If the only beings in the universe are on earth, id ask why so big.

If not id ask if we rule the other beings like we are supposed to rule over the earths. Plus a lot of other questions like did Jesus save them too.

At least to the abrahamic God.

Cosmic Christ , intellectually incomprehensible to the convention of religion but a fact, for what its worth.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Chr...211226a01.html

No, because then it would be "Earth-centric."

If we find evidence of humans, monkeys or dolphins (or even a T-rex) naturally residing on other planets, I will change my mind. But I think most biologists would agree that that is extremely unlikely.

With how big the universe is... the possibility that there is a "twin" of earth is unmeasurable because we've never found one; assuming most of anyone, will side with yes or no of finding life is foolish.

Personally, I think nature proves that there is very likely a twin of earth and maybe it is just far beyond our looking glass and nothing is wrong with that because the scale is not measurable in our minds at times.

The notion that man created god is reasonable to think or live by on the other hand.

A planet identical to Earth is very likely, however finding identical complex multicellular life (e.g. humans) is unlikely. Diverse life due to geographical speciation has shown that there are several ways life can adapt to its environment/planet.

Also, in my opinion, if we do find another Earth with identical lifeforms as our Earth, then we would find a far greater number of Earth's with completely distinct and unique life.

Well it really depends on the scale and measurability of probability; we have no way of truly defining, it unlikely or likely with our looking glass.

It still begs the question.

Earth-centric as opposed to what?

For all I know, the rest of 'the universe' is entirely irrelevant. For all I know, the earth IS the universe. For all I know, there is no life elsewhere.

Until evidence otherwise (e.g., evidence of life elsewhere), my knowledge outlined above is both exhaustive and reasonable.

There are better indications that religion is man-made, than the empty 'earth-centric/human-centric' argument.

Only humans have the intellectual capacity to value or to love. Inanimate objects do not have that. To have a vast amount of them doesn't change that. Without intelligent beings like humans, the universe cannot have value. That why humans can rightly be special and be the most important entities in the universe.

As opposed to a planet-agnostic or species-agnostic belief system, i.e. a belief system that doesn't put a particular species (human, dolphin, monkey, Trex, which as humans, we're conveniently familiar with) or a particular planet (Earth, Uranus, PSR1257 + 12B) at the center of our 91-billion light year visible universe. Islam is partly there by not depicting god as a man, but like other religions, is still human-centric by discussing human morality and archaic human customs (I think this is why a lot of people got confused when I initially mentioned morality - and you mentioning that I was new to forum didn't help. I was trying to be general).

For this reason, while I'm an agnostic/atheist, I give diests, who are able to formulate a plausible belief system, a lot of respect.

False

What?

Why is the rest of the universe relevant?

Your contention (can't refer to it as an argument yet) rests on the assumption that it is.

For example, you assume that the whole universe isn't here just for us, as a gigantic playground upon which to expand over time.

Until evidence of its relevance (for which we have minimal thus far), the contention that God would concern himself with empty, lifeless planets is misguided.

As stated multiple times in this thread, its a discussion of plausibility. Of course I cannot disprove that a god, resembling a Caucasian bearded aged man, created man in one corner of the universe, and made the rest of the universe so vast simply for everyone's entertainment. What I can say, is that it's much more plausible that an infinitesimally new species of this planet (man) arrogantly imposed that the creation of the universe was done by his own like. If the human creator created human in his own image, where was human the rest of the 99.99% of the age of Earth? Again, it's a discussion of plausibility. You can rebut and say we're just lucky to be the first arrivals.

'Where were humans, the rest of the 99.99% of the age of Earth?' is a separate contention and it is a non-sequitur to throw it in alongside the 'earth-centric' narrative.

As for your contention and appeals to plausibility, to me and perhaps other mono-theistic believers, it is far more plausible that the other species, and planets are largely irrelevant - provided the lack of evidence indicating their importance.

P.S. I'm an agnostic atheist, similarly to yourself, but I don't think your contention here is a particularly good indicator of a man-made-God. I'm also not denying that it could be viewed as an indicator.

It is simple. The capacity to place value on something solely belongs to living creatures. So without living creatures, especially intelligent ones, the universe has no value whatsoever. There is no entity left to value it. Get it?

There are two ways of arguing that a religion featuring a human-resembling eternal creator (or a creator who focuses on the behavior of one species, e.g. human morality), is a product of man: 1) arguing spatially and 2) arguing with respect to time. The 99.99% age of the Earth argument is an argument with respect to time. The spatially argument is that we occupy less than a grain of sand in the vast cosmos, and it is biologically unlikely that man occupies other planets, or at least without the abundance several other species. Therefore, man cannot be the dominate species of the universe, and assigning the universe's creator to a man-resembling being is implausible. But again, emphasis on plausibility, because as you pointed out, I cannot disprove that the rest of the universe was simply constructed for man's awe.

Just to be 100% clear for anyone new reading, it's not just "man-made God". It's man-resembling God, or more generally, an Earth-centric God. Or even more generally, a very "local God" within the cosmos. And as history as shown, this very Earth has been home to various local Gods, local to indigenous cultures and geographic isolation/barriers.

Even if we accept this premise for now, how do you go from that to "That why humans can rightly be special and be the most important entities in the universe." Maybe you're reading something in this thread out of context?

And atheists have the ego issues...

Don't knock it. Every human gets to be "special".

If the word special is to have any meaning at all, something somewhere needs to be "special" and something needs to be "not special". Right? So divide the universe into living humans and inanimate objects. Which is special and which is not? The universe is a googolplex of useless inanimate rocks and energy. Just because there is so much of it doesn't make it special. If 99% of that inanimate world disappeared, without disturbing humanity, no one would care (except for some astronomers). If 1% of humans disappear it would be considered an enormous disaster. There is just no point to the rest of the universe except as a future living place for intelligent beings like humans. Intellect trumps dust.

Of course noted astrophysicist Stephen Hawking agrees with me. Here's what he said about it:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." (Der Spiegel 1989)

Unless this was just a tangent, I fail to see the relevance to this thread. An eternal man-resembling creator does not follow from this, which is what this thread is about.

You also mentioned in previous post that "man is the most important entity in the universe", as if there could not be more intellectually advanced lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. Even if Earth is only the planet with life, this doesn't address the "time argument".

The "value" of the universe is totally irrelevant.

To know the value of the universe you would have to be "outside" of it and you would need to know if it has some purpose (and if the living creatures have any importance to that purpose)

You're inside the universe, so you are the last one to decide over it's value. Get it?

Also: You don't have any proof that any god exists, so please stop posting in a way that assumes he is there. There is no proof that jesus has ever lived, so god or jesus very likely don't exist.

There could be multiple 'answers' for everyone when they die.

Since, there is really no logical standing in arguing what happens when you die or if there is a god; one's greatest wish could be fulfilled or deepest fear depending on whatever factors cause a choice.

In any case the time spent on the topic, is probably very little, since man always comes back to the discussion and its always old/stale/same.

The way people define words is always different depending on the society, culture, and education.
Everyone can be special and the word special can still exist but i'm not saying which group I fall in with that possible argument.

So you are incapable of placing a value on your own clothes, your dwelling, your city, or on the earth because you live inside them?

It counters your human-centric criticism of theism. I'm not trying to prove anything, just disproving your atheistic contention.



I'll amend it to say "intelligent life forms, humans being the only ones we know of, are the most important entity".

What "time argument"? The universe was not necessarily created in order to create humanity. The universe was created on its own for some purpose. The idea to create humanity just occurred later in time.

good luck

I wouldn't agree completely. There are things that arent special. But special isnt some black white on off thing. Its more like a gray scale. Some things are more special to me then others but the others are still special.

Both.

The earth and all the other inanimate objects that allow it to exist as it is are special. Very special and more so then individual human lives including my own which in some crazy hypothetical i would give up to save it. And there is nothing more special to me the me so yeah...

You left out the special dust. The dust that makes up us (we are the universe) and the dust that allows us to exist.

Dont think he would agree with what you wrote.

How?