I guess I was too vague. By 'postulations' I wasn't referring to science, as such, but simply, 'claims', by whatever means anyone arrived at those claims.
@doubtingmerle , to whom I was responding, was complaining:
doubtingmerle said: ↑
And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?
And the origin of the universe, however we discover it happened (IF we discover it), will be the way that God had decided it should happen. Unless people want to believe in a God that deliberately hides things from us.
I'm up to the back teeth with those (present company exempted) who claim that God must exist because...gee, just look around you at his wonders, and then bend over backwards to deny those wonders when they are explained in terms we can understand.
When the world encompassed as far as we could reasonable travel, then it might have seemed that God must have created it especially for us. His wonders to behold. Then we discovered parts of the planet that had been hidden from us. Then we discovered that some of the pretty lights in the night sky were other planets. So we updated what we thought God had made for us.
Then we discovered that we were a system of planets that revolved around a rather nondescripts sun, and we weren't the centre of all things (at which point the Church had had enough of this heresy and burnt those like Giordano Bruno at the stake for promoting such ideas). Because they seemed to directly counter our impression of what God must have done.
Then we discovered that our solar system was one of many. Then one of thousands. Then one of billions. In an outer suburb of a mediocre galaxy. And people had to rethink what God might have done. Which is difficult at this point because we aren't built to consider such things. Numbers such as a billion and distances like a light year and times on a galactic scale are simply beyond us. Some people started to wonder what it was all for.
Then we discovered that our galaxy was likewise one of many. Then one of billions. We have no concept of a million, let alone a billion. So multiply billions by billions (and I'm starting to sound like Sagan now) and it becomes utterly meaningless. So a lot more people started wondering what on earth it was for.
Then Hubble discovered that space is expanding. So all we can see is not all there is. And some of what we can see is disappearing from all possible contact with us. And that which was out of our reach when we climbed down from the trees will be forever out of our reach. And...this is the clincher...there is good reason to believe that there is an infinity of that which is outside the observable universe.
So there is a small rock on the dark side of a small moon circling a dead planet in a tiny solar system on the outer edge of a dying galaxy in a place that has always been and will forever be somewhere that we can't even see let alone reach. I wonder what on earth it is for.
Feynman once said:
“It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”
To say that I couldn't agree more is the Understatement Of The Week. But some still hold to the view that caused Bruno to be burnt alive; that we are the centre of everything. And they still claim a literally medieval
viewpoint. I can't cope with the audacity of that view.
But even that view is still not an argument against God.