Nov 14, 2009
This widely-held vague concept is, I would suggest, bung.* While it is a little late for in-depth philosophical analysis, let us try and see why.
Some points in no particular order: the bigger the universe, the bigger the big man behind it; God, we might reasonably expect, has an infinity of resources – note that he did, it appears, make the universe from nothing; the size of the universe humbles many; the galaxies reveal order and beauty even beyond the comprehension of the (usually Christian) scientists who first pointed them out; the specifics of life’s complexity kill hopes for aliens evolving elsewhere; the nature of the God revealed in nature is ambiguous beyond certain traits which may be inferred, but the Christian claim is that God is in fact revealed in Christ, while the other stuff exists for God’s glory; the type of universe revealed by modern physics suggests a set-up and by implication one who pulled it off; the earth is protected, well-placed and has interdependent regulated cycles to maintain a bio-friendly-equilibrium, but, of course it’s all atoms jostling.
Naughty me, I admit I’ve been attacking a straw man. The real claim is “the universe is massive and massively old – therefore God doesn’t exist”. Yet it seems my points remain and ultimately, it is not my claim that the analysis of clams or classes of star shall lead one inextricably to ‘hang time’ with the creator of the universe. For the bridging of the obvious gap between the one who made the galaxies and the ones who try and work out what’s in them, we have a self-expression delivered in a manger. If this is a bit rural for you, I can only say that I do think I appreciate the night sky better from out here.
*You’re going to love these acronyms – the next theory I’m working on turns out to be “dodge.”