The Atheological Argument from Scale

[Requiem]

One of the arguments proposed by atheist philosophers in support of atheism is the so-called "argument from scale". It claims, basically, that the universe is unnecessarily vast; and that if God existed, he would have made it much smaller than it is. It's been advanced most notably by Nicholas Everitt in his book "The Non-Existence of God", and by many other thinkers, such as Richard Carrier.

Few people paid attention to this argument, and those who did critiqued it on the basis that it is allegedly subjective. "How big does it have to be, exactly?" they said; but this is not the point of the argument. Now, there are trillions of stars and galaxies, and black holes and all the other cosmological stuff: what is their purpose? The problem is not that the cosmos is too vast, but that it contains a number of seemingly useless entities.

It seems that God could have easily created a universe much simpler and smaller. So this argument looks very powerful to me, much more powerful than the popular argument from evil which "can be looked upon as the skeletal remains of dinosaurs", as prof. Charles Taliaferro brilliantly puts it. So, what do you think of this? Is the vastness of the universe evidence against the existence of God? And, for theists, what could be the reason for God creating so many cosmological objects, beautiful to behold but with no apparent purpose in "the great scheme of things"?

-Requiem

[Zombie]

One of the arguments proposed by atheist philosophers in support of atheism is the so-called "argument from scale". It claims, basically, that the universe is unnecessarily vast; and that if God existed, he would have made it much smaller than it is. It's been advanced most notably by Nicholas Everitt in his book "The Non-Existence of God", and by many other thinkers, such as Richard Carrier.

Few people paid attention to this argument, and those who did critiqued it on the basis that it is allegedly subjective. "How big does it have to be, exactly?" they said; but this is not the point of the argument. Now, there are trillions of stars and galaxies, and black holes and all the other cosmological stuff: what is their purpose? The problem is not that the cosmos is too vast, but that it contains a number of seemingly useless entities.

It seems that God could have easily created a universe much simpler and smaller. So this argument looks very powerful to me, much more powerful than the popular argument from evil which "can be looked upon as the skeletal remains of dinosaurs", as prof. Charles Taliaferro brilliantly puts it. So, what do you think of this? Is the vastness of the universe evidence against the existence of God? And, for theists, what could be the reason for God creating so many cosmological objects, beautiful to behold but with no apparent purpose in "the great scheme of things"?

-Requiem

interesting, but i think it depends on our understanding of the 'useless' structures. they may just be redundancies created by the process that brought us about due to probabilities alone.

or some think the universe could be a large computer and the various structures, apparently black holes, are the means of transforming and storing data. i think ray kurtzweil talked about this in one of his books.

or they may be pertinent to some of the holographic universe theories somehow.

[Metacrock]

that just reacquires second guessing God. The only way they can claim to know God's true purposes is to be God.

Also that arguments assumes a big man in the sky not a ground of being kind of concept of God.

[fm93]

One of the arguments proposed by atheist philosophers in support of atheism is the so-called "argument from scale". It claims, basically, that the universe is unnecessarily vast; and that if God existed, he would have made it much smaller than it is. It's been advanced most notably by Nicholas Everitt in his book "The Non-Existence of God", and by many other thinkers, such as Richard Carrier.

Few people paid attention to this argument, and those who did critiqued it on the basis that it is allegedly subjective. "How big does it have to be, exactly?" they said; but this is not the point of the argument. Now, there are trillions of stars and galaxies, and black holes and all the other cosmological stuff: what is their purpose? The problem is not that the cosmos is too vast, but that it contains a number of seemingly useless entities.

It seems that God could have easily created a universe much simpler and smaller. So this argument looks very powerful to me, much more powerful than the popular argument from evil which "can be looked upon as the skeletal remains of dinosaurs", as prof. Charles Taliaferro brilliantly puts it. So, what do you think of this? Is the vastness of the universe evidence against the existence of God? And, for theists, what could be the reason for God creating so many cosmological objects, beautiful to behold but with no apparent purpose in "the great scheme of things"?

-Requiem

Like those aforementioned opponents, I can't really take this argument that seriously. I just don't find it particularly persuasive. It's founded on the assumption that God must be a strict engineer, never using more than the simplest necessities. But why should we think this is so? Suppose I want to make a statement about life or human nature. If I decide to express my point by writing a story, then I would end up creating people and events that are completely unnecessary to express the point--after all, I could summarize it in a single sentence, such as "Greed corrupts" or "Love conquers all." But I doubt that atheists would object to my decision to write an entire story when I could have simply written a sentence.

[ENeGMA]

Historically, religion placed us at the center of the universe, figuratively and literally.

Now, when science demonstrates the falsity of this view, all of a sudden God is some grand architect, designing a vast cosmos which we are just a small part, because he's some artist or something.

This is a reasonable argument for atheism in the same way that making humanity the center of the universe was a reasonable assumption for early theists.

The mere fact that early theists placed Humankind at the center of the universe shows that a universe not centered around Humankind is, in some sense, less theistic in nature.

In fact if the entire universe DID revolve around us that would be a GOOD argument for God existing, would it not? Everyone, I think, will concede that.

Then, by the law of bivalence, you have to concede the converse.

If us being the center of the universe would make God's existence more likely, us not being the center of the universe would make God's existence less likely.

QED.

[pontus]

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (Ps. 19:1)

I guess there is a reason for the universe being big :)

[robertb]

Now, there are trillions of stars and galaxies, and black holes and all the other cosmological stuff: what is their purpose? The problem is not that the cosmos is too vast, but that it contains a number of seemingly useless entities.

Without that stuff, the elements that make up your body would never have been created and you would not be around to ask this particular question.

Therefore, though this may be bad news for some specific theologies, I am not sure how it would make a difference to the question of whether or not god(s) exists.

[drgodsauce]

Yeah, I agree with robertb, I don't find this argument compelling in terms of the existence of a god in general.
It's a good question to ask of specific claims (a prime example being the creation story in Genesis), but it applies a limiting characteristic on a being of potentially limitless power when applied to the concept of a deity rather than a claimed deity

[Seasanctuary]

To affirm what Enegma said, how do apologists get away with making Cosmological and Teleological arguments based on an anthropocentric world, unless facts indicating a non-anthropocentric world undermine such arguments?

I would say the vastness of the universe also undermines arguments from revelation, since it's another category where the Bible at least is ignorant and at most gives a false impression.

Now, undermining theological arguments is not quite the same as making positive atheological arguments. There could always be a deistic God who created a natural world which is indistinguishable from a self-existing natural world. This is really just a problem for theists who believe God does in fact make his existence known through nature. Such theists keep having to retreat as human knowledge advances, showing each time that they had been making an invalid argument from ignorance. Make take a hint?

[drgodsauce]

I absolutely agree that this argument undermines the validity of specific claims. For instance, I find Genesis' complete failure to mention the vastness of the universe apart from mention of the stars (not to mention failure to note that the sun is also a star) to be somewhat damning. When, in describing the universe, one fails to mention the existence of other planets and galaxies while demonstrating a geocentric perspective, I'm left to wonder if they were writing about a different universe or simply were limited by a human (read: unaided by the supernatural) understanding of the universe rendered vastly inadequate by our current understanding, incomplete as it may be

[Metacrock]

Historically, religion placed us at the center of the universe, figuratively and literally.

Now, when science demonstrates the falsity of this view, all of a sudden God is some grand architect, designing a vast cosmos which we are just a small part, because he's some artist or something.

You are trying to make judgments about the history of theology without understanding anything about it. You are assuming many silly things here:

(1) you assume that the geocentric universe was some great precious doctrine that must be protected--that assumes inerrncy which is a 19th century concept so obviously the geocentric universe was not of any particular concern to the church before the 19th century (1800s?). Galileo was placed under house arrest not because the bothered geocentricity but because his disagreement about Aristotle was an offense to Church authority which made Ari a previent saint.

(2) you assume that the idea of being itself is designed to get around the problem of heliocentricity when it has nothing to do with that at all.

(3) The LXX (intertestamental Greek Translation of the OT) says God si being itself, thus making that point older than modern science.



[quote]This is a reasonable argument for atheism in the same way that making humanity the center of the universe was a reasonable assumption for early theists.[/quote\

No it's not its totally unreasonable. If God is real there's no reason why humanity should be the center. The psychosocial layout of the universe is trivial. However it is that's just how God did it.

Yes, God did do it!

The mere fact that early theists placed Humankind at the center of the universe shows that a universe not centered around Humankind is, in some sense, less theistic in nature.

what do you expect them to think? this is one of the stupidest things that atheists do. "O religion existed a long time ago, that's when people didn't know sutff about the universe, therefore, religion must be wrong about the universe." Since the task of religion not to tell us about outer space so what?

what if our knowledge of the cosmos has gown then our religious understanding also grows with it, so what?
don't you see what you are doing? you are making a straw man argument! why don't you try to understand what religion is really about instead of just making crap about it to make yourself feel better?

In fact if the entire universe DID revolve around us that would be a GOOD argument for God existing, would it not? Everyone, I think, will concede that.

That's a ludicrous assumption. why should God make a universe that revolves around us? Give me one good reason to think that God didn't allow the universe to evolve on its own?

What if we are not the only planet where God put life?

Then, by the law of bivalence, you have to concede the converse.

that's nothing more than an extremely immature way to think. That's about the way I thought about things as an eight year old. Granted it's probably in line with a lot of fudnies. it's probably the way the tea party guys think. Don't you want to think in a more adult way than the fundies?

If us being the center of the universe would make God's existence more likely, us not being the center of the universe would make God's existence less likely.

QED.

But that's an assertion you can't prove. It's imagined by childish thought. come on get over it. I did when I was eight. I was eight years when I realized what was wrong with that way of thinking.

[Metacrock]

Without that stuff, the elements that make up your body would never have been created and you would not be around to ask this particular question.

Therefore, though this may be bad news for some specific theologies, I am not sure how it would make a difference to the question of whether or not god(s) exists.

Yes that's a good point. In my view those would be very childish theologies. They do exist! The sooner we get rid of them the better!

[Metacrock]

To affirm what Enegma said, how do apologists get away with making Cosmological and Teleological arguments based on an anthropocentric world, unless facts indicating a non-anthropocentric world undermine such arguments?

No one argues for anthropocentric world. Cosmological argument does not say that the world is a laid out by a human mind. Crummy apologists make it sound that way, good ones' know better.

that's why the cos argument ususally comes down to necessary being vs contingent being. Because it's not a matte of overt planning but of necessity and contingency.

I would say the vastness of the universe also undermines arguments from revelation, since it's another category where the Bible at least is ignorant and at most gives a false impression.

You are the ignorant one. Your understanding of how to think about the Bible is on a par with a third grader. I"m not saying that's a mark agaisnt your intelligence except for the fact that anyone who really wants to combat an idea tries to learn about it. Atheists are the only group and practically believes in avoiding learning about their opponent's ideas.

No one thinks the bible is revealing divine truth about the universe in those passage where it says "four corners of the eath." there are people who find what they think is advanced scientific info that would not have been known then, such as "he hung the North over an empty place." I don't think we need cheap parlor tricks to show the truth of the Bible, the truth of the Bible is not about scinece or the physical world.

The bible was written by humans. They used the understanding of the world that they had. That's rarely the point of the text talking about the physical world.

Now, undermining theological arguments is not quite the same as making positive atheological arguments. There could always be a deistic God who created a natural world which is indistinguishable from a self-existing natural world. This is really just a problem for theists who believe God does in fact make his existence known through nature. Such theists keep having to retreat as human knowledge advances, showing each time that they had been making an invalid argument from ignorance. Make take a hint?

one simple truth takes out this whole childish way of thinking:

Bible is not about the physical world! that's it. that's all there is to it. there are other ideas in reality besides science! the Bible is not a science textbook.


THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SCIENCE TEXT BOOK!

[drgodsauce]

"Bible is not about the physical world! that's it. that's all there is to it. there are other ideas in reality besides science! the Bible is not a science textbook."

The physical world and science aren't interchangable terms. If the bible is not about the physical world, what is it about? Is the whole thing a metaphor? I'm not trying to catch you in a corner or anything, I'm actually quite curious what you mean by this

[drgodsauce]

In fact, the more in-depth I look at what you're saying, the more it appears that you're criticizing Seasanct for assuming that people who profess beliefs based on the Bible actually, you know, take the contents of the Bible seriously.