The Scale of the Universe

by Luke Muehlhauser on February 8, 2010 in Science

Check out The Scale of the Universe, by Fotoshop at Newgrounds.

Also see Nikon Universcale.

All this has actually been formulated as a philosophical argument for atheism: The Argument from Scale.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }

Leo February 8, 2010 at 6:57 am

Christian philosopher Tim McGrew has written a review of ‘The nonexistence of God’at Amazon.

‘Perhaps the worst chapter in the entire volume is chapter 11, on Arguments from Scale. Everitt urges that the sheer age and size of the universe as revealed by modern astronomy provide evidence against theism. The argument depends entirely on the premise that “humans are the jewel of creation” — by which Everitt means at least that if God exists, we would expect every aspect of the created universe to be “on a human scale” both temporally and spatially. (p. 215) This claim, however, reveals nothing except the poverty of Everitt’s theological knowledge. The whole argument was effectively buried by Thomas Chalmers in his Discourses on the Christian revelation viewed in connection with the modern astronomy (1817). It is painful to see a contemporary author trying to resurrect it in the service of infidelity. ‘

  (Quote)

Leo February 8, 2010 at 7:07 am

Btw, you definitely should interview Tim or Lydia Mcgrew. They’re both evidentialist Christian philosophers, and they have written the chapter on the resurection in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 8, 2010 at 7:11 am

Cool. I’ve never heard of Thomas Chalmers, and I’ll bet Everitt hasn’t either. Lucky for us the book is freely available.

  (Quote)

Leo February 8, 2010 at 7:29 am

Yes. Tim has a selected bibliography here  with lots of historical apologetics from the late 17th century through the late 19th century, but he says that ‘these older works are of more than merely historical interest. Most of the objections raised against Christianity today are variations on objections that go back hundreds of years, in some cases all the way back to Celsus and Porphyry. These objections were thoroughly discussed by some of the finest minds of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and their responses are as cogent now as when they were first printed.’

  (Quote)

Al Moritz February 8, 2010 at 7:41 am

Indeed, the argument from scale is weak, for several reasons.

The universe proclaims the glory of God. As the Bibilical psalmist said, “The Heavens, oh Lord, proclaim thy glory”. Only a wimpy God would create a wimpy universe. Already in the 15th century the Cardinal, theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa claimed that only an infinite universe would be worthy of its Creator. He would have been delighted to see the pictures from the Hubble telescope.

Apart from that, it turns out that a smaller universe does not work according to physics. As physicist Stephen Barr writes in his essay on Anthropic Coincidences about age and size of the universe:

“It turns out that the very age and vastness of the universe may have an ‘anthropic’ significance. Life emerged in our universe in a way that required great stretches of time. As we have seen, most of the elements needed for life were made deep in stars. Those stars had to explode to disperse those elements and make them available before life could even begin to evolve. That whole process alone required billions of years. The evolution of human life from those elements required billions of years more. Thus, the briefness of human life spans and even of human history compared with the age of the universe may simply be a matter of physical necessity, given the developmental way that God seems to prefer to work. It takes longer for a tree to grow to maturity than the fruit of the tree lasts. It took much longer for the universe to grow to maturity than we last.

“Physics can also suggest why the universe has to be so large. The laws of gravity discovered by Einstein relate the size of the universe directly to its age. The fact that the universe is many billions of light-years across is related to the fact that it has lasted several billions of years. Perhaps we would be less daunted by a cozy little universe the size, say, of a continent. But such a universe would have lasted only a few milliseconds. Even a universe the size of the solar system would have lasted only a few hours. A universe constructed in such a way as to evolve life may well have had to extend widely in space as well as in time. It may well be that the frightening expanses that are so often said to be a sign of human insignificance may actually, like so many other features of our strange universe, point to man, as they also proclaim the glory of God.”

  (Quote)

Briang February 8, 2010 at 8:03 am

1) If God exist, then humans are the most important thing in the universe. (premise)

2) Anything which incredibly small compared to other things in the universe is not the most important thing in the universe. (premise)

3) Humans are incredibly small compared to other things in the universe. (premise)

4) Humans are not the most important thing in the universe. (2, 3)

5) God does not exist. (1,4).

This argument is valid. Premise 3 is true. What reasons are there for thinking 1 and 2 are true? I think they are likely false. It seems to me that God could exist and have created other things which are more important then humans. It also seems true that size isn’t a good indicator of value. (e.g. a bag of trash is bigger then a diamond ring.)

  (Quote)

Leo February 8, 2010 at 8:58 am

If the orthodoxly conceived monotheistic God (to use Oppy’s term) exist, humans are probably the most important things in the universe, being created in God’s image, a little lower than the angels and so on.
So I think premise 1) is true. (If you place God and the angels outside the universe).

  (Quote)

Bill Maher February 8, 2010 at 9:17 am

The counter argument against the proof is just awful. It is essentially saying “our religion is right, so your proof against it is wrong.”

…and the anthropic principle is just fallacious post-hoc reasoning.

  (Quote)

Briang February 8, 2010 at 10:13 am

Leo,

I probably should have said that 1) is possibly false, and 2) is probably false. If we’re interested in an “orthodoxly conceived monotheistic God” we might have more support for premise 1) then we would otherwise have if by God we meant “some kind of god or other.” This would presumably be because were including a doctrine of creation in the concept of God. I’m not entirely certain that Christian theology would rule out the possibility of there being other beings in the universe that are also created in God’s image.
In any case, if a person had theological reasons to accept 1) then that person would probably be more convinced that 2) is false based on theological considerations. So if you wanted to support 1) based on theology (for a reductio ad absurdum) then you would presumably need reasons in support of 2) that outweigh the theological reasons for rejecting it.

  (Quote)

Aeiluindae February 8, 2010 at 10:48 am

I’m bored so I’m just gonna point out that advanced extraterrestrial life forms, if they exist, would throw a wrench in that argument for a few other reasons.

On another note, I don’t think premise one stands because the Judeo-Christian god’s existence is not contingent on us being the most important thing in the universe. My logic goes as follows:
Premise 1: God, if He exists, cares for sparrows (Luke 12:6)
Premise 2: Sparrows are not that important in the grand scheme of things
Premise 3: God, if he exists, cares for us (the degree is not important, just that he does)
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God, if He exists, would care for us, regardless of our relative importance in the universe, so we would see the same reported behaviour. Also, size and importance have nothing to do with each other, as a previous poster said.

  (Quote)

Derrida February 8, 2010 at 11:27 am

I think the argument from scale works as an argument to the best explanation. If God exists, then why is most of the universe a radiation filled void? Why is so little of it capable of sustaining life? I can so no reason why God would create such a universe, since He could create a smaller universe that was just as beautiful, aggrandizing, explorable, etc.

If, on the other hand, naturalism is true, then only a vast, old universe could allow for life to evolve naturally.

With regards to the anthropic principle, I don’t think it’s implausible that different laws, as opposed to different values of current laws, couldn’t give rise to different forms of life.

  (Quote)

David Iach February 8, 2010 at 11:40 am

Luke, so you think that if humans were of the size of a galaxy they would resemble more importance?

  (Quote)

Aeiluindae February 8, 2010 at 11:58 am

Derrida: I think the argument from scale works as an argument to the best explanation. If God exists, then why is most of the universe a radiation filled void? Why is so little of it capable of sustaining life? I can so no reason why God would create such a universe, since He could create a smaller universe that was just as beautiful, aggrandizing, explorable, etc.

Someone else actually brought this up in connection with something else, but the laws of physics as we know them would not allow a small universe, or one with a significantly higher matter density, to exist long enough for human history to take place. (fundamental constants that might allow a smaller universe to still expand would probably prevent the formation of atoms or something)

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 8, 2010 at 12:49 pm

David Iach,

I don’t know. I haven’t studied the argument from scale in any detail.

  (Quote)

Al Moritz February 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm

David Iach: Luke, so you think that if humans were of the size of a galaxy they would resemble more importance?  

Does it make any difference for the value of human life how large humans are? The pursuit and attainment of happiness, knowledge and an intellectually fulfilled life, moral virtues, love, interpersonal relations, beauty in art and nature, adventure in life, creativity, fulfillment of our positive capacities, needs, desires, interests and purposes – is all this dependent on our physical size? Would all this be diminished if we were 100 times smaller than we are? I don’t think so. Yes, we might not be able to play guitar or piano, but this holds just as much if we were 100 times larger than we actually are. Would our lives be any more significant or valuable if each us were the size of Jupiter? Hardly. It is just that we would not have any air to breathe or anything to eat, and we would collapse into undifferentiated mush under our own gravity (in the core of Jupiter, hydrogen is crushed by gravity into a high-pressure metal-like state). And don’t even think of galaxy-sized humans. We are apparently just the right size for what we are by nature.

These considerations, in conjunction with the fact that the universe could not be less large (see above), show that the argument for the insignificance of humans based on size, in relation to the sheer vastness of the universe, is merely an emotional argument.

The famous astrophysicist Martin Rees makes a more rational argument in an interview, when asked if he does not feel an infinitely tiny speck of no significance:

“I don’t because the earth, though small in the cosmos may still be a most important part of it. It may be the only place where there’s life like us. And so what makes things fascinating is how complicated they are and not how big they are. And for all we know the earth, tiny though it is, could be the centre of the cosmos in terms of complexity.”

  (Quote)

Derrida February 8, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Aeiluindae: Someone else actually brought this up in connection with something else, but the laws of physics as we know them would not allow a small universe, or one with a significantly higher matter density, to exist long enough for human history to take place. (fundamental constants that might allow a smaller universe to still expand would probably prevent the formation of atoms or something)  

Perhaps not, but God isn’t limited by natural law. Couldn’t he miraculously create a smaller universe with people in it?

Besides, other laws, as we don’t know them (since this is the only universe we have access to) might allow for intelligent life in a smaller universe.

  (Quote)

Al Moritz February 8, 2010 at 1:33 pm

Derrida:
Perhaps not, but God isn’t limited by natural law. Couldn’t he miraculously create a smaller universe with people in it?

What for? Just to make you feel more cozy?

  (Quote)

ayer February 8, 2010 at 3:00 pm

The “argument from scale” is not persuasive, and actually tells against the atheist position when examined closely, as pointed out here:

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-is-universe-so-big.html

  (Quote)

Hermes February 8, 2010 at 3:42 pm

David Iach: Luke, so you think that if humans were of the size of a galaxy they would resemble more importance?  

Note that even if the argument from scale were valid, the size of a galaxy is near inconsequential to the size of the universe. Removing one or a few hundred thousand might not make any difference. There are over 125 billion (possibly much more) galaxies in our universe.

It’s possibly even less important in comparison to the size of all universes, if there are multiple universes.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher February 8, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Ayer, you know A.J. Ayer was an atheist right?

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 8, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Bill

I asked Ayer a while back at the end of one of my response’s to him what the origin of that pseudonym was. He never answered. But I was thinking the same thing.. like if I just retitled my name here as Plantinga or something.

J.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks February 8, 2010 at 7:56 pm

I always thought it came from pr(ayer).

  (Quote)

Derrida February 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm

Al Moritz:
What for? Just to make you feel more cozy?  

Well, if God is rational then He will create a universe that meets His needs. If a smaller universe could meet His needs, then it wouldn’t be rational to create an unnecessarily vast universe.

You might argue that God has some unknown purpose for creating a universe this big, but you would need to provide evidence that that is the case. Otherwise, the best explanation for the scale of the universe is still naturalism.

  (Quote)

Kyle February 9, 2010 at 12:21 am

“Well, if God is rational then He will create a universe that meets His needs. If a smaller universe could meet His needs, then it wouldn’t be rational to create an unnecessarily vast universe.”

I think you meant to say here that: if God is rational he will create the minimal universe that meets his needs.

That seems very dubious to me. For example, the Gateshead Millennium Bridge in Newcastle is not the minimal bridge needed to do the job. It is quite extravagant. I don’t think that makes the council there irrational. The Pharaohs didn’t just make themselves human sized coffins for burial, they built pyramids. Is that irrational?

Presumably it is no harder for God to produce a vast universe than a minimal universe, so I don’t see why rationality dictates that he must create minimally.

  (Quote)

Derrida February 9, 2010 at 2:07 am

Kyle: I think you meant to say here that: if God is rational he will create the minimal universe that meets his needs.

That seems very dubious to me. For example, the Gateshead Millennium Bridge in Newcastle is not the minimal bridge needed to do the job. It is quite extravagant. I don’t think that makes the council there irrational. The Pharaohs didn’t just make themselves human sized coffins for burial, they built pyramids. Is that irrational?

Presumably it is no harder for God to produce a vast universe than a minimal universe, so I don’t see why rationality dictates that he must create minimally.

I’d think that the Pharaohs (and the poeple of Newcastle) had aesthetic and cultural reasons for making the pyramids and the Gateshead bridge as big or grandiose as they did. Human beings have a need for beauty.

However, in the case of God, it’s hard to say what need a universe as vast as ours meets. God, if He created the universe, created one that we may never completely explore, most of it barren. I don’t see how such a universe would be aesthetically pleasing to God, or aggrandising, or benefit God in any other way. If God exists, it seems difficult to explain why the universe is the scale it is.

If naturalism is true, however, it is easy to see why the universe would be the size and age it is for life to arise.

For the argument to work, I don’t need to convince you that, if God existed, we would expect the universe to not be the size it is, only that if God existed, we wouldn’t expect the universe to be the size it is.

  (Quote)

island February 9, 2010 at 2:30 am

Bill Maher: anthropic

Man, are you ever clueless. Click on my linked website.

  (Quote)

Al Moritz February 9, 2010 at 3:59 am

Derrida: For the argument to work, I don’t need to convince you that, if God existed, we would expect the universe to not be the size it is, only that if God existed, we wouldn’t expect the universe to be the size it is.  

From what I said above:

“The universe proclaims the glory of God. As the Bibilical psalmist said, “The Heavens, oh Lord, proclaim thy glory”. Only a wimpy God would create a wimpy universe. Already in the 15th century the Cardinal, theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa claimed that only an infinite universe would be worthy of its Creator. He would have been delighted to see the pictures from the Hubble telescope.”

So yes, if there is a God we might exactly expect the universe to be the size it is.

  (Quote)

Hermes February 9, 2010 at 9:04 am

Al Moritz: So yes, if there is a God we might exactly expect the universe to be the size it is.

The argument is a non-standardized Rorschach test.

  (Quote)

ildi February 9, 2010 at 9:31 am

ayer: The “argument from scale” is not persuasive, and actually tells against the atheist position when examined closely, as pointed out here:http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-is-universe-so-big.html  

Humphrey must have missed this article: Early Universe Was Lifeless and Lonely

The window for life “opened sometime between 500 million and 2 billion years after the Big Bang,” Loeb said. That does not mean life did begin then, it just means the conditions would have been in place. Scientists do not yet know if life exists anywhere besides Earth. Most experts, however, suspect it probably does.

The universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

and

Astronomers don’t have enough information to pin down with certainty the timing of the first planets, and hence when life might have formed elsewhere, any better than what Loeb and Bromm have outlined.

But one recent study turned conventional thinking on its ear. Last July, a team led by Penn State’s Steinn Sigurdsson found a planet that appears to be 12.7 billion years old — far more ancient than anyone thought possible.

  (Quote)

Derrida February 9, 2010 at 12:18 pm

From what I said above:

“The universe proclaims the glory of God. As the Bibilical psalmist said, “The Heavens, oh Lord, proclaim thy glory”. Only a wimpy God would create a wimpy universe. Already in the 15th century the Cardinal, theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa claimed that only an infinite universe would be worthy of its Creator. He would have been delighted to see the pictures from the Hubble telescope.”

So yes, if there is a God we might exactly expect the universe to be the size it is.

“Only a wimpy God would create a wimpy universe.” Here you’re assuming that a small universe would be a wimpy universe. But surely you’re making the same mistake that Everitt’s been accused of: conflating size with importance. I don’t see why a smaller universe wouldn’t do just as well in aggrandising God. The universe could still proclaim God’s glory if it were on the human scale. Indeed, it would show that God created the world for us, which is quite a laudable feat.

So self aggrandisement isn’t a good reason to expect a universe this big given theism.

  (Quote)

ayer February 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm

ildi: The window for life “opened sometime between 500 million and 2 billion years after the Big Bang,” Loeb said.

And this is relevant how? The universe was already enormous at 500 million-2 billion years, and the expansion rate necessary for any planets at all to form was already baked in the cake at the big bang, meaning a universe of our current size was inevitable for there to be any star and planet formation:

“Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.” (http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/)

  (Quote)

Eneasz February 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm

The large universe is wasteful. If humans were one of the main reasons the universe was created (as most monotheists assert) then the waste is mind-boggling. What kind of all-powerful god needs to set up such a Rube Goldberg Device for such a simple effect?? A much more efficient and logical universe would be one the ancient Hebrews believed in – a world that contains all the land area we know of, covered by a protective dome, floating (or set in) a watery expanse, which had life snapped into it at god’s leisure. A universe of our scale implies that a god doesn’t care we exist, may not even realize we exist, or may not himself exist. Or is intentionally making it very silly to believe in him for some reason (humor?).

  (Quote)

ildi February 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm

ayer:

And this is relevant how?

Well, from the blog you linked to:
The first microscopic life forms appeared on earth just 3 or 4 billion years ago, making the origin of life remarkably close (in cosmic terms) [really?] to the beginning of everything 13.7 billion years ago. This emergence of life requires elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, which were formed in the first three minutes of the Big Bang. All the heavier biochemical elements, like carbon, have to made from these simpler elements by nuclear reactions in the stars. These reactions are delicately poised to produce a lot of carbon, but not too much oxygen. When stars die and explode these biochemical elements are dispersed into space and ultimately find their way into planets and into people. Its enjoyable to reflect that every carbon nucleus in your body has been through a star, probably more than once. This process of nuclear alchemy is long and slow. It takes tens of billions of years to run its course.

Whereas the science article I linked to (and I repeat): The window for life “opened sometime between 500 million and 2 billion years after the Big Bang,”

Which means, given that (back to your link) its huge size is a consequence of its great age, a much smaller universe could have already supported life.

  (Quote)

ayer February 9, 2010 at 5:53 pm

ildi: Which means, given that (back to your link) its huge size is a consequence of its great age, a much smaller universe could have already supported life.  

So what? As I noted, it was already huge at 500 million-2 billion years, and was destined to be even larger because of its expansion rate (which had to be fine-tuned to allow stars, planets or life at all).

  (Quote)

ildi February 9, 2010 at 6:37 pm

ayer:
So what?As I noted, it was already huge at 500 million-2 billion years, and was destined to be even larger because of its expansion rate (which had to be fine-tuned to allowstars, planets or life at all).  

I thought you and Humphrey were trying to provide evidence that this universe was created for us specifically on this planet; the evidence seems to lean more toward the universe probably being chock-a-block full of life (in cosmic terms – ha), a subset of which has probably evolved intelligence.

Fine-tuning is not as fine as you like to imply (see as an example Humphrey’s example above), and doesn’t imply an intelligent designer. Anthropic principle, you’re doing it wrong.

  (Quote)

Revae Raj February 10, 2010 at 10:50 am

Creation of Universe is not a DREAM
The science has proved that the solar system is accurately working not by itself but by some super power. To that power we may give the name of the “GOD”.

I’m a common man…I have read Gita & Bramvidhya according to which what I have understood I’m stating here in a short form.

MIND- Our mind is the super power of our body. Remember mind is not made of any matter (5elements and three GUNAS {Satav, Rajas & Tamas} according to Shastras [holy books]). But there is a force of our mind which is so strong that without it our body (which is immovable) can not work. Just like a chip in the mobile phone…when mobile phone is not charged with battery, it doesn’t work. Similarly when mind is not charged with soul it doesn’t work. E.g. In the sleep only mind works which is not made of 5elements. When the body which is made of 5elements sleeps even then the working of heart and brain is active with the power of soul and the human being sees the dream which on awakening he/she will tell to their beloved ones once awake. That means our body is alive in the sleep with the current charge of soul. Soul and mind can not be seen as they are not of 5elements…we can only feel them just like we can not see the current charge.

On the other hand a dead body has all the organs but no soul that is why the movement of the body stops as all 5Karam Indriyas & Gyan Indriyas ( Eyes, Nose, Tongue, Ears and kin) stop working because they have got the Devta Samarth (power) which goes back to the place of origin. These powers are given to the 5elements of body due to God’s order to the supreme Devta- “Maya”. After death the soul can not survive without body so as per the Karmas of the soul, the Devta give the soul another body.

WORKING OF MIND- Mind is free, independent without the hindrance of anybody even God doesn’t know what mind will determine in the next moment in human beings…this is not applicable to any other living organism even though they might have the Indriyas. That is why only human beings are independent in doing their individual Karmas. Animals can not do their individual Karmas in the existing life as they can only live on the results of their Karmas from their previous lives. Human Soul is the only soul which has the power to perform independent Karmas in the existing life as per own wish. It is because of the determination (irrespective of the degree of determination) of soul and mind, all the vital organs of the body will work but all these organs can not work without the Samarth (power) of the Devtas. For e.g. one might have beautiful eyes but they can not see if they do not have the Samarth (power) of the Sun.

PURPOSE OF CREATION and TO GET RID FROM THE CYCLE OF BIRTH & DEATH.

Without smoke there is no fire…similarly without reason there is no activity or action. God created the universe to share his own joy and happiness with others. God has unlimited stock of joy & happiness which he shares with souls of human beings only.

Without any purpose God will not put soul in human beings and let them perform Karmas to watch them suffer but without Karmas soul can not achieve Moksha.

FOUR ANADI SIDH PADARTHAS (Self created objects)

1) JeevAtma (Soul)
2) Devtas
3) God (Super Soul)
4) Parpanch- 5Elements & 3Gunas.

All of the above four were present in their own places when there was no creation.

Positives and negatives of the above four.

1) Good Qualities of JeevAtma (Soul)– Before creation, all the JeevAtmas (Souls) were present in the TAM Swaroop (darkness part) of supreme Devta- MAYA (Maya is obedient disciple of God).
2) Bad Qualities of JeevAtma (Soul)- All JeevAtmas (Souls) were present just like stationary objects in a part of Maya with Avidya (Ignorance) attached with them. Avidya was attached with all JeevAtmas (Souls) just like ink in water. In reality when this Avidya (Ignorance) will be detached from the soul all Jeevs (Human Beings) will be KEWAL SUDH (Pure) like GOD but not GOD. This Avidya (Ignorance) is detachable only from Human Beings and that is why GOD selected Jeev (Human Being) as it has the quality to accept Good & Bad because a Jeev (Human Being) can be a saint or a dacoit. As Jeev (Human Being) is an independent Padarth (Object), the Almighty did not take away his freedom instead he gave his own Moksha (Anand of God’s) to Jeev (Human Being). The purpose of creation is to detach only this avidya from the soul. GOD had to create due to Kripa Gunas (kindness & selflessness) of GOD and his addiction to his own Kripa Gunas (kindness & selflessness). As Soul and Super soul have one similarity…both of them are Nirgun (No Satva, Rajas or Tamas Gunas in them). Due to his common Guna GOD poured his selfless love to ALL souls. The only purpose of attaching three Gunas to Jeev is to do the Karmas without which he can not do good or bad deeds. When Jeev realizes the Gyan (knowledge) of GOD through Parmeshwar (Almighty) avatar he becomes able for detachment of Avidya by GOD.

Just like addiction, GOD will never end the process to give Jeevs (Souls) his Anand which only can be given when Avidya of Jeevs will be detached. For which Lord Krishna orders to his Dasi (obedient disciple of GOD) MAYA to give Jeevs human body with 5Gyan Indryas and 5Karam Indryas. To bring them to this visible world so that Nirakar (GOD) becomes Sakar like human being.

As Avidya only be removed with Gyan and Jeev has the quality to receive it all Jeevs came from TAM part of MAYA to earth batch wise similarly Parmeshwar (avatars) came from Nirakar to Sakar to penetrate the real (Bodh) aim of Gyan in the soul of human beings by penetrating through Avidya but due to Avidya none of the Jeevs accepted the Anand of GOD but accepted the Anand of Devtas which has a time limit. I would also like to mention that all mighty is only governing the created world otherwise all above 4Padarthas (objects) are independent.

Out of the four Padarthas
1) Jeev is ignorant (Chetan) with Avidya but can receive the Anand of GOD as its Avidya is detachable.
2) Devtas- All Devi Devtas are attached with irremovable Avidya God can not remove their Avidya as they are all Chetan and also happy in their own Samarths (capabilities) but as I have already mentioned that GOD is governing Jeevs Devtas and Parpanch matter also.

God selected only Jeevs for his Anand as matter is not Chetan it is Stone (immovable object) it can not even move without the Samarth (power) of Devtas. Now all Devtas have their Gunas. Their Gunas are Satavik, Rajas and Tamas.

Body of Jeev Atmas (Souls) are created with the help of 5Elements and 3Gunas with the help of Devtas by the order of GOD because without 3Gunas human beings can do no Karma. It can be Rajas, Satavik or Tamas.

When during anytime in life humans dominates their Rajas Gunasand Tamas Gunas, Satavik Gunas rule and GOD’s Gyan is accepted only by Satvik Gunas, though just for a moment but when god gives something to Jeevs he never takes it back as GOD is Swarthless (selfless).

Remember all Jeevs are swarthy by birth I mean Swaroop (form) of Jeev is Swarthi (Selfish) and Swaroop of God is Niswarthi (Selflessness). By the Kripa (kindness) of GOD these Jeev Atmas want to attain the Amar Anand when they become able. Avidya is being detached by GOD through Gyan and Jeev attains the permanent Anand equivalent to GOD. But as Jeev (Soul) remains Jeev (Soul) can never become GOD (Super Soul) even after attaining Moksha. Even in the Moksha stage Jeev Atma knows that Jeev Atma is still enjoying the Anand of GOD.

GOD created universe to put this Jeev in Karma so that from birth to birth he will do good and bad Karmas. Bad Karmas are always on the higher side as Swaroop (form) of Jeev is Dosh Darshiye (cynical and critic). This Jeev Atmas feel happy to detect the Doshas (disabilities) of other Jeev Atmas.

It is very difficult for Jeev to praise anybody’s good deeds of life. Out of hundred Karmas Jeev praises only one and critics ninety nine. Though we may praise anyone on his face but actually we feel jealous of his rising in any form be it materialistic or spiritualistic.

One thing more I would like to say that science gives name Atom to the smallest living organism which can not be divided further but day to day we are discovering neutrons protons electrons. What I mean to say man can never discover the smallest living organism as it is beyond the reach of scientists and even Devtas can not see the Suksham atom (Smallest living organism).

Now out of the four Padarthas we can not see soul, Super Soul and Devta. We can only see matter that too only 80% with naked eye of one galaxy. There are countless Jeevs, Devtas, Nirakar’s Sakar avatars and Brahamands (galaxies).

Lord Krishna has given us the Gyan to do Nishkam Karmas so that our debit and credit of all type Karmas should be nil to purify our soul without Avidya and that can only be possible with Kripa (kindness) of GOD for that we have to pray all the time and detach ourselves from this materialistic world (which is destructive). Definition of universe given by GOD is Dukhroop (full of sorrow), Paapmool (always doing bad deeds due to selfishness) and Anitya (which are destructive). All the souls will remain like fish without water. As soon as fish enters in water and is alive it becomes Anandit (happy in Moksha stage).

Unless & until all the Jeev Atmas didn’t attain the true divine love (Moksha) and become equivalent to GOD universe will never end, there will be no Pralay (destruction) up till that time. “Our GOD is Dayalu and Kripalu and will give Anand to all Jeevs”…this is the promise of Lord Krishna to all Jeevs (Souls). But we have to bow our head to Lord Krishna or any Parmeshar avatar (from Nirakar to Sakar) as we can not bow our head to Nirakar as we can not see Nirakar GOD. As Nirkar can not speak or give us Gyan to us Admati (Avidya) Yukti Jeevas.This is the cause why Nirkaras take Sakars avatars even though GOD (Nirakar) is everywhere inside and outside our body. Just like sky has covered the whole universe but can not do anything similarly Nirkar GOD does not do anything and that is why avatars do everything with their Gyan and Vigyan Shakties (scientific power).
We should always respect all Devi Devtas as they are the Shaktis (powers) of GOD. They give us our Karamphals (results of our Karmas) accordingly. They have their own individual strength too to give us limited happiness. For e.g. if we pray to Lakshmiji she gives us money. We pray to Saraswati and we will get Vidya (knowledge) but if we will pray to GOD he will definitely give us what we want as he is Puran (Complete in all regards).

Please feel to revert with your thoughts, comments and questions at revae.raj@gmail.com

Follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/revaeraj

  (Quote)

Al Moritz February 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Eneasz: The large universe is wasteful. If humans were one of the main reasons the universe was created (as most monotheists assert) then the waste is mind-boggling.

So why did God not simply put a solar system up there with a nice little Earth, instead of going through all the trouble of physical evolution of a whole universe? Most atheists seem to have something very much in common with creationists: they see God as an engineer. I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe, instead of tinkering around with solar systems and RNA polymerases. Terms like ‘efficiency’ and ‘waste’ do not apply, they only make sense in judging the work of someone who has limited resources at his/her disposal.

  (Quote)

Eneasz February 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Al Moritz:
So why did God not simply put a solar system up there with a nice little Earth, instead of going through all the trouble of physical evolution of a whole universe?

Yes, that’s exactly my point.

I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe, instead of tinkering around with solar systems and RNA polymerases.

Why would you think such a god has anything in common with humans? Why think he has thoughts or feelings, or intended to create humans at all? It sounds like you discovered a god you don’t like. (The punchline in the link is at the bottom, might just want to scroll down to the last few paragraphs)

  (Quote)

ildi February 10, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Nice link, Eneasz . This caught my eye:

When I design a toaster oven, I don’t design one part that tries to get electricity to the coils and a second part that tries to prevent electricity from getting to the coils.

and

We are simply the embodied history of which organisms did in fact survive and reproduce, not which organisms ought prudentially to have survived and reproduced.

oooh, and this:

Mutation is random, but selection is non-random. This doesn’t mean an intelligent Fairy is reaching in and selecting. It means there’s a non-zero statistical correlation between the gene and how often the organism reproduces. Over a few million years, that non-zero statistical correlation adds up to something very powerful. It’s not a god, but it’s more closely akin to a god than it is to snow on a television screen.

What’s worse; Azathoth or the ‘physicist hacker’ as the creator of the universe? (Is there any relationship between Azy and the FSM? They sure look like bad twin/good twin.)

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment