Thread: The size of our universe

Cool pic, don't gotta be an ass though...

It is pretty amazing just how small we are in comparision other objects in the Galaxy. Trying to comprehend how vast the universe itself is is very difficult!


Oh and yeah, it's funny that our perfectly designed universe, or even to be fair, galaxy is so well designed for life that the amount of life contained within is basically an infinitely small percentage. That's good design for you!

CHeck out this video called the powers of 10. The universe not only big expanding outwards, but it's also "big" going inwards and smaller.

http://www.videosift.com/video/IBM-P...-science-video

Yeah the Powers of 10 video in my opinion is easily one of the most awe-inspiring films ever made. Great stuff.

Thanks so much for posting this

It is utterly utterly mind boggling.
How very very small we are.

Wonderful stuff!

Just goes to show how much more infinitely fascinating and rewarding Astronomy is to say... Astrology.

Science and the human quest to understand our Universe is amazing.

When people ask me why I get frustrated by Religion and Non-Scientific thinking... it's because its things like this, these images... that are REAL... and they have been revealed to us through Science. How much more awe inspiring they are than religious thinking and new age ramblings. That is why. Because reality is so much more fantastic than the crazy ramblings of the world religions.

Divine, isn't it? Divine, aren't we all?

Originally Posted by really

Divine, isn't it? Divine, aren't we all?

No.
Divine means "eminating from God"
I assume you are hinting at that?

Beautiful - yes.
Magnificent - yes.
Awe Inspiring - yes.
Mind boggling - yes.

Divine.... no, not in my opinion. That cheapens it.

Plus let us not forget it was science that bought us these images and knowledge... the very same science that tells us that there is no evidence of a God.

Can't pick and choose. if you shun science then you also shun these images of the wonderful Universe we live in. Only its sad how the religious will use the fruits of science and astronomy as "proof of Gods wonders". I personally find it very Hypocritical.

OP's link wouldn't display for me, but loved the video by The Cusp. It brings to mind the quote,

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

No.
Divine means "eminating from God"
I assume you are hinting at that?

Beautiful - yes.
Magnificent - yes.
Awe Inspiring - yes.
Mind boggling - yes.

Divine.... no, not in my opinion. That cheapens it.

Well, the core of all beauty, awe and magnificence is Divinity/God, so well done for identifying those qualities already (ignoring "cheapens it").

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Plus let us not forget it was science that bought us these images and knowledge... the very same science that tells us that there is no evidence of a God.

Can't pick and choose. if you shun science then you also shun these images of the wonderful Universe we live in. Only its sad how the religious will use the fruits of science and astronomy as "proof of Gods wonders". I personally find it very Hypocritical.

There is no reason to ignore or reject science, apart from the situation where it has no power, so lack of scientific evidence of God doesn't really mean anything. The main assumption is that Divinity/God is objective or "out there", when it is rooted in subjectivity as Reality. "Science" as a generality may have brought us these great images, however that doesn't negate their intrinsic beauty. Having said that these images are:

• Beautiful
• Magnificent
• Awe Inspiring
• Mind boggling

Would you go on to say that therefore science is invalid, or that these observations/impressions are invalid after science, or that both science and wonder are valid unto themselves?

Spoiler for duh:

Both are valid in their own paradigm, and while science may seem to negate God, God does not negate science at all.

My rhetorical questions concerning our Divinity stems from a recognition that, essentially we are made of stars, that we are One with God, looking back at ourSelf. With the belief in separation, however, we believe that we are separate from the Universe and each of its parts - the infinite stretch of space, stars and planets. But this ignores our origin, and our Universe as our Body.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

OP's link wouldn't display for me

For some reason my server is having a hissy fit. Will try to fix after work.

Originally Posted by really

Well, the core of all beauty, awe and magnificence is Divinity/God, so well done for identifying those qualities already (ignoring "cheapens it").

You really should learn to put "in my opinion" in statements like this.
Your statement shows us nothing other than how you personaly see the world, it tells us nothing else about the universe we inhabit, It is purely opinion. Opinion is great and fascinating, but can you please try and not word it as if you and you alone know the truth. Or give us something other than your personal belief to demonstrate your opinions.

I would go as far as to say you are extrapolating too far.
As far as we know, the core of beauty, awe and magnificence are in fact:
ways in which human psychology processes and experiences its environment.
They are human emotions, they require no God.


And no It is not good enough to say "God created Psychology and the universe"... as you're just expressing belief again, unfounded in anything tangible.

Originally Posted by really

There is no reason to ignore or reject science, apart from the situation where it has no power, so lack of scientific evidence of God doesn't really mean anything. The main assumption is that Divinity/God is objective or "out there", when it is rooted in subjectivity as Reality. "Science" as a generality may have brought us these great images, however that doesn't negate their intrinsic beauty. Having said that these images are:

• Beautiful
• Magnificent
• Awe Inspiring
• Mind boggling

Would you go on to say that therefore science is invalid, or that these observations/impressions are invalid after science, or that both science and wonder are valid unto themselves?

No I don't see where you are gettng this conclusion from.
Why should the process of discovering our universe in a way that confirms its validity (science) negate the percived beauty in them? Or why should perciving beauty negate science? There is no foundation for this assumption.
They are not opposed, beauty can be just as much a part of the scientific world view as the religious. I would even say that in my opinion true beauty belongs more so in the realm of science, because it is science that reveals the truths of the universe to us.. only when we know something to be true can our minds be truelly overwhelmed by the awesomeness of it all.

Originally Posted by really

Both are valid in their own paradigm, and while science may seem to negate God, God does not negate science at all.

My rhetorical questions concerning our Divinity stems from a recognition that, essentially we are made of stars, that we are One with God, looking back at ourSelf. With the belief in separation, however, we believe that we are separate from the Universe and each of its parts - the infinite stretch of space, stars and planets. But this ignores our origin, and our Universe as our Body.

You make a LOT of unfounded statements.
Being made of Stars does not infer that we are "one with God"
We may well be the universe becoming aware and looking back at itself... but that again does not require a Divinity.

You say: we believe that we are separate from the Universe and each of its parts

Who is this we?
Do you mean the human race? How do YOU know what the human race believe as a whole?
I certainly have never considered myself seperate from the Universe. Which is exactly why I'm an Atheist. I came to terms long ago that being a temporary conscious part of the universe itself was essentially what I observed myself and others as. It required no additional "god" or "soul" or "life after death" it was simply something I could look out into the Universe and observe first hand.

I'd like to challenge your statement on a crucial aspect... that there is in fact no "I" or "We" in the first place to be "seperate from the universe". And that we are observably temporary combinations of processes, always in flux and changing.
So if there is no "I" then how can I be seperate from anything?
I is just a concept. It's a trillion changing processes that appear to be an enduring identity due to our unique perspective. Much like a film appears to move when in reality it is a million different frames.

Once you dispense with the concept of "I" then yes you can say that a human being is a temporary coagulation of processes in and of the universe, that create the illusion of a discreet identity. Those processes will disperse enough upon our death for the illusion to be shattered, but are in truth dispersing all the time, as well as reforming and changing constantly.

What we are made of is inherently tied up with the rest of the ancient (and perhaps eternal) universe. And should remain in one form or another, part of the Universe for the duration of the Universe.

Does this require a Divinity?
Only really If you are using a Pantheist definition of God. Otherwise the world "Universe as a whole" or even "Existence as a whole" (if you want to encompass what may or may not be before, after and outside the Universe itself)

BUT, why use such a loaded term as "God" when "Existence as a whole" and "the Universe" are already so much more straighforward and blatant.

You see it appears we really don't think all that differently.
Our interpretation of existence diverge at the word "God"

I don't like the word, because it is loaded with millenia of opposing ideas. People can lach onto it and distort it.
You may use the word God, and someone may think you both share the same definition, but you do not.

Why not just use the word "All" or say "All that is" then you don't box yourself up with the creationalists or the religious looneys who strap bombs to themselves. The word god glues you to them.

By not using the world God, you become a Philosopher rather than Religious.
It is much more liberating to do away with words that have so many many definitions that they become meaningless.

The difference between a Philosopher and the Religious, in my eyes is,
The former says "What If?" the latter says "This IS."

I think that a lot of people who consider themselves Spiritual are in fact far more inclined to the Philosophical. A philosopher is far more free to explore the possibilities than someone who calls themselves Spritual... as the latter is a much more loaded word, and implys a personal investment.

You can be a Philosophical Atheist... in fact, I'd bet a great deal of Atheists are.

I for example would consider myself currently a Philosophical Agnostic Atheist with a Scientific-Pantheist outlook.

But generally for the sake of simplicity I use the term Atheist.

The choice of words and labels we apply to ourselves, and our lives can either free us or chain us.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

The size of our universe

Every time I see just how big it is, I just get filled with wonder over how God created this massive space, JUST FOR US! Doesn't it make you just feel so special?

I mean, yeah it doesn't say anything about the massive size of it or anything in the Bible. But it's just so awesome how He created it so big just so we would be able to discover it!

I guess it just kinda sucks that we are never going to be able to expand out there, or discover any other life out there (because obviously, that's not in the Bible)

But hey, how awesome of a God do we have that he created all this extra space, just so we could have some pretty things to look at in the sky? I mean, that's pretty awesome.

Really, what's the point? "Ha ha, the most naive interpretation of one text of one wisdom tradition is false--GOTCHA!"

What I don't understand about strict objectivism/materialism is, how does it make sense to look at the universe from the perspective of an outside observer that you insist does not exist?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Really, what's the point? "Ha ha, the most naive interpretation of one text of one wisdom tradition is false--GOTCHA!"

Actually, that was pretty much the point. Religious people think that the human race is the only thing that actually matters in this whole huge universe. That God/Allah created us special and we are actually what matters, and the massive universe is just some kind of afterthought.

I was just attempting to point out the absurdity of that line of thinking.

No, it does not make me small and/or insignificant.
Why not? Because you only look at stuff that is larger than we are - you can do the same thing with the objects we are made of. If the electrons of atoms were populated planets, those poor being wouldn't even know they are PART of us - a truly titanic species SO big you can't even see them.

I feel great - to be a part of it. Don't forget - the universe would NOT be the same universe without you. As a matter of fact, you are very important indeed. Imagine that a single human life can be filled with love, tragedy, death - everything. And yet, we are so small. Awesome, eh?

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Actually, that was pretty much the point. Religious people think that the human race is the only thing that actually matters in this whole huge universe. That God/Allah created us special and we are actually what matters, and the massive universe is just some kind of afterthought.

I was just attempting to point out the absurdity of that line of thinking.

Ah, I see, "Absurd interpretations of religion are absurd." And how does that generalize to "religious people" again?

VY Canis Majoris says FU to our sun. That thing looks like it will wipe out our galaxy if it went super nova...no chance in hell of escaping it. I wish Hubble was good enough to zoom into planets looking for life....imagine an Earth look alike planet? and humans in there...lol.

What is with the Blue star? electromagnetic or something? perhaps all electric, and tons of lightning strikes coming from it.


edit- Could you imagine if VY Canis Majoris was actually a planet, and not a star, and it was looking like Earth? I'd say let's start moving to that planet, and start populating that planet. It would take millions of years to travel around the whole thing by foot, and millions of years by jets. You would need a transport thing to go to different areas...like, transport from 1 place, to another on the planet.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Ah, I see, "Absurd interpretations of religion are absurd." And how does that generalize to "religious people" again?

My first post wasn't generalizing "religious people". It was talking about "religious people" that believe god made all that so we can say "oh how pretty".

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

I feel great - to be a part of it. Don't forget - the universe would NOT be the same universe without you. As a matter of fact, you are very important indeed. Imagine that a single human life can be filled with love, tragedy, death - everything. And yet, we are so small. Awesome, eh?

I agree with you. Just because in comparison to the whole universe, we are insignificant, doesn't mean that we are on this planet. Even in this solar system, I would say we are pretty damn significant.

The bible is about the creation of earth. To people back then, our small section of space was the universe. Religion and science do not always compete against each other. The only time it does is when people interpret it in silly ways. If you are a person who believes the bible is made of stories which help people understand the teachings of god, then you have no trouble at all.

Creation screams creator! Who is the divine architect?

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Creation screams creator! Who is the divine architect?

No it dosn't.

The word creation may scream creator.
But they are just words.

You are seeing the world through a very obvious evolved tool making primate mindset.
Isn't it odd that the very thing that makes human unique among animals on this planet, i.e. our ability to create things, tools etc just so happens to be the very way we imagine the universe to have started!
We invent a being, who, just like ourselves, creates things.
I would imagine an evolved Spider seeing the universe as a giant web spun by a giant spider.


How about... not seeing the universe as a creation, but as a process of interactions.

An apple isn't a "creation" it is a temporary snapshot of a process of an apple tree.

Stop seeing things in such simplistic human egotistical terms.

Oh we humans create things, so we must have been created.
How very very convenient. Almost as convenient as God having a Son.
Something us humans do too... oh, and odd that the gender is male... especially when back when that particular myth was written, men were the important ones.

We humans are so egotistical and self absorbed.

The Universe DOES NOT require a creator.

And if it does, WHO CREATED THE CREATOR?
You see, your argument is flawed on the most basic level.
You can't demand something complex needs a creator, because a creator is something complex itself. Your argument is an argument against itself. And creates an infinite regress.


Please just think things through.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

No it dosn't.

The word creation may scream creator.
But they are just words.

First of all, take a chill pill. Clam down, relax, don't take everything so serious, especially from me, jackass.

You are seeing the world through a very obvious evolved tool making primate mindset.

Arn't we all? It's called the nervous system...

Isn't it odd that the very thing that makes human unique among animals on this planet, i.e. our ability to create things, tools etc just so happens to be the very way we imagine the universe to have started!
We invent a being, who, just like ourselves, creates things.
I would imagine an evolved Spider seeing the universe as a giant web spun by a giant spider.

Interesting analogy, I like.

How about... not seeing the universe as a creation, but as a process of interactions.

An apple isn't a "creation" it is a temporary snapshot of a process of an apple tree.

Stop seeing things in such simplistic human egotistical terms.

Haha, you are the one telling me what is and is not. You want to get down to the "nitty-gritty"? Nothing is or is not, merely what it appears to be to your nervous system at that point in space and time. Don't tell me to stop thinking in simplistic human egotistical terms when that's all anyone can do, don't be naive...You can only think in ways that make sense to you, you can not get rid of the ego, and we can't help but be human.

Oh we humans create things, so we must have been created.
How very very convenient. Almost as convenient as God having a Son.
Something us humans do too... oh, and odd that the gender is male... especially when back when that particular myth was written, men were the important ones.

You sound like a new-born atheist...

We humans are so egotistical and self absorbed.

The Universe DOES NOT require a creator.

And if it does, WHO CREATED THE CREATOR?
You see, your argument is flawed on the most basic level.
You can't demand something complex needs a creator, because a creator is something complex itself. Your argument is an argument against itself. And creates an infinite regress.

Yes, yes we are. Maybe the universe requires no creator or maybe it did. I don't like to make an assumptions.

As for who created the creator...Maybe god is the great eye of the universe, opening to see it self for the first time, subjectively though you and I. Maybe not, probably not... who knows? You seem like you have an answer though...

As for my argument...what was I arguing? I was making random ambiguous statements like I usually do.

Please just think things through.

Sure thing, bud. Just for you.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

First of all, take a chill pill. Clam down, relax, don't take everything so serious, especially from me, jackass.

How rude.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

How rude.

Indeed.