist does tend to claim to know the mind of God and what hist motives are and key attributes etc. In reality, if God is really as superior to us as claimed then we have as much hope of knowing anything about him as a bacteria would.
  12. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    29 Jul '15 20:02
    Originally posted by sonship
    Astrophysicist and Christian apologist Dr. Hugh Ross has some interesting thoughts about why the universe is the way it is.

    Better listen before someone comes blabbering along about Young Earth, poohoo-ing of Ross's outfit [b]"Reasons to Believe"



    "Why the Universe is the Way It Is"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGbq0fN_9Y0[/b]
    Thanks for the link. Ross presents a very articulate exposition of the Anthropic principle. It boils down to this: Only at this time and place is life possible. If any of a number of parameters were different (temperatures, solar luminosity, solar stability, distance from other galactic bodies, percent of dark matter in the universe, rates of decay, amino acids, etc. etc.), life as we know it would not be possible.

    My reply to the Anthropic principle is that life is precarious, but it does not follow from that that all those parameters necessary to life were designed to be fortuitous for us. To view the constellation of parameters as "fine tuned" to support life is to smuggle the conclusion into the premiss.
  13. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    29 Jul '15 20:04
    Nobody can seriously believe in an Intelligent Designer.
    The evidence is against it.

    However a Stupid Designer is more difficult to argue against.
    Why don't the theists use that???
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    29 Jul '15 20:384 edits
    Originally posted by sonship
    Astrophysicist and Christian apologist Dr. Hugh Ross has some interesting thoughts about why the universe is the way it is.

    Better listen before someone comes blabbering along about Young Earth, poohoo-ing of Ross's outfit [b]"Reasons to Believe"



    "Why the Universe is the Way It Is"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGbq0fN_9Y0[/b]
    His main argument is things are fine tuned for human life, nice location in the galaxy and so forth. But he can't say this doesn't happen anywhere else. Not sure if it is right if we came into existence 5 billion years earlier we could not see the big bang.

    He loses me with the physics of original sin.

    He can't believe our solar system is just co-incident and it doesn't have to be anything more.

    We already are seeing planets near twin of Earth. There are simply too many stars even in our galaxy and that doesn't even count the literally billions of other galaxies. Making Earth totally special is just a bit premature. We haven't even gone to Mars much less other stars or Galaxies so his whole argument is biased from day one.

    I don't believe for a minute the sun only has this 100,000 year quite period and 50K years from now the sun will start killing life on Earth. That is an argument used for his biased view of religion, using science to make his religious points.

    I could not find any reference to this 100,000 year quiet span of time for the Sun.
  15. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    29 Jul '15 21:061 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    His main argument is things are fine tuned for human life, nice location in the galaxy and so forth. But he can't say this doesn't happen anywhere else. Not sure if it is right if we came into existence 5 billion years earlier we could not see the big bang.

    He loses me with the physics of original sin.

    He can't believe our solar system is just co-inci ...[text shortened]... s points.

    I could not find any reference to this 100,000 year quiet span of time for the Sun.
    The weakness in Ross's argument is that all the parameters "fit" to life as we know it. If the parameters (solar luminosity, age of the universe, amino acids, and all the rest of it) were different, it does not follow that life would be impossible; only life such as ourselves.

    Human gut flora (assuming they could think) could make all the same points: that the human body must have been designed to support bacterial life (interior body temperature, all the right enzymes in the gut, red and white blood cells, perfect symbiosis, etc. etc.). Just doesn't follow though.
Back to Top