tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post618660512155854620..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: How Big Would God's Universe Be?Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5332044181193783382012-01-28T12:59:36.633-08:002012-01-28T12:59:36.633-08:00Matt,
I am very much enjoying your writings.
I h...Matt,<br /><br />I am very much enjoying your writings.<br /><br />I have always found the limited view of the unverse by the ancients who described the creation as evidence of its falsehood. Is it not interesting that in Genesis God labored for days to create the seas, the animals,etc.. and yet in a single day, almost as an afterthought, created the stars and the heavens.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10737778703788986671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14588108808805055422007-11-22T00:09:00.000-08:002007-11-22T00:09:00.000-08:00The argument from scale makes me embarrassed to be...The argument from scale makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15768252673915954972007-10-30T08:30:00.000-07:002007-10-30T08:30:00.000-07:00F.Fletcher~ If your if/then statement is true, doe...F.Fletcher~ If your if/then statement is true, doesn't the universe have to contain god? and if god is contained within the universe how in gods name did he create it? pun intended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36008438923612347582007-10-30T08:23:00.000-07:002007-10-30T08:23:00.000-07:00If God is in the world, then I imagine that the un...If God is in the world, then I imagine that the universe would have to be large enough to contain God.<BR/><BR/>F.Fletcher 192Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-67494362829105116312007-10-29T20:46:00.000-07:002007-10-29T20:46:00.000-07:00Central Content Publisher is googlable. The being ...Central Content Publisher is googlable. The being with the fingers is inconsequential.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-89523619905221276192007-10-29T20:20:00.000-07:002007-10-29T20:20:00.000-07:00Not sure if you know this, central content publish...Not sure if you know this, central content publisher, not being condescending, i am not the publisher of this blog.... although i share his name, i lack his brilliance. Just thought maybe there was a missed connection. <BR/><BR/>McCormick- Although i stated that i didn't agree with you in regards to your argument in my first post. I went to class.... Damn it, i now agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31933066647455185412007-10-29T15:34:00.000-07:002007-10-29T15:34:00.000-07:00Thanks, Publisher. The question on everyone's min...Thanks, Publisher. The question on everyone's mind is: Who is this mysterious Central Content Publisher?Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47776375968065938892007-10-29T14:40:00.000-07:002007-10-29T14:40:00.000-07:00Dean (192)A large scale universe is ideal for the ...Dean (192)<BR/>A large scale universe is ideal for the creation of a god for those in need of one. the scale issue allows for the fictions of theists that are in need of the mysteries of god to be justified. there is too much out there to warrant us believing or even thinking that we are alone and that god had us in mind in creating the expansiveness.<BR/><BR/>Are we living in a human scale universe if in fact there are other humans out there? If we are on scale with god's creations, and there are others, are there other god too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-80669279582782678762007-10-29T13:06:00.000-07:002007-10-29T13:06:00.000-07:00"revolutionary chain" should be "evolutionary chai..."revolutionary chain" should be "evolutionary chain".Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2240705335934960462007-10-29T12:52:00.000-07:002007-10-29T12:52:00.000-07:00"Just look at earth’s history, the only planet out..."Just look at earth’s history, the only planet out of billions to have human life, and we have only inhabited the planet for an infinitesimal percentage of its history" - MattD Phil192a<BR/><BR/>Again, the argument of scale would have to include all time. Humans may have only existed for an "infinitesimal percentage" of the past, but the percentage of time humans will have occupied once time has finished (haha) is unknown (though I suspect it will also be an infinitesimal percentage). <BR/><BR/>Likewise, we can't describe what a spacial human scale is until humans have ended.<BR/><BR/>Also, it seems very likely that some form of life does exist outside of earth. <BR/><BR/>Also, it's arguable that all life came from a common ancestor which may have existed for longer than the earth was capable of supporting life. If human is defined as an revolutionary chain resulting in the humans of today, we would have to measure human time as the length of time humans have existed since that common ancestor of life, or at least, the ancestor that eventually created human. If life was planted on earth from space spores (yes, some scientists wonder if that might not be the case), human time may stretch very very far back into the history of the universe. How long, really, is unknown.<BR/><BR/>"I agree that the universe isn’t of human scale and that you Central Content Publisher, misunderstood this post." - MattD Phil192a<BR/><BR/>My point was not a repeating of what I thought your point was, but an additional problem with the thesis you were commenting on. I'm sorry that you, MattD, misunderstood that - I could have been clearer.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88602584318608377912007-10-29T12:18:00.000-07:002007-10-29T12:18:00.000-07:00The universe is not on a human scale, not even clo...The universe is not on a human scale, not even close. Just look at earth’s history, the only planet out of billions to have human life, and we have only inhabited the planet for an infinitesimal percentage of its history. It is clear to me that the earth and clearly the universe is not of human scale. <BR/><BR/>But as McCormick argues, correct me if I am wrong, imagine a universe that is on a human scale, that universe and its implication would not bring about a being worthy of the title of “GOD.” Although I don’t agree with McCormick’s argument that, “A small, comprehensible universe would make the inference to a being worthy of the title “God” even more difficult, not easier as Everitt suggests.” I agree that the universe isn’t of human scale and that you Central Content Publisher, misunderstood this post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12806975997992897542007-10-29T10:54:00.000-07:002007-10-29T10:54:00.000-07:00You're right, it's not a very strong argument. To ...You're right, it's not a very strong argument. To be used as evidence, one would have to prove that the Universe isn't on a human scale, which would entail proving that humans will never fill, or have use for that space. This isn't an easy thing to prove.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.com