If God created the Universe...?

Question

...because he wanted to make humans, and have them worship him, enjoy his works, etc., why did he make 99.99% of the Universe unihabitable to us? And, no, I cannot accept "He works in mysterious ways" as an answer--too mythological. I also cannot accept "Who am I to question God" as an answer, because if He made us sentient beings, with the ability to question why He does what He does, why can't we use that ability--He surely would have seen questions like this coming, if He is all powerful and all knowing.

I am not an athiest or even an agnostic, and never have been. Just trying to find rational answers.

I have asked Him, many times, over the past 15 years.

Why is there any question "too big" for us to answer?

"Mind" and "soul" are the same thing. Any plea toward one is the plea toward the other.

raVar--if we have to read so much into Genesis, what does that say for the rest of the Bible? How can so many people claim to know its "truth" when it can be interpreted so differently by so many different people?

Some Random Guy--good point...it was created for us to realize his power...but, he created vast amounts of nothingness and black holes, interspersed with a bunch of balls of gas and a few solid pieces of rock here and there? And it took us how long just to be able to see and begin to understand all that?

Agnostic Front--I've been reading some Richard Carrier lately, and he brings up some great points. I certainly understand where you are coming from.

Answer 1

What a wonderful question! And not an easy one to answer, since it requires to think about both, theology and science, and how we can relate these two fields.

Let me begin with the last question first, so you know which methodology I apply when attempting to offer you an answer to your question.

There are of course many ways of how theology and science can be related to one another, but I would like to reduce the numerous types of interaction described by thinkers like Ian Barbour or Jack Haught to three basic categories.

1. Conflict models
Models of interactio of this type basically assume that theology and science not only ask different questions and go about answering them in different ways, but also argue that the concepts gained in both dsciplines are irreconcilable. Examples for this view would be fundamental Christians or radical atheists such as Richard Dawkins.

2. Interaction models
Models of this type accept the methodological differences of both disciplines but furthermore insist that the concepts of both fields can have some significance for the other field; this conversation would be mediated through philosophical terms. There are different ways to flesh this model out and it would be worth your while to read up on the often very subtle differences of views. Nonetheless, it is, I believe, legitimate to subsume the many different models of interaction in one category vis-à-vis the conflict models. Interaction models doubtlessly comprise the bulk of most relationship models in the current dialogue between theology and science. Good examples would be Bob Russell, Ted Peters, Phil Hefner, the late Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne.

3. Integration models
The last category might be the trickiest one, since it actually seeks to synthesize the two very disparate fields of inquiry into one comprehensive explanatory system. For obvious reasons, neither theologians nor scientists are on a whole fond of this approach, since they see the independence of their respective worldviews at risk. While this may be a very understandable concern, its justification depends largely on what philosophical underpinning a respective integration model applies.

Please allow me to briefly offer you my personal philosophical approach so you have a better way of evaluating the answer I will offer to your question. (And please forgive the length of this answer, but complicated questions require complicated answers. And as American theologian David Tracy said, we must not be frightened by complexity…)

Philosophical hermeneutics is concerned with theories of interpretation. Originally, the focus of hermeneutics was on text interpretations, but throughout the last twenty to thirty years there has been a tendency to universalize philosophical hermeneutics to interpretation of all experiences. In my own work on theology and science I have applied the philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer and of Paul Ricoeur to the relationship of the two disciplines. Here, Ricoeur’s work has proven particularly helpful. Both philosophers follow Martin Heidegger in differentiating carefully between knowledge and understanding and in viewing understanding as the actual goal of any interpretative process. Accordingly, we are not interpreting our experience to simply gain knowledge, but to reach understanding of our human condition in the world. Or to use a more cliché way of saying it: we try to understand what it means to be human.

Ricoeur determined the interdependent relationship of preunderstanding and explanation as the essential dialectic core of any interpretation. Accordingly, we approach any new phenomenon we try to understand by applying whatever we can to the problem and guess the answer. In this, we radically depend on our previous experiences, our traditions and history, our culture and worldviews shaped by our personal background. Simultaneously, however, we apply a hermeneutic of suspicion, by which Ricoeur means that we cannot rely just on our guesses. Consequently, we apply certain critical methods to the problem, which in turn help to curb our interpretation. These methods are intrinsically scientific in nature. Out of the dialectic tension between preunderstanding and explanation new understanding arises. Only once this dialectic step is truly permitted can new understanding emerge.

Here exactly I see the value for an integrative approach to theology and science, in that new understanding is synthesized out of the dialectic tension between theological doctrines as preunderstanding and scientific concepts as explanation. The understanding that arises from this tension is the integrated new interpretation.

This was a long excurse into philosophy, but without philosophy no fruitful dialogue of theology and science is possible.

Now to your question: The central assumption of your questions s based on a particular understanding of human beings as the image of God, the imago Dei. According to this interpretation of the biblical text, God created only humans for their own sake. As such, human beings are not only the pinnacle of creation, we also have a very responsible role to play in the world. We are the recipients of God’s self-communication as much as stewards of God on earth. To have the earth and all life on it given to us does not mean that we can use it any way we want, but responsibly in the way God wants us to. Aside from our role, we are specially created and specially loved by God. If we apply a hermeneutics of theology and science to your question, this would be the preunderstanding with which we engage the interpretative – or hermeneutic – circle.

A natural philosophy based on evolutionary and cosmological sciences makes this interpretation a difficult one to maintain. For one, our species has evolved and is – for all intense and purposes – still evolving. Moreover, other species of social animals may actually have similar cognitive and affective abilities as our own species, suggesting that they might as well fit into the category of the imago Dei. And, as you have mentioned yourself, 99.99% of the universe is quite obviously not reachable or habitable for us. This, in a hermeneutics of theology and science, would constitute the explanation part.

As you have mentioned yourself, we have an obvious tension between these two views, and in order to integrate both views we need to see what possible new understanding can emerge from such apparently opposite views.

I personally think that the first important hint from science is the phylogenetic continuum of evolution of which we are a part. Consciousness and rationality are important aspects of a theological understanding of the imago Dei, and so we would have to face two significant questions: (a) did consciousness evolve, and (b) if so, are there potentially other species that can possess consciousness.

That consciousness has evolved seems to me a very fair assumption, given that consciousness is correlated with certain neural capabilities. The possibility to reflect on ourselves and our situation in the world requires us to be able to rationally and emotionally engage our experience as human beings. But to do so, we need to have the neural substrates that mediate such reflections, and these substrates certainly evolved. If we apply evolutionary parsimony to behavioral biology, we have to argue that the underlying mental processes of the same behaviors are the same in closely related species. Consequently, other species than our own might be capable of consciousness, even if not consciousness as we have it in our human context. Therefore, we can conclude that (a) consciousness evolved, and (b) other species at least potentially share the capability of consciousness with us.

At this point, the theologian would have to ask whether the imago Dei can really just refer to Homo sapiens, or if it perhaps needs to be understood slightly differently. I would argue that what is important for the imago Dei is not membership of one biological species, but rather the cognitive and affective abilities required for free moral agency. In other words, consciousness as the basis of free choice and not genetic similarity is the touchstone for the imago Dei.

At this point, we can actually argue that if we were to find other species that are self-conscious we could deduce that the 99.99% you have mentioned are of less importance; what is matter the diversity of possible recipients of God’s self-communication. But… do such species exist???

Recent advances in ethology demonstrate very nicely that great apes, cetaceans, and elephants – along with possibly other species – are capable of cognition and affections that very probably qualify as consciousness. If so, we are not alone in our role as imago Dei. Rather, we share this role with others.

This is better news than it might seem at first sight. One could argue that we lose our specialness if we are not the only species constituting the imago Dei. But that is not necessarily so. Here I would like to make another short excurse into philosophy, namely into the philosophy of the metaphor. A metaphor, as Ricoeur and Sallie McFague have shown, lives from the tension of “is” and “is not.” It is always an inappropriate use of a concept in order to gain insights into a phenomenon that otherwise could not be understood at all. For example, if I say that God is like a mother, the parental metaphor helps me to grasp the nature of God in a way that without it would not be possible. As such, metaphors are unsubstitutable. But when I describe God as a parent, I would always have to keep in mind that the metaphor is dramatically inappropriate nonetheless, for God is unlike any other mother I know. However, without the “is not” the metaphor is dead; using only the “is” aspect of the metaphor, we would conclude that God is like a real mother, a woman sitting somewhere in heaven and making sure we are doing alright. (You can at this point exchange father for mother and you end up with the old man with white beard myth that we so often talk about…)

The beauty of the parental metaphor is that it also implies a filial metaphor. We are thus, metaphorically speaking, the children of God, and as such special. But, does that mean we have to be an only child to be special? Everyone who has children or siblings knows that the uniqueness of one child is actually increased by the specialness of its siblings. As such, specialness must not be misunderstood as exclusivity.

From that perspective, the existence of other conscious species and fellow brothers and sisters (metaphorically speaking) in the imago Dei does not at all belittle our specialness.

Secondly, the notion of us not being the potentially only conscious creatures also helps us with another aspect of our interpretation, namely the fact that we still evolve. As a still evolving species we will eventually go extinct and (hopefully) another species will follow our stint on earth. Since this new human will not lose the capability of consciousness we would face another problem if indeed we were to be the only species intended to be the imago Dei. But if consciousness and the ability to be recipients of God’s self-communication evolve, such worries can be ignored. Moreover, life may not have evolved exclusively on earth, but possibly on other planets. Whether or not such life could reach consciousness is of course another question, but if life evolved elsewhere the potential for conscious life elsewhere could not be denied. And if that were the case, free moral agency could potentially have evolved elsewhere or may evolve in the future.

At this point, your 99.99% has definitely been reduced to a significantly smaller number. But, the essence of your question would still exist: why so much space, so many stars, so many planets where life does not and will not exist? Yet, how could ANY moral life exist without the free process of evolution, a process that requires the existence of uninhabitable planets? (As you know for life to evolve certain elements seem important, and such heavier elements can only be gained from stars undergoing supernovae, providing the energy necessary for the synthesis of these elements.)

Finally, the ambiguities of the human existence in a universe full of material apparently necessary for life, yet entirely devoid of life, is wondrous indeed, and though we do not simply want to revert to God’s mysterious ways, it is unavoidable to accept God as the ultimate mystery before we can only stand in awe and wonder. What better way to mediate this wonder by allowing us to evolve in a wondrous world behind which lies the unfathomable mystery that is God, and who we experience so intimately and distant at the same time?

Answer 2

If you want a logical answer than I can think of three.
1) your premise is wrong. God did not create the universe for just humans. Could God have created other races and other "Earths"? Or God gave us the Earth and God can enjoy the rest of the universe without us. Both of which conclude we are not the only reason for creating the universe.
2). We are given curiosity and an adventurous spirit to explore. Our world is limited but our imagination is not and neither is our creativity. So God gave us a large space to explore and create.
3). An enzyme is a protein, a large molecule with only a small area where the activity is. So why is the molecule so large? The extra parts are scaffolding to make sure the active site(where the activity is) is just the right structure so the enzyme will work right. This is an analogy, the rest of the universe is there to make sure the sun is in the right space and the earth is in the right place.

Answer 3

Think about it. The Bible seems to indicate, that a creative day, as mentioned in Genesis is eons old. Paul stated that in his time, they were still living in the 7th creative rest day. Which would seem to indicate that we are also, still within the 7th day.

Before the creative week started, according to Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens. The universe. Science tells us that the universe is somewhere around 16,000,000,000 years old.

That's a long, long time that he's been working at this. The Bible also states that God does not see time the way we see it. Since he is without beginning, Peter stated that to him?

"a thousand years are as one day"

The Psalmist stated that the lifespan of an average man to him, is like the morning dew to him that is quickly burnt away in the sun.

What has gone on for the last 6,000 years, is very, very, very brief to God. No doubt, as Jesus said, his father will "continue working" in the future, as soon as this whole mess is straightened out.

The rest of the universe? Is no doubt part of that purpose. If he's been building for 16,000,000,000 years? Even to his sense of time, that would be a long period of time. Since we are told that in the future, when the earth is restored, and the issues regarding the lies that were spoken about him are straightened out, we will receive new scrolls. No doubt, new instructions.

What those instructions will prove to be? If they have to do with the rest of the universe?

Time will tell.

Answer 4

You have a very good and valuable question - don't think that it is an offence to ask God questions - It's quite clear that in the fullness of time, we will know all things, but for now we don't have all the answers to all questions... God indeed has a plan for Man that we are not yet aware of... We sin, hence we did short-circuit this plan from the beginning - God did not create the Universe to be an unihabitable place, He has far greater intentions than our finite minds can understand -

Answer 5

The rational answer is this: There is no evidence for a god.

Agnostics, atheists, and anyone who believes religion is based on faith will probably agree with this statement.

But you are right, the universe is a strange place and life in the universe will eventually come to an end. I find it difficult to believe in religions. t If there is a god interested in the human species why do billions of humans die from war, poverty, and diseases that could be alleviated today? "God has a plan" is not good enough when in the past 100 years, scientists have developed antibiotics and vaccinations that saved millions of children from Polio or Smallpox.

The past of human beings does not seem to present an image of divine beings, either. Dozens of human groups went extinct in the last few million years, from Java man onward. Also, mass extinction and asteroid impacts have threaten and will continue to threaten all life on this planet. I won't even begin to talk about gamma rays or supernovas.

Gods make people feel good. They reflect a specific religion and society, not this strange, comprehensible universe.

Many of the competing, unproven assumptions about deities show how unlikely it is that a real god exists.

Question everything that makes you uncomfortable.

Answer 6

Nice point, I like it...but you'll probably have gotten "God works in mysterious ways" though...but still, I'll lay it down for you in my opinion (*opinion, not any atheistic stuff) anyway, When the Head Honcho made everything, he probably made it for us to look out and say "Oh" and "Aw" but then he saw how f*cked up we are as a sentient species so he created everything else...but really I don't know the theological answer..all I can give you is a more scientific answer mixed in with my own opinions, one, God didn't make anything because he's not real, two, because of the Big Bang (we have semi-proof of the Big Bang too) three, we ARE sentient so we DO have the right to question EVERYTHING! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, otherwise we'd be like dogs following our master...

Answer 7

Well that's the problem, there is no rational answer. No one can really give you a logical answer because there simply is none. You sound like agnostic, come with me to the land of free thinking and rational thought. I think you'd like it here.

Here's the only rational answer you're going to get, "You cannot prove god's existance, or his lack of existance. It's best to consider most non extreme religions as possibilities and not things that NEED to be proven wrong. If you spend too much time thinking about it you're defeating the purpose of life... to live. Write it all off as 'who knows' type stuff and move on. You cannot be convinced either way without faith or belief being enough for you so don't bother trying.

Answer 8

God did not create Man to worship God. God created Man in His own image. God gave Man a few guidelines to get them started. Man has perverted these guidelines into modern religions. Religions that even today people kill and die for. Forgeting that one of the guidelines is not to kill, Man has become stagnate. Once Man has overcome this stagnation we will once more see the reason we were created. God created Man in His image, so they would evolve into His equal.
When man learns to use more than 3% of his brain, when man stops harming this ecosystem entrusted to us, then we will start moving to what we were created to become. Once there the rest of this universe will not be uninhabitable. We just need to grow out of our nursery here on earth andwe can get the car keys and start seeing the rest of the omniverse.

Answer 9

First of all anyone who answers this can only give you an opinion. But the Bible talks about God making the 'stars' for his glory. It is possible that He made it all just to show us how big and powerful that he is. It is also possible that we can inhabit some other part of the universe and just don't know it yet. That is how I see it at least.

Answer 10

In the days before Noah all the world was inhabitable...it didn't rain until Noah's day and that is why the people laughed at him. Prior to the flood, the earth had a mist and the ground was moistened from beneath. After the rain stopped, the waters receded and left us with the seas. See Genesis.

We lose privileges because we sin. Just like a father corrects his children if the child is bad he receives a punishment. Our sins cause us to loose privileges, we've lost the privilege of the whole earth, just like when God punished Adam and Eve and closed the Garden of Eden to them.

Answer 11

My friend, there are no rational answers when it come to religion.

You have pointed out a glaring fact - for all this creation, it seems a giant waste of time and space, as all but earth is completely uninhabitable. Why? for what purpose?? You will never get a rational religious response to this question.

The only rational response is that God (does not exist - but this is one you dont want to acccept, so:) did not create the universe, or did not create it solely for human habitation. Problem is, the idea of other lifeforms in the universe doesnt sit well with the religious either...