I'd like to consider a couple of objections to God's existence. In terms of how they are conventionally expressed, it's not clear if these are two separate objections or one overall objection:
1. The argument from scale
The vast size and vast antiquity of the universe renders human existence insignificant by comparison. Humans occupy such an infinitesimal fraction of the universe, in time and space.
2. The universe is overwhelmingly hostile to life
Despite the vastness of the universe, intelligent life may only exist on earth.
These two objections are individually problematic:
Regarding (1):
i) Advocates of mature creation don't think the universe preexisted humans for billions of years.
ii) The theological value of human life is irrelevant to the physical size of the universe in relation to the human population or the position of the earth in relation to the universe. That's a category mistake. To take a comparison, if a son is drafted to fight a war overseas, is he less precious to his parents when he's thousands of miles away compared to when he's living at home or living in the same town? Spatial separation is beside the point.
Is a parent who died 40 years ago less precious to their child than a parent who died last week? Temporal separation is beside the point.
God is a discarnate being, so the value he places on creatures has nothing to do with physical proximity.
Suppose, for argument's sake, that humans were able to colonize the universe. We had space stations scattered across the universe. Would that enhance our significance in the sight of God? The objection is theologically obtuse.
Regarding (2), astronomers are conflicted on that issue. Some think earth might be the only planet where life exists while others think the odds are that life must exist elsewhere in the universe.
But another problem is how these two objections cancel each other out. Supposing that intelligent life only exists on earth, doesn't that make humans extra special? Don't rare things tend to be more precious than ordinary things? Isn't an oasis valuable in relation to the surrounding wasteland?
>>>1. The argument from scale --- The vast size and vast antiquity of the universe renders human existence insignificant by comparison. Humans occupy such an infinitesimal fraction of the universe, in time and space.
ReplyDeleteIf one's only perspective is the material universe, then, humans are insignificant - BUT we have no reason to think that the universe is only material. Which means, while on the surface of it the human species or life in general on earth can be irrelevant in terms of how the universe goes about its business, on other levels - such as spiritual (or theological as you said) - it could be the opposite. I believe in the possibility of the spiritual world and therefore think mere appearances (i.e. the material observations) must not fool us.
>>>2. The universe is overwhelmingly hostile to life
While I do not preclude the possibilities or impossibilities of aliens existing - even if one assumes that we are the only life forms in the universe - that is perfectly consistent with Biblical theology as expressed in Gen 1 and 2. Just because God called his creation good does not mean it has to be hospitable to life. He called the sun, moon and stars good, but the Bible does not teach that there were men on any of them.
Rather than as an argument against God, I find this as an argument for the Biblical God.
I address one variant of the argument from vastness in an article at the Christian Post: https://www.christianpost.com/news/universe-so-big-therefore-god-doesnt-exist-richard-klaus-222589/
ReplyDelete