If there is a creator God, why did it take him 13 billion years to create humans?

[TooBusyByHalf]

Thinking a lot about God. I'm an atheist, but sometimes unwillingly. But the idea of God just makes no sense to me. If there was a (Christian for the sake of argument) God, it would seem (from the Bible) that it's all about us (mankind). In which case what were the 13 billion years before Moses / Jesus for? Or you could ask the same question of all the time that the earth existed before there was life, or from life to Homo sapiens etc etc. I've been reading stuff people have written about why they believe in God, but no-one ever addresses that question.

headinands - CaffeLate* - I am Jewish by birth and went to a very strictly religious Methodist school until 18 (attending church 8 times a week).

I vaguely believed in 'a god' at school but was and still am not affiliated to any religious grouping. My stronger belief in a god but rejection of organised religion came to me as I became an adult and developed my own very personal creed.

I do go to church to ring church bells 3 times a week now but do not go to the services very often.

I do not agree that 'so few other scientists arrive at the same conclusion' and have several scientist friends who are very committed Christians. It is very easy to reconcile for me and them.

Sorry, Happiness misunderstood where you were coming from. Yes, in that case, I agree.

I watched a program the other day about Stephen Hawkins and time. There was a part when a professor told about a code that was recieved back in the 80s from outer space. It was a sequence of numbers and letter. It had travelled from hundreds of light years away and they sent a code back but I would have taken hundreds of years to get there - so who ever was there was probally long gone.

God/Gods don't exist. They just don't. It's all man made to explain the unexplainable at the time and to control people.

I get frustrated with people trying to explain their take on the book/books as how can people still believe he/her/they exist. Religion is a very expensive state of mind. But it not true.

more how do you know that code didn't come from star dust or a comet?which is actually more likely

Thanks for responding, MoreBeta. Your friends aside, very few scientists are religious. Very, very few of the life scientists - and the more eminent they are the less likely to be religious.

But I think you must agree that not many biologists look through a telescope and see God. I would suggest (and I know you won't agree) that you are operating within the bounds of confirmation bias since, in fact, there is nothing about DNA that suggests or even hints at a god. This is a variation of the creationist tack of "It looks complex and beautiful therefore God designed it". Nope.

Out Again, while everything you say is true - it is all theoretical so far. Interesting, but a million miles away from being proven.

Now, I said that the statement "God exists outside of space and time" is illogical. Which it is.

You took issue with me presumably on the basis that you are persuaded that it is quite possible for something to exist outside of our own space and time. And science may very well prove that to be the case in the future.

But your mistake, I think, is to forget the properties of the being that is being suggested lives outside of space and time.....a creating, thinking, rational god.

Stephen Hawking is, I think, right...it is absurd to talk about before time. It is therefore even more absurd to suggest that anyone for any reason was doing anything before time since time has to be involved if there is a progression of events. It just has to be.

Think of what it means if God is outside of time. There is no before, during or after for God - no past, present or future. When did he decide to make a universe? It can't have been before he made it because there's no such notion.

Without time, God did not exist before the universe because there's no such thing as before for him. And he won't be here after it dies (if it does) because there is no after either. Equally, there is no present for him either - so how is he supervising the universe now?

If we look at what we mean by the word "exist" then ask ourselves can anything exist with no past, present or future then we have a big, big problem accepting that god exists at all.

What most people mean when they say "outside of time and space" is - outside of the universe, that's why we can't detect him and that's why logical arguments do not apply to god. It is a cop out of epic proportions to stop people asking awkward questions. Nothing more.

It may be, by the way, that some events on the quantum level are happening without the constraints of time - because without a causal chain of events they don't need, so time becomes a moot point when discussing them - but this is not the same as saying they are "outside of time". And lest we forget, all of the theoretical happenings you are talking about are happening within our universe which is manifestly neither outside of space and time.

Joyful Are you talking about the "Wow" signal? Can't link but it's googleable.

Yes caffe - the program was amazing. Stephen Hawkins is a brilliant man. The best thing I've watched in years. It didn't focus solely on that signal it was a tiny bit but the whole show was staggering.

No worries. Unfortunately I presume I live in an atheist world that thinks this way. I forget to clarify myself sometimes!

Caffe

It is very difficult to discuss these matters without lapsing into the language of a creature embedded in spacetime. There is probably a problem with the use of the word 'outside', but it is hard to find the right language of expression. Perhaps the creator cannot be part of the created is the best I can do.

But, as I say, I don't even believe in God!

Well, then...if we cannot even manage to find the language, or even a close approximation, to define what we mean, then how on earth can a statement like "God exists outside of space and time" be anything but logically absurd? We are talking about placing him in a realm that a) we don't know actually exists, b) can't even guess at the properties of and c) can't adequately explain because we don't have the language. Total nonsense.

And yes...the creator must exist, not only separate to his creation but PRIOR to it. Again, a logical absurdity if we're suggesting an absence of time.

Which reminds me....an omnipresent creator means that he exists everywhere. He cannot possibly be "outside" anywhere. "God is everywhere" should be countered with "No, he's not. In your last breath, you said he exists ouside of time and space".

I know you're an atheist, but I do think you are indulging in the intellectual side step so beloved of theists......"but, but, but, I know it seems illogical, but it MIGHT be true". Well, so might anything.

You have helped me exercise some brain cells this evening though. So thanks :)

Oh, and to add...it's not just that we don't have the language, the logic does not stack up, and that is independent of language. Unless we are exempting God from logical considerations (as most theists will do) and that is a whole other ball game riddled with yet more nonsensical claptrap.

Caffe - DNA may well have come to earth on a comet or just spontaneously formed on earth but its the code itself that is so beautiful.

I really believe that only a higher being (i.e a god) could have created them.

As a scientist it was my job to uncover that code and explain it. Science and philosophy are extremely close bed fellows.

I gave up being a scientist and now work on economic problems. Not so satisfying but pays better. You have to choose between god and mammon.

Hi Beta Wasn't me who said that about panspermia....but I take your point.

Well, I don't agree that science and philosophy are extremely close bedfellows. Philiosophy is the father of science, but they are rather estranged these days, imo.

Shame science can't pay the bills. Maybe you can make a fortune as an economist and then fund research when you retire? :)

only a higher being could have created them

How have you decided what this god is like based on observing microscopic goings-on? See I don't know if there is a god, I don't have any reason to think it is any of the religions I have encountered (anymore). All I can say is that if there is a god it doesn't appear to be emotionally invested in any meaningful way in what it has made. How does one make their own religion, how do you know you're not just making it up?

headinhands - I don't know what my 'god' is like. It isn't like I think of a bloke with a white beard sitting on a throne somewhere up in the sky. Its a concept not a thing. I don't pray to a 'god' but try to live in the way that 'god' would want me to live.

I haven't got a religion so I didn't make one up.

To me my 'religion' is just a personal creed and is my philosophy on life. It is that there is a 'god' that lives in us and through us. We have choices about how we spend our life. Its about humility and a belief that we are not the centre of the universe or the most important thing in it. Just one little tiny part. Many of the posts here are very human centred. The whole social media world we live in is very good example of how godless the human race has become. All that matters is how many twitter followers we have - really?

try to live in a way that 'god would want me to live*

How do you know how this god wants you to live? How do you know you're not just using your logic and reason to work out what hurts/doesn't hurt other people like you would be doing if you didn't believe in this god?

When I say what he is like I mean what his preferences are, not his appearance.

headinhands - you could say that my 'religion' is somewhat akin to Buddhism founded on a personal moral philosophy and somewhat based on Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief in one god.

I have to decide what god wants me to do. That's why god seems so uninvested. God isn't telling us what to do.

How do you know what he wants you to do if he isn't telling you? And how do you work out what he wants you to do? Like isn't it more likely that you're just using your reasoning to live as peaceably as possible. Or are you aware of others not living in a way that god is happy with? Does god get upset when people don't live how he wants them to even though he hasn't told them?

It concerns me that any scientifically educated person could ever, ever say "Only a higher being could have created them".

Of course this is not true. And anyone who thinks that is missing (or ignoring) some fundamental aspects of their education. It is basically a creationist standpoint - a point of view no one should respect because it's so ignorant.

But it summarises for me why I think religion is such an affront to human dignity. We are so clever, capable of such extraordinary discoveries and insights - and still someone cannot renove from their minds the infestation of religious brainwashing to peer objectively down a microscope. What is the point if studying science if you are only willing to see what you want to see?

No god made DNA. It evolved naturally. That's what makes it wonderful.

What pisses me off more than anything is that we're supposed to "respect" this bullshit.

I respect (real) science. It's earned it. "Only a higher being could have made this" is not only laughable and inane....it's wrong.

MoreBeta

I can understand your strong aesthetic response to the DNA molecule. I enjoyed reading the Double Helix - Watson’s account of the discovery of its structure. (I’m imagining that you will have enjoyed it too!) Watson made scientific research sound like a very human enterprise and it must have been so exciting for Watson and Crick to see their model of the structure taking shape.

Surveys indicate that many scientists are atheists as Caffe mentioned. I am an atheist, or more accurately agnostic tending tentatively towards atheism. However, I have personally worked with or come to know quite a number of scientists who are theists. And I would like to stress that I have detected no difference between the scientific abilities of theists and atheists. On the question of the existence of God, we are not in agreement. But they might be right and I might be wrong. I realise it is hard to say anything definitive in this area.

Some might argue that Einstein should only be quoted within the context of relativity theory for otherwise his pronouncements are no more significant than those of the next man. However, he was a deep thinker – and some of the things he had to say resonate with me, including:

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws

He does not identify here as an atheist – I do, cautiously. But I find myself responding to his words ‘the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds’. I have always felt myself to be limited in my ability to know reality, limited by the concepts, knowledge and even language I have at my disposal, by my mental capacity, the nature of the way my brain processes data from the outside world and my position embedded within spacetime. (Yet still I try to understand!)

I noticed that you identified humility as part of your personal credo. It is part of mine too – and Einstein’s:

You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist ... I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being

I would even venture to say that it is not possible to be a good scientist without humility.

In the interests of fairness, it is necessary to make clear that Einstein did reject traditional religion. He stated that

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve

He did not accept the anthropomorphised God of Judaeo-Christian religion. I align myself with this position too, whilst acknowledging that other thoughtful people have come to a different conclusion.

Many people have tried to harness Einstein to their cause retrospectively. Christian writers have fallen on his statement ‘I am not an atheist’ to bolster their position. Atheist writers have cherry-picked his rejection of traditional religion to do likewise.

I think such attempts – from both sides of the divide - are unfair.

Outwith - I'd just like to say that is one of the best posts on religion/science - indeed on any subject - that I've ever seen. I hope you don't mind if I save it to a file I keep of things I want to save and think about. (Credited to you, of course!)

I think I have quoted in such a way that people can get a realistic idea of Einstein's position. I have pandered neither to those who believe in God, nor those who don't.