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.

niminy thank you for your kind comment. I know that we differ in our opinions but your words mean a lot to me. If you wish to save my post, I would feel honoured.

As it happens, I lean more towards atheism than Einstein seems to - as I mentioned in my post!

Outwith - your post is excellent. I think it sums up very well what I am trying to express. Interesting about Einstein. Humility is very important to me.

CaffeLatte - DNA did not evolve. Evolution takes place as a result of DNA mutation.

The complex thermodynamic laws of chemical bonding made DNA possible.

Where did the laws of thermodynamics governing, entropy and equilibrium come from? I think your analysis is very human centred. I am looking at this from a philosophical point of view. Our dominance of the earth is a tiny fraction of its history and is unlikely to last indefinitely. No species has lasted for ever. Back to humility again.

MoreBeta

I wonder if Caffe might mean the spontaneous self-assembly of smaller molecular units to make DNA - or an early simpler form of it - when s/he said DNA 'evolved'? This process must have occurred naturally in a first step towards life before DNA was encapsulated in a cell.

I agree that the existence of universal laws of nature is mysterious – and rather wonderful. From what I understand of Einstein’s position this seems to be one of the reasons he was not able to fully embrace atheism.

Yes, it is all too easy to be human-centred in our thinking. (I did try to give the dolphin perspective up-thread!) It is a sobering thought that the sun is a star like any other with a finite lifetime. But we will no doubt be long extinct before the sun dies.

BigD, quoting by it's very nature is selective. The alternative would be to reproduce an entire body of work.

The whole social media world we live in is very good example of how godless the human race has become

The UN estimates that 60% of the worlds population have no means by which to access the internet.

How does one define what godless is without being able to define what god is like? You said previously that you try to live your life in accordance with what this god would want but how have you arrived at this knowledge?

I'm all for humility but you're claiming to know the preferences of this being that you think created the universe. Is it not reasonable for me to ask how you know? Maybe you can give me a specific example of something you do/don't do in order to live in line with what god would want?

As for Twitter...

Outside of Space and Time

Yes, that old chestnut again.

Without bringing God or the Big Bang theory into it, I was thinking of this phrase as I walked through woodland early this morning. Using ‘outside’ to describe the relationship of the wood to my house is a literal and obvious everyday use of the word. Next, in the process of abstraction is the idea of being in a part of spacetime and there being another part, outside of the original part, that is intrinsically inaccessible but still within spacetime overall. This is still a literal use of the word ‘outside’ – and refers to a situation that may obtain according to current thinking in theoretical physics if higher dimensions really do exist. Finally, there is the question of whether ‘outside of all of spacetime’ is a phrase to which a meaning can usefully be attached.

To be meaningful, the word ‘outside’ has to be used in a more generalised metaphorical sense, by abstracting the word from its use in describing purely spatial relationships.

For example, in describing his recent experimental work on quantum entanglement – carrying on the work of Alain Aspect mentioned up-thread - the Professor of Physics Nicolas Gisin said:

Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

Is this a ‘fluffy’ use of language? It is certainly a metaphorical use of the word ‘outside’ to describe an influence that exists in reality and has an effect within spacetime but does not – it would seem – operate through spacetime. The situation is paradoxical and difficult to express in the language we have developed as creatures experiencing reality within spacetime – but suggests, perhaps, that the phrase ‘outside spacetime’ might be meaningful for some aspects of reality.

OP, that's a really interesting question. Of course there is no answer, well, known answer anyway and it raises more questions. Such as what kind of being created the entire universe? Does time exist outside of our universe and if so does it bear any correlation to our concept of time?

MoreBeta

DNA evolved from RNA. RNA self-replicated. That's evolution. It's not all about natural selection.

How peculiar that you wouldn't know that.

Einstein was an atheist. He said so clearly and consistently. He went so far as to take exception to the "lies" that suggested he wasn't.

Disappointing that you've fallen into the trap of arguments from authority, Out. If you are impressed by clever people not being atheists (which Einstein was indisputably), why are you not equally impressed by the equally clever people who absolutely are atheists? Stephen Hawking being one? Poor Einstein gets dragged out every time by people who can't formulate their own arguments.

It's lovely that you are so impressed Niminy with Out's pronouncements. I suppose for anyone entirely clueless about basic science, they would be impressive. Be careful who you quote them to, could be a bit embarrassing.

"We don't know what we don't know...it's all too big for our tiny minds" = nothing. A pointless, self-evident and rather tedious declaration. I prefer to consider what we do know...but for the woo clan, including supposed atheists who have managed to skip the usual healthy skepticism most of us maintain...talking about what we do know drives away any sensible conclusion that there's a god up there.

Far better to talk about what we DON'T know because then anything could be true because.....we don't know that it's not!

FFS.

Caffe

Stephen Hawking is an atheist, I am agnostic tending towards atheism and Einstein was not an atheist. Einstein said it himself – as quoted upthread. He did say he was an atheist relative to a Jesuit priest because he did not believe in the personal God of the Judeo-Christian faith but that’s not the same thing. He found himself more attracted to Spinoza’s God and also said that he could be called agnostic.

BigDorrit gave a link upthread to a wiki page on the subject – and I would encourage anyone who is interested to investigate further.

Einstein also said quite specifically:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

In the light of this, I think it’s unfair when atheist writers – like Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion – do just that.

Now, suppose Einstein had said something like, ‘I am an atheist and I really disagree with people who believe in God quoting me to support their views’. Then I would think it equally unfair if a theist writer were to come along many years after his death and misrepresent his viewpoint to support his/her own beliefs.

My ‘agenda’ – such as it is – is stressing the importance of intellectual honesty and humility.

In quoting Einstein, I was not trying to bolster my theological position – as I have mentioned I tend more towards atheism than he seemed to. The humility in Einstein’s approach to understanding the universe is what resonated with me – and the theme of humility picked up on what MoreBeta had said in one of his posts.

To help to show my neutrality, I offer you a statistic – one that you may very well already know:

In a survey of scientists belonging to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States over 90% identified as atheist or agnostic.

I hope that bone will give the cyber pit bull in you something satisfying to chew on.

Just read through this thread. 9 or 10 weeks seem like a long time! Even though I was the OP and read every word I barely understood it the first time round

out really interesting throughout, thank you.

niminy

God is as big as a never-ending why, as big as the wonder of creation, as big as the gap between our hopes and dreams and our reality ... and as small as a newborn baby's tiny fingernail; he's the beginning and end of all things; he's infinitely distant and closer to us than our own jugular vein. We find God in paradoxes and questions because he's beyond what we can truly comprehend, and we find him in stories and poetry because these are our best way of coming close to his mystery, and we find him (if we are Christians) in each other's eyes because he made himself one of us, for one short lifetime.

When you wrote that I was quite dismissive. Sorry. It's starting to make sense now.

but we can know what he did in that moment when he was born, lived, died and came again as a human being.

This is the bit I'm not completely getting yet, but I'm working on it

Not sure Too if anyone else has posted this but...

Psalm 90:4 (New International Version) says "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

So perhaps the question is, why did Got wait 13 Million years!

Actually, that doesn't worry me much. Lots of other bigger questions in the world. Perhaps we could say....

God did not need to create us (the trinity is a relationship in himself, Father, Son and Holy Spirit) so he wasn't lonely. Plus at some point he made the angels. They must have given him a lot of interaction. So really when you are outside time and space, which I believe God is, the rush we humans feel is just not there.

IMHO!

Why do you think he waited Too, or have you already said?

TooBusy you asked for my comments on the other thread and my honest answer is I don't fully know.

I don't think people's understanding of God and the Bible is complete neither is our scientific understanding in that the theory of evolution is still developing. There is indeed imagery, symbolism, poetry, allegory and historical account in the Bible, completely understanding is all is more than a life's work IMO. With Genesis, I try to read it to understand more in terms of what it means in terms of our relationship with God and the world rather than comparing and contrasting it closely with scientific theory.

Thanks both, you are very indulgent and I am grateful.

Italian someone has posted something to that effect but not that verse - it's lovely.

I don't know what I think - the reason it's an issue (for me) is that I think if we accept Jesus is God and all that goes with it, we have to also accept that humans have a special place in God's creation. In which case it seems odd that it took so long to get round to making them (also 100 000 years from making humans to sending us Jesus which someone else also pointed out is quite long!) But I accept the answer might be simply that God does not experience time as we do.

What struck me most looking back over this board this evening is that when I started this thread (15 March) I was pretty clearly atheist. By 15 April, when I started another thread about believing in God I was more clearly 'seeking', and I think somewhere or other in the last few days I admitted at least to now being half-believing...

Yesterday I think I honestly really believed for the first time that I don't think we are here by accident. That's quite a journey

caps I don't have a problem with Genesis - I'm happy with it being an allegory, and I don't think it conflicts with evolution. It's more just why did it take so long for us to evolve (given that an omnipotent God could have set the speed clock at any pace He wanted)?

I'm probably the wrong person to ask TooBusy, I don't really know enough about evolution to speculate how everything could fit together or where there are gaps in understanding or how data has been interpreted. There are people who can go into great detail, Christians, people of different belief and none....although a lot of it sounds very impressive much of it also goes over my head somewhat.

May I prevent any confusion that religious people don't also explore the same thinking and ideas and there is no contradiction for them; an example is Georges Lemaitre the physics professor and Catholic Priest who came up with the theory we know as The Big Bang

Too I am so delighted to be along on the journey with you and other people. It is wonderful, and life giving. Which is why even when we get frustrated along the way there is usually a good, bright side to things. By this I mean sometimes faith can make us exasperated, why Lord, why this, why that, why not like this, but in all this we learn patience and also a kind of peace amid the storm. Which everyone needs.

I am not a massive fan of the Old Testament and especially not if we try and take too much of it literally, hence moving from being a raving evangelical to now being someone who other raving evangelical might call more liberal (I will explain those terms if you need me to to but Wickedpia might do well to do it for you). I am not really liberal but I am affirming of gay relationships and don't take the Bible too literally so for some that would put me in the liberal 'camp'! Anyway, what the Old Testament does do is tell the story of God's dealing with people through the ages and if there is one message it give loud and clear it is that God calls, people follow, they mess up, it goes wrong, it gets better, God calls etc.

Also because God is outside of time Christ's sacrifice on the cross was in one sense outside of time so those who went before his early life and those who went outside his earthly life are all affected by it.

I hope you find peace and I hope you find a way at the right time to share with your family too. Not because you need to tell them everything but because I think one day you will want to. Bless you.

sorry Jesus' earthly life not early life!

Hi Italian, I did (tell DP) that is - see other thread! Scary!
But it will be good.
I am getting my head round that it's ok not to have the answers.

In a similar vein to the OP, one thing that gets me is that when God did decide to directly interact with humanity he only seemed to be interested in one minor hill tribe in the Middle East for thousands of years, and everyone else - the Chinese, native Americans, sub-Saharan Africans, etc, etc - had to live without any direct guidance from him until fairly recently. What was that all about?

NotDavidTennant I am not sure I could be sure that God did no interact with any one at all outside of the place mentioned.

And are we to spend the rest of our lives allowing that to keep us from God?

EG if you met your partner at 30 or 40 or 50 would you miss the chance to be together just because you did not meet at 18? Sorry if that sounds silly. It is not meant to. I do understand the question, and no, I can't answer it!

Well no Italian because it's not the same. You could date other humans up until you got married to your spouse. The point I think David is making is that why did he choose one tribe and focus on them (ordering them at certain points to kill other tribes?) before he got all hippyfied and loved everyone.