Uploaded October 2021 | Updated September 2026, 5 hours ago
Human beings seem cosmically unimportant. Though certainly from God’s perspective, we are more important than stars, rocks, vast stretches of empty space and time, and other things that don’t seem to possess any value in and of themselves, the latter group seems to have been afforded the lion’s share of the cosmos. Human beings, presumably the jewel of God’s creation, don’t seem to be the main event. So, does this favor naturalism or theism? Is the unimaginable vastness of time and space, and the lack of human centrality therein more probable on naturalism, or on theism?
If the universe is indifferent to human life, it’s no surprise that humans seem cosmically unimportant, not occupying a position of centrality or significance in an incomprehensibly vast ocean of space. The reality of our situation is sharply contrasted with the one our ancestors imagined themselves to be in. As William Lane Craig put it, “on the cozy, pre-Copernican cosmology—what C. S. Lewis called ‘the discarded image’ of the cosmos—theism seemed vastly more probable than atheism. Like a Fabergé egg, the little universe centered on the Earth, with the spheres of the planets and fixed stars revolving about it, cried out for an explanation in terms of a Cosmic Designer.”
We also discuss the “symmetry of evidence” and get a bit into the weeds of Bayes’ theorem.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Support on Patreon here patreon.com/counter
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/10/05/the-argument-from-scale
Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod twitter.com/waldenpod
Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.
/ references /
Read more about the odds form of Bayes' theorem here from Hugh Jidiette hughjidiette.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/william-lane-craig-on-does-the-vastness-of-the-universe-support-naturalism
or here from William Lane Craig - Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism? reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-the-vastness-of-the-universe-support-naturalism
Michael Huemer fakenous.net/?p=1239
Emily Thomas - Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist? theconversation.com/does-the-size-of-the-universe-prove-god-doesnt-exist-86645
Carl Sagan - The Cosmic Calendar youtube.com/watch?v=GzG9fHMr9L4
After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - NYT nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
New Scientist - Vatican admits Galileo was right newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right
Arguments from Scale - Tim Mulgan oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646142.001.0001/acprof-9780199646142-chapter-7
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
03:41 Recent Christian History
08:00 the Main Argument
16:55 Different Strands of the Same Rope: Clarifying a Few Points
19:40 Carl Sagan - the Cosmic Calendar
21:13 Bolstering the Main Argument: Evidential Symmetry
26:42 Conclusion
Human beings seem cosmically unimportant. Though certainly from God’s perspective, we are more important than stars, rocks, vast stretches of empty space and time, and other things that don’t seem to possess any value in and of themselves, the latter group seems to have been afforded the lion’s share of the cosmos. Human beings, presumably the jewel of God’s creation, don’t seem to be the main event. So, does this favor naturalism or theism? Is the unimaginable vastness of time and space, and the lack of human centrality therein more probable on naturalism, or on theism?
If the universe is indifferent to human life, it’s no surprise that humans seem cosmically unimportant, not occupying a position of centrality or significance in an incomprehensibly vast ocean of space. The reality of our situation is sharply contrasted with the one our ancestors imagined themselves to be in. As William Lane Craig put it, “on the cozy, pre-Copernican cosmology—what C. S. Lewis called ‘the discarded image’ of the cosmos—theism seemed vastly more probable than atheism. Like a Fabergé egg, the little universe centered on the Earth, with the spheres of the planets and fixed stars revolving about it, cried out for an explanation in terms of a Cosmic Designer.”
We also discuss the “symmetry of evidence” and get a bit into the weeds of Bayes’ theorem.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Support on Patreon here patreon.com/counter
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/10/05/the-argument-from-scale
Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod twitter.com/waldenpod
Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.
/ references /
Read more about the odds form of Bayes' theorem here from Hugh Jidiette hughjidiette.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/william-lane-craig-on-does-the-vastness-of-the-universe-support-naturalism
or here from William Lane Craig - Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism? reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-the-vastness-of-the-universe-support-naturalism
Michael Huemer fakenous.net/?p=1239
Emily Thomas - Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist? theconversation.com/does-the-size-of-the-universe-prove-god-doesnt-exist-86645
Carl Sagan - The Cosmic Calendar youtube.com/watch?v=GzG9fHMr9L4
After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - NYT nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
New Scientist - Vatican admits Galileo was right newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right
Arguments from Scale - Tim Mulgan oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646142.001.0001/acprof-9780199646142-chapter-7
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
03:41 Recent Christian History
08:00 the Main Argument
16:55 Different Strands of the Same Rope: Clarifying a Few Points
19:40 Carl Sagan - the Cosmic Calendar
21:13 Bolstering the Main Argument: Evidential Symmetry
26:42 Conclusion
