jump to navigation

How Hubble Killed God… 11 November, 2006

Posted by paralleldivergence in astronomy, Brad & Phil, God, Hubble.
trackback

March 9, 2004: NASA releases a single image taken by the Hubble Space telescope that proves a fatal blow to the concept of God, but despite the compelling evidence, many simply don’t comprehend the significance of the image. 

Hubble vs God

According to many interpreters of the Bible and the Book of Genesis, there is proof that the Earth and Universe is only 6,000 years old. Even scientists like Dr. Michael Brown, the Director and Principal Researcher of the Molecular History Research Center who graduated with a Ph. D. in Biology with an emphasis in Molecular Biology, will scientifically show you that carbon dating is wrong, the universe is stable and that we all descended from one 6,000 year old mother, Eve. Man was created by God in his own image for a special purpose. Different religions offer slightly different descriptions of that purpose, but clearly, it is widely accepted that we are God’s children and the Earth is the most important place in the universe.

OK. So in summary, the universe was created, the Earth was created and Man was created, all during Creation Week and all with supernatural logic and reason behind it. Some religions believe all of this, but dispute the “young Earth” assertions of Biblical Creationists. In Islam, Allah created the Big Bang and all the rules that followed it. The Earth took many years to form and every new scientific discovery can be explained away by attributing it to Allah. It just seems too convenient.

If you’re reading this at night, go get a plastic drinking straw and go outside and look up. What you can see with the naked eye from one position on Earth is about 2,500 stars at the most. All of them are in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains somewhere between 200 and 600 billion stars (that’s billion, with ‘b’). The size of our galaxy is somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 light-years across. The nearest star to our own Sun is Alpha Centauri and it’s only 4.35 light-years away. We all know that a light-year is the distance light travels in one year, but what it actually means to us is when we look up at the night sky and see Alpha Centauri, we are actually seeing what it looked like 4.35 years ago. We are looking back in time.

Now, find the Moon. Divide the diameter of the Moon by ten. It’s a pretty small spot, right? Pick any apparently black section of sky (between stars) of about a tenth of the moon’s diameter and look at it. There’s nothing there, is there? Now stare at that one little spot of the sky. That’s pretty much exactly what the Hubble Space Telescope did every night in late 2003.  Over 400 orbits of the Earth, Hubble took 800 exposures of the same patch of space at varying focal lengths to produce an incredibly deep image. This image is known as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF).

Hubble Ultr

[click for a larger image and more details about the HUDF]

If the distance across this image in space was scaled to the diameter of your drinking straw, the depth of this image would make your drinking straw 8 foot long. All those specks you see are not stars, they’re other galaxies. In this image alone, there are almost 10,000 galaxies. The nearest ones, those that appear as well-defined spirals and ellipses, are about one billion light-years away. In other words, this image is showing us what those galaxies looked like one billion years ago. The furthest galaxies in the image are shown as they existed only 800 million years after the universe was created and are some 13 billion light-years away.

Each of those galaxies comprises billions of stars, and if the Hubble UDF represents only one tiny part of the whole sky which is actually 12.7 million times bigger, we can only wonder at how many galaxies, stars and solar systems might fill our universe. If God or Allah created all of this, He did so an incredibly long time ago. If Man is the reason for Creation, why has intelligent Man’s existence only been for the last few thousand years? If Time since creation was a kilometre long piece of rope, intelligent Man is represented only by the last half-CENTIMETRE.  If Man is the purpose of creation, why did it take so long to create Man?  And what’s with all the over-the-top elaborate sky decorations? Surely some painted white dots on a big canvas hung around the Earth would have sufficed?

Thanks should go to Hubble for opening our eyes. If only some men would open theirs. Being a Christian or being a Muslim means being different. Being a Human means being the same.

ADDENDUM: This note was added about 14 hours after the original post to help address some of the hundreds of comments the post has received. Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. All comments and points of view are appreciated.

  1. The headline is meant to be sensational, but the article does not necessarily address the statement. The first line of the article refers to the concept of God.
  2. There are three dots after the title… (it means that the title is not conclusive in any way)
  3. In the article, there are a few links – eg. the one about proof the Earth is 6,000 years old. I didn’t write that. There is also a link to the Creationist/Scientist and to the Islamic point of view
  4. This is intended to be a sister article to an article I wrote last week: Which is Stronger: Manfluence or Godfluence?
  5. The whole purpose of the article is to get people to think. If the Hubble image makes you believe more in God, that’s great. If it makes you start to question things and look for more information one way or the other, that’s great too. But please don’t dismiss the article based on the headline. What it does highlight is there are many man-made concepts of God. Who’s to say which are right?

While many people have had their say on this article in the comments section, I’ve decided to close it now because much of it is becoming repetitive and while I feel I have not abused anyone with this discussion piece, some people seem to be abusive in their comments. I do not discount the possibility of a God, but I do dispute some people’s concept of God. We’re all entitled to our opinions without the threat of persecution.

Thank you.

Brad & Phil #008

About these ads

Comments

1. stuhasic - 11 November, 2006

I must credit my wife with the last statement about being different/same. We were talking this morning and that amazing bit of wisdom just poured from her. I’m so lucky. :)

2. justyouraveragejoggler - 12 November, 2006

fascinating post, but it doesn’t really prove that God is killed. Maybe just the notion that it took 6000 years to create humans.

Richard Dawkins killed God. Check out his latest book The God Delusion. great stuff.

3. Raza - 12 November, 2006

“The Earth took many years to form and every new scientific discovery can be explained away by attributing it to Allah. It just seems too convenient.”

Just because there is no claim in Islam that even remotely contradicts science, you dismiss it by saying “it just seems to too convenient”. In Islam, God exists and however old, complicated, and miniscule the earth is, it is believed to be created by God. Again, this is an idea that can neither be proved or disproved. In the end, it boils down to picking up a tiny insect from the ground and asking yourself how such an amazing piece of machinery, art, beauty, and sophistication came into existence (all by itself?) and how it continues to reproduce. You can go by whatever answer satisfies you.

4. jack - 12 November, 2006

I recently found a very interesting website:
http://alreadylinked.com/
There you can purchase ad space for your Blog etc.

5. puddlejumper - 12 November, 2006

That photograph really makes me feel quite insignifigant on the face of things. Awesome though.

God is a matter of faith. But then so is much of science. I don’t believe in God but we still have no real explanation as to why we or the universe came to be. If the laws of physics say that energy and matter are all finite then where does our energy go when we die and where does it come from when new life is born?

Your article above is the sort of stuff we should really make more worthy of debate.

Just my two pence worth

6. mark - 12 November, 2006

I subscribe to no god(s). The closest I would get to is Zen Buddhism – but that image…. I remember when I saw it. Big. So big it’s beyond any possible imagination. And yet here in our tiny tiny part of all that we kill, maim, hurt.

It doesn’t matter who/what/if – it’s a ‘wow’ image.

7. Tom - 12 November, 2006

How Hubble Killed God… come on! This is the STUPIDIST thing I’ve ever heard

8. Frac - 12 November, 2006

Science isn’t a matter of faith, Puddlejumper. It does not take faith to understand that we do not have answers for everything.

9. whoknew - 12 November, 2006

Your interpretations are wrong. Only a small sect of christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Read “The Case for a Creator” and you’ll see that science actually points to a God creating Earth.

10. Ghost of Elvis - 12 November, 2006

What I want to know is, “Where did God come from?”

11. Owen - 12 November, 2006

Excellent article.

12. Derek - 12 November, 2006

This is retarded…there’s a thousand other instances that prove that the bible is wrong taken literally, this proves nothing that hasn’t been proven before.

The bible is not meant to be read literally…

13. sipefree - 12 November, 2006

@puddlejumper:

You’re misunderstanding the meaning of energy.

Energy cannot be created, but it can be converted from one form to another. For instance, a battery converts chemical energy into electrical energy and a dynamo converts kinetic energy (from a bike wheel) into electrical energy.

Also, when people talk about ‘our energy’, they are generally talking about spiritual energy, not physical energy. There is a difference. Scientists will tell you that human thought is just a highly-advanced chemical and electrical process in our brains. There is no evidence for a soul or spirit.

14. Nathaniel - 12 November, 2006

Great piece of writing, should be an eye-opener for many people, religious or not. That said, “How Hubble killed God” is a little over the top, don’t you think?

15. DSM - 12 November, 2006

“According to interpreters of the Bible and the Book of Genesis, there is proof that the Earth and Universe is only 6,000 years old.”

You’d be mistaken if you seriously think that all Christians or Jews believe that particular claim. In fact, the majority of the adherents of both faiths believe differently. If anything, you’ve simply shown that the anti-intellectualism that is integral to Fundamentalism — an organized theological reaction that emerged in Christianity only around the turn of the 20th century — has little if any merit.

Of course, most scientists and science-minded individuals have this annoying tendency to set up religion as a straw man, without really knowing or investigating religion and its expressions. I mean, seriously… you could at least -talk- to a theologian from a respected institution, like the Harvard Divinity School or the Princeton Theological Seminary. A -real- scientist would investigate such things and cite their sources -before- making sweeping claims of how Christianity, Islam or any other major faith views diety.

16. Jonathan - 12 November, 2006

This really does nothing to “kill” or disprove God. It may make the literal belief in the Genesis creation story seem silly, but it certainly is not a god-killer. To me that image is truly inspirational, and shows me just how great and truly big God really is.

As for the why, if we are so important to God are we such a small speck in time and space, and why did it take so long for us to come on the scene. I don’t really have the answer to that, but I would imagine that He went to all the trouble of creating such a massive universe to show us how much he cares. Also time is irrelevent for God, since He exists outside of time.

I realize you may not believe a thing that I wrote, but thats fine.

17. Steven - 12 November, 2006

You’re just another example of the annoying people who take one small fact and extrapolate unsupported conclusions because their evidence *might* help to prove it. If you had any real understanding of the Christian faith you would know that you’re just taking steps toward cementing my belief in that faith. You look at that beautiful stretch of sky (which is only representing maybe a billionth of what Hubble can see) and you say, “Ha! Look how old and vast the universe is! Why would God take so long to create man?”

I look at that same stretch of sky and I say, “Ha! Look how old and vast the universe is! Why would God take so long to create man? Are we the pinnacle of His creation? Look what God has made for us to enjoy!”

You can take delight in attempting to disprove, but maybe you should convert your cynicism to something more productive. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to enjoy life and not give your weakly supported claim another thought. Come back with some intelligent discussion in your blog and we’ll talk.

18. gregulator - 12 November, 2006

In response to “Where did god come from?”….
the answer is easy. Man created god.

19. pheret - 12 November, 2006

great article. the only thing i could possibly believe is a god is the Sun, as it shows up every day and does what it is supposed to. otherwise, forget it!

20. Ben - 12 November, 2006

I think your article is fascinating and it makes me feel minuscule, yet your article does not answer any of the questions that would help to prove or disprove God. Albeit, you can’t completely prove or disprove God, it is useful to have a semblance of logic within the argument.

As for your statement, “And what’s with all the over-the-top elaborate sky decorations? Surely some painted white dots on a big canvas hung around the Earth would have sufficed?”, why do people create art? I am a photographer by hobby (a postdoc by occupation), and beauty is found in complexity and the complexity of simplicity. I am a Christian, and I imagine that people do not have the urge to create beauty because of some evolutionary adaptation. Art is in no way protective of our species.

In the Bible, it states that man was made in the likeness of God. If that is true, then God must love beauty for the sake of beauty. If we love to create, then God must love to create. Have you ever gotten satisfaction out of creating something for no apparent reason? I believe that feeling comes from the fact that we are made in God’s likeness.

Good article, yet I believe that Hubble just proves God to us. That expanse is complex and artful… it was made, and it is beautiful.

21. Jeremy - 12 November, 2006

Thanks for pointing out that image. I’ve always thought of space as being big, real big…but this pic helps put “big” in context.

22. anon - 12 November, 2006

The workaround for the young earth theory is that God created the light in transit.

23. Xander - 12 November, 2006

well as for one scientist noted “life form on this planet is a collection of accidental sequences that lead to the creation of carbon based life, in which both can be explained in physics and chemistry” problem is in science there isnt “accidental” everything in science is represented by formula or equation, for these limitations we call on religion or God as the source coz anything that we could not comprehend could only be attributed to the creation from a Supreme Human Being.

24. Bob Robertson - 12 November, 2006

I’m willing to admit that there might be a god, in comparison to a mere human, but only because sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. Or god-hood.

All-powerful, all-seeing, ever and ageless, the alpha and the omega? Then it’s also just another part of nature, nothing special.

Either god is a demonstrable, repeatable phenomenon, or it doesn’t exist. Just like “ether”, spontaneous generation of maggots from dead meat, the sun orbiting a stationary earth, and lots of other things that have been believed that turn out to be false.

25. Jeremy - 12 November, 2006

I think his “proof” was that if we’re looking at universes that are billions of years old it discredits the notion that things got started 6000 years ago.

26. l0ne - 12 November, 2006

A small point about logic.
This argument does not disprove God per se. It disproves the concept that the Universe is 6,000 years old, and therefore that the Genesis book is to be taken literally.
Now, this has already been stated. But let me look at it this way: logic is the basis of research. If A implies not B, it does NOT follow that A implies not C, especially when we have no information regarding the fact that B implies C.

Meaning, if you ever tried to print this as a claim in a _scientific journal_, you’d be laughed at as not just any peer reviewer, but also anyone who knows the basic tenets of logic can disprove your claim.

True scientists are agnostic. If religion were wrong, then surely atheism would be just as wrong.

27. Chad - 12 November, 2006

I’m a Christian and have no problem whatsoever with a universe that is billions of years old. For instance, check http://www.reasons.org.

28. Smarter Atheist - 12 November, 2006

This is a dumb argument, sorry. Just because it takes a billion years for light to travel to us from a certain galaxy doesn’t mean the galaxy had been there for a billion years. It could easily be that 6000 years ago, the universe was created with a whole bunch of photons already en route to us. I mean, the universe may have been created 5 minutes ago, right? I mean, God could create a universe in any state He chooses, so maybe he chose to make a universe in the very same state that ours was in, five minutes ago. So we’re made “pre-loaded” with our memories, etc.

And no stupid telescope picture can undercut that.

Look, I’m an atheist without any temptation to believe in a creator. I just don’t like seeing dumb arguments for the conclusion that I believe, because it makes the conclusion look dumb.

29. HighPingDrifter - 12 November, 2006

“Hubble killed God” — certainly one of the silliest and most assinine things I have ever seen in print. “Hubble proves Bible wrong”?? I could’ve gone along with that. I think Clarence Darrow had it right when, during the Scopes Monkey Trial, he pointed out that while the Bible said that God created the world in 6 days, it doesn’t state how long those days were.

The more I study Astronomy and other sciences, the more I am convinced that there *is* a God…what we do know about the creation of the Universe aka “Big-Bang Theory “– points to Genesis being correct, that the Universe was created in an incomprehensible blast of light and heat, that God said “Be”, and it was.

Science and God are *not* mutually exclusive…it just requires dumping all the hired-bullsh*t of dogmatic, organized religion at the side of the road and opening your mind. Free your mind and your a$$ will surely follow. ‘Nuff said…

.High*Ping*Drifter.

“When in doubt, I whip it out!”

30. Stephen - 12 November, 2006

Doesnt really solve how the universe was created. From what i have read, someone would have to exist in the 11th dimension to create the universe.

31. brady - 12 November, 2006

I agree. Organized religion is silly. But, the fact that there is light arriving on our planet now that is billions of years old only proves that the objects we see in that light existed billions of years ago. It doesn’t necessarily prove that Earth was here. So, God or whoever could have created the Earth 6000 years ago just in time for us to see the billion year old light. Anyway, religion and science don’t mix. To try and combine them is folly.

32. Aaron Shafovaloff - 12 November, 2006

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” -Psalm 19

33. Chris - 12 November, 2006

No offense, but I have seen this image a while ago. And it doesn’t disprove god either.

34. Paul - 12 November, 2006

Your headline is not very scientific.

If a supernatural being exists, things can be created in any state he/she/it chooses. It isn’t possible to apply a human’s understanding of time & physics to a supernatural supposition.

Just because you observe celestial objects at “n” distance does not mean that they’ve moved there over time – if you really want to start with the statement that a supernatural being created it, they could’ve created it in any state.

Science cannot prove the non-existence of a creator.

35. Karl - 12 November, 2006

You make a rather large assumption:

“If Man is the reason for Creation”

I’m no Biblical scholar, but last I was aware even those who have spent their lives reading the texts forward and backward hundreds of times did not have an answer for “The Meaning of Life”. The answer I’ve always heard from the ultra-religious is something along the lines of “Beyond Human Comprehension”.

I wouldn’t call myself a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a new-age freakshow, and religious zealots irk me to no end, but until NASA can prove what created all of those galaxies pictured – the ultimate origin of everything – I think it to be sheer arrogance for anyone to think they disproved thousands of years of scholastic thought based on a single press release image.

C’mon now.

36. Daniel Ruiz - 12 November, 2006

I have always been fascinated with space since I was a kid in St. Patricks.
My family came to america and succeded they taught me everything about God
in the old Spanish Catholic way. My entire family is Catholic and we always try to be kind and hospitable to everyone. This same question you post is the one a I ponder every day of my life. They Bible must be wrong with all the evidence we see. There is no logic in believing that several apostles and human authors could have gotten the story right. That is ridiculous and it would be futile to cling to such a thought. I believe in the great Cosmos and I believe there is a Great Power out there that created all this. The human question is what, we answer by our vague image of what we know now.
However large, and grand this universe gets there will always be God in the Human mind. The stroy will change but God shall never die he is eternalin our minds. You can’t kill a thought that came from the very root of our neurotransitters. Some Great Power had to create all this. We answer it by saying God and we follow our religions because of tradition. Until science provides an answer no man will concede to your notion that God is dead. You may debate as long as you like, but I know this because I can’t concede without an answer. Answer me please.

37. JB - 12 November, 2006

Your stupid, you didn’t even provide an argument or support for your point. All you said was it was to extravegent and therefore God doesn’t exit. But if God is beyond comprehension can’t He make something such as that. Maybe next time you should think before writing eh?

38. abram’s nickels » Blog Archive » Hubble photo is proof of no God? - 12 November, 2006

[...] Link: How Hubble Killed God… [...]

39. KG - 12 November, 2006

While I agree that the pictures captured by the Hubble Telescope are amazing, and give us a bit more of a glimpse at the vastness and grandure of the universe in which we live, I don’t follow your logic in disproving the existence of God.

Honestly, I think that the number of people who are strict 6-day year creationists is greatly overestimated. The hebrew word we translate as “day” is used clearly elsewhere in the Bible to describe periods of time from 40 years to an unending period of time.

The other argument which reasons why would God take so long to create humans if we’re the point of creation is just silly. First of all we’re looking at it from our point of view, so of course, as soon as we exist, we’re going to be at the end of things created. Secondly, why would an eternal being be in any rush? Imagine you have an endless sheet of paper on which to draw a picture. Why would it matter if you draw everything in one corner or not?

40. Jordan - 12 November, 2006

Why would you want to prove that g-d is dead?
I personally am a Messianic Jew (meaning I am a Jew that believes that Jesus is the promised messiah). Now I’m not trying to convert anyone because I know there is strong opposition, as I know because I myself was in opposition when a close family member found the lord. I don’t understand why we have to be wrong for having faith. This doesn’t prove that he doesn’t exist because in genesis, it says that god created the heavens (including all these galaxies) in one day and the length of a day wasn’t defined until that first day, so that one day could have taken billions of years (Because the sun wasn’t in existence until that day).

41. en3r0 - 12 November, 2006

lol if anything, this is more proff of God!

42. dashiel - 12 November, 2006

to those who say the majority of christians don’t believe in the 6,000 year myth, well you’re wrong. in 2004 gallup conducted a poll that asked respondents to agree with one of the following statements:

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process

3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

38% of people chose option 1
13% of people chose option 2
45% of people chose option 3
4% offered no opinion

that is absolutely insane. nearly half the respondents choose to be willfully ignorant in the face of indisputable proof that the universe if far, far older than 6,000 years. believing that rot is the same as believing in santa clause and the easter bunny. as for the rest of the respondents — those who realize the bible is a mish-mash of contradictions, moral imperatives and health and safety rules that cannot be reconciled when viewed through the eyes of modern man — to you i say, isn’t it nice to be able to pick and choose which parts of your belief system to believe in. the creation myth is clearly an allegory, according to you, but the resurrection really did happen!

poppycock. the bible is either the infallible and literal word of god, or it isn’t. if it isn’t then why follow the dictates of ancient, fallible and ignorant men. you think that corruption in the church is somehow a new thing, brought about by the likes of ted haggerd and james baker? dream on.

source: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

43. JAFFA - 12 November, 2006

WoW! …. Its 2006 and there are STILL educated people that believe in a divine creator? And whats worse is they feel that people should ‘respect’ their ‘faith’?

Its a shame because they miss the wonder that surrounds them every minute of every day. After all – its hardly a wonder if a ‘god’ can create whatever he/she wants…. Its only to be expected.

Screw that!

44. s miller - 12 November, 2006

One point to consider, an omnipotent being could have created that light to reach earth/hubble telescope and skipped all the time that science requires for it have reached us. I am not a religious person in the slightest, but I have considered this proposition of how one can affirm the age of our planet by scientific method when in contradiction with the timing according to the christian bible and other sources and I have come to the conclusion that the christian ‘week’ of creation might possibly could have been 10 trillion years… then one could have a connection between creationism and evolution with both being correct.

45. Ryan - 12 November, 2006

This article assumes that Creation was the creation of EVERYTHING in the universe. If the Creation in the Bible was just the Earth and the surrounding solar system then the Hubble image doesn’t contradict anything.

46. michaelsanford - 12 November, 2006

This post is very interesting but illogical as you attempt to create a syllogism that holds no merit:
1. God exists
2. God created the Heaven and the Earth in seven days, 6000 years ago.
3. Therefore, if the universe is older than 6000 years, God does not exist.

If I may indulge myself:
1. I exist
2. I say that I have climbed Everest
3. When it is discovered that I have, in fact, not summited Everest it must be concluded that I do not exist.

The universe is one of two things: either billions of years old or 6000 years old and giving the appearance, through supreme trickery or through our fundamental misunderstanding of science, of being much older. THAT is thinking outside the box, sir.

47. Brian - 12 November, 2006

So many people are giving you a hard time about this post but I think it should be called “How Hubble killed creationism as a science” and you could add it to the 1000 other “ologys” that also dissprove that notion. To say it kills “god” makes the assumption to broad and there is no scientific evidence at the moment pointing either way. Razas comment about “the cockroach is so well designed it must have a designer” surely has been rehashed so many times as to make it nearly pointless me saying this but I’ll do it anyway.

DARWINS THEROY OF EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFIC FACT
I’m not actually sure how so many people in america get science and faith confused.

48. Grasshopper - 12 November, 2006

WHOA!!

I now realize I am wrong. How could I be so ignorant! Through this image, it is clear that God is dead!

Guess what?

We’re ultimately still going to die.

49. Gary - 12 November, 2006

People take the Bible, and believe everything in it is 100% fact, or thought to be that, so when discoveries like this happen, they can claim God isnt real. Durring Biblical times, 7 was considered a large number, hence the use of 7 alot in the Bible. Second, there was nothing in Genesis about how long those 7 days were. God measured those days, not the rotation of the earth along its axis. So, the 7 days in Gods eyes could have been Billions of years, it could have been just seconds. The idea that something that was a giant ball that suddenly imploded is very far fetched. From what I have heard, before the “big bang” there was a white, hot orb, which was a solid, that wasn’t made of Atoms. How can this thing suddenly implode, there is no imbalance for it to blow up. That is more far fetched than an Omnipotent being created everything that is. God let us have an amazing world to live in, and let us have alot to explore.

50. How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence « juxtablog - 12 November, 2006

[...] Source: How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence [...]

51. Teresa Blanchard - 12 November, 2006

Well, it just shows rather that there is a God, so your conclusion is wrong, I hope you open your eyes, have a good day and a good life, bye

52. Henry - 12 November, 2006

Great post. While this doesn’t disprove God, it CERTAINLY disproves Christianity and fits right into Islam :)

53. Josh - 12 November, 2006

I do not understand how discovering the universe is more complex than we had previously thought proves that God does not exist. How does complexity disprove a creator when it should prove there is one. We will never know everything about everything because we are finite, we cannot understand the infinite nature of God. What we can understand is God created us out of love so that He can have a relationship with us. We have damaged that relationship through sin yet God restored it by sacrificing of his son, Jesus. Christianity is not about how old the earth is or how many galaxies there are, its about a God who loves us and a God who is willing to sacrifice his only son so that He may know us.

It’s a very cool picture though, I just see it a an awesome creation God which is the same thing I see when I look at the world around me.

54. Snale - 12 November, 2006

The Bible, the Coran… where written by very inteligent people of their time. But they wrote that because they didn’t know better. Nowadays they are just like Little Red Rinding Hood, only longer and more complex, but just that: stories.

55. higher-powered - 12 November, 2006

As I appreciate the authors insight at pointing out that the bible doesn’t explain creation as science now knows it, but one thing is for sure, I find that a picture like the hubble deep field only further convinces me there is a God.

Let’s not get to hung up in the details but rather the spirit of the bibles teachings. I am a converted athiest, who personally knows the power of God through practical means of being a recovered alcoholic. God is and I know God is because when I truley made an effort to be a better person and do spiritual things like pray, right wrongs I commited to others and do a self appraisal of my failings, I was delivered from my alcoholism through a power that is NOT mine.

I choose to believe in God and this explanation makes the most sense for me.

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.

I believe God guided the entire development of the universe from before the big band forward. As science uncovers the mysteries of the universe the more unimaginable and truley mind boggling facts and theories are revealed. The forming of the universe and everything in it must have had and had some divine guidance which ultimately leads to intelligent life like ours and the sure exisitence of other intelligent life. That in itself is truely amazing.

56. Rahn Jensen - 12 November, 2006

I only point you to this website because your article does not kill God, anyway I believe as the LDS church does as to the nature of God, and feel that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints answers your questions. I am not trying to slam you so please don’t take it that way. Simply I know that God loves us and wants us to get our answers. Anyway if you are interested in answers to your questions let me know and I will send you a reply. If anything I think Hubble Deep Field only inspires us to seek God more not scoff at his existence.

57. iDayTrip - 12 November, 2006

If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him.
Voltaire

58. Alex - 12 November, 2006

The real question is what proof is there for a god?
All we know comes from the bible/koran/etc. If someone came up to you today and told you that there was ab invisible force that cannot be felt/seen/heard/etc. but controlled everything and you had never heard of the bible before, you would probably think that they had serious problems.

59. Mik - 12 November, 2006

Ryan, it contradicts everything given that these religions consider Man and the Earth to be the most important objects in creation and the ultimate result of the process.
This image shows just how miniscule and unimportant we are.

Jaffa hit the nail on the head for me. Religion is a fog that prevents people for seeing the true wonder of nature and the evolving of life from the basic molecular building blocks to what we have today. Who’s even to say that life is the end result of that path?.

Glory in that and not pointless mythology. How anyone can explain all that spectacle away with the four words ‘The work of god’ is just beyond me.

60. DharmaTurtle - 12 November, 2006

@Ryan.

In the beginning there was the word. And the word was god.

I think we can safely say that Creationism is the creation of everything.

61. Patrick Hennessey - 12 November, 2006

Your logic is a farce.

You make the assumption that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, an assumption of which you have no base or evidence. I’d say you are little more than a pessimist.

All the deep field proves is that the universe is very big and very old. It says nothing to the intent or presence of a Creator. What arrogance, to presume we are the only intelligent life in all of that vast expanse of space.

62. Michael - 12 November, 2006

As has been said time and again:

Science explains how.

Religion attempts to explain why. It just might not always be right ;)

63. jason - 12 November, 2006

puddlejumper:

When we die, our energy gets distributed into our environment. The body decomposes and creates heat. Worms and insects eat out flesh and draw strength from it. Nutrients filter into the ground and are used by plants to grow.

When we’re in the womb, the energy for the growing baby comes from the food consumed by the mother. Plants and animals that profited from our dead bodies (and those of all once-living things) end up on our dinner plate.

Sure, matter and energy are finite, but LOOK at the HUDF. That’s a lot of matter and engergy visible in just .000000079% of the sky

64. Rattanjeet - 12 November, 2006

The concept of God has nothing to do with how old some crazy backwards Christians believe the world is.

The true concept of religion or faith is meant to supplement science, not replace it in understanding truth. Its just too bad that some people out there take a book with random people’s writings that were not compiled by the founder of the faith as absolute fact, despite the overwhelming evidence to the opposite.

The world not being flat doesn’t discount God. And in science, no theory can be proven (ie: God), but it can be disproved. No such evidence to the latter exists…

65. jason - 12 November, 2006

Crap… didn’t know these were in reverse chronological order…

66. leo - 12 November, 2006

Well, the SOL killed the Hubble during the Mystery Science Theater 3000 movie, so that makes everything even, right?

67. Rob Iver - 12 November, 2006

If the baby is the reason for the nursery, why do parents get the nursery ready months in advance??

68. louis - 12 November, 2006

how pathetically short sighted your pretentious blog is. man is imperfect. our understanding of God is imperfect. we take our first bleary eyed look into the void and see his beauty reflected; but you reject it with a weak attempt at pseudo-intellectualism.

btw, tell your wife that closing the soul to belief makes her as different from me as she portends with her witty attempt at Reader’s Digest melodrama.

69. Todd - 12 November, 2006

Anybody ever think that maybe all of those say 956 billion other galaxies are paper wads on gods huge art desk. maybe we are just another try at what he/she is trying to get to.

70. Trisha - 12 November, 2006

As has been stated several times before, this certainly does not “kill God” as the title suggests. You have lumped the vast array of Christian and other religious beliefs into one fundamentalist belief that most Christians are embarrassed by.

If anything, that picture makes a stronger case for a “god” or some kind of higher being that brings some kind of meaning and order to the vastness of the universe.

71. Tim - 12 November, 2006

Dumb article. What scholar acknowledges the possibility that God made “everything” 6000 years ago but ignores the possibility that God could just as easily make light in transit?

So children lets remember that there are two ways to prove something doesn’t exist:
1) go to everything that does exists and show that the thing you are proving is not one of everything
2) prove that the thing in question cannot exist (i.e. it is a contradiction)

Maybe think next time…and don’t forget that when you don’t have all the answers…God still does. =)

72. Luthfur - 12 November, 2006

Great post. You raised some interesting questions.

In Islam (and a lot of Muslims don’t know this), humans are not the first of such intelligent creation. There have been other intelligent creatures that have come and gone in this universe, not just Earth.

In Islam God has said to have created humans to test them, as he did with other creations before. The Quran also points out to the existence of 6 other “Earths” in this Universe; a possible indication of other life forms out there.

73. Chris Millican - 12 November, 2006

Maybe you haven’t considered this:

Christians believe that when God created trees, for instance, he created adult trees that were mature. When he created lions, he created adult lions. When God made Adam and Eve, they were adults. It’s the “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” discussion. God created full, lush, and matured ecosystems.

Now apply this to the discussion. When God made the stars, he didn’t make them as if they just had appeared, he made them so humans could appreciate his handiwork. He didn’t create them and then Adam and Eve had to wait years until they saw the first stars and then their children saw more, etc.

What this article is trying to do is disprove God. This is not original or new, people have been trying to disprove God since sin has been around. Just remember what the Bible says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.” (Isaiah 55:8 NIV)

74. D McClain - 12 November, 2006

The bottom line is that everyone has a belief. Some believe there is a God and some believe there is not a God. We all have faith in something. Some have faith that there is no God, and some have faith that there is a God. You have faith in what you just wrote. You don’t know most of it for sure. You just believe (or have faith) that science is correct. You have no way of counting billions of stars for instance. You just simply have faith in the information that NASA and other scientist publish. And…thats ok. Some people just have faith in something else. It takes just as much faith to believe there is a God as to believe there is not. Some day we will all find out.

75. Ellroy Jettson - 12 November, 2006

Acknowledging the possibility that Einstein’s Special Relativity theory might eventually be proven correct, this merely reinforces my suspicion that the Creator is/was/will be a hot blonde female physics graduate student and we are the mid-term exam. Rationale:

1. No sense of time but very good at confusing the heck out of everyone else with it;
2. Exceptionally excellent visual design component integration with diametrically opposite intellectual depth;
3. Occasional flashes of brilliance in concept (Einstein, Fermi, Planck, Newton, Aristotle, Pythagorus, Bach, Lizst, Hawking, etc.) but generally substandard mass production (republicans, democrats, religious bigots, televangelists, etc.)
4. Eager to demonstrate diversity of skills (copious species, geni, phyli, races, languages, dialects, skin colors, etc.) but failure to integrate common components to ensure survivability of all (war, disease, natural disasters, etc.)
5. No proofs accompanying the experiment to backtrack the process

Get a grip, folks: If you haven’t figured out by now that Existence is one big, incredibly huge poetic joke and the only reason we’re here is to provide the punch line, you deserve all the stupor of thought that your wee little minds can fathom!

(No actual sacred icons were hurt in the production of this message)

76. Rahn Jensen - 12 November, 2006

Oh the website is my name… but you have to click on it… or just type in LDS.org or you can email me at rahn then the number two @ symbol cox. net

77. William - 12 November, 2006

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn is relevant to this discussion. Current culture preaches that man is supreme in this world and/or that the world was created for him. When you see the vastness of the world portrayed by the hubble telescope image it helps to reinforce how little of the world we are a part of. I personally do not think that this has any relationship to whether there is or is not a god. I do think it puts us in perspective.

Ishmael is a good read.

http://www.ishmael.com

78. empT3 - 12 November, 2006

I think it’s important to define faith here; Faith being belief in the absence of proof.

We really have no proof conclusive proof either way that god exists or doesn’t exist.

Things that are generally accepted in the scientific community being the Big Bang theory for creation. To understand the big bang theory it should be noted that for a brief period of time (right before the big bang, imagine a billionth of a second or less) the universe consisted of an infinetley dense ball of unified energy (while no theory exists to explain that it seems at the time be the best explanation), mass didn’t exist until AFTER the big bang when photons collided creating charged wave patterns (or what we understand as protons, neutrons and electrons).

For some this singularity of unified engergy that can’t curently be explained is proof of god (IE miracle: or god himself)

It also should be noted that the universe could have ben created with many photons already in transit creating those images in the hubble telescope, there is no law of physics that says a photon must originate from point A in a state of rest (at least not on the I know of)

Lastly it should be noted that the old testament (the one that most people have problems with) was written in a very ancient language that probably didn’t have the vocabulary for explaining quantum and advanced classical physics, AND it’s been translated and retranslated countless times since it was FINALLY written down, it should also be noted that several jewish texts AKA old testament fodder were destroyed during roman occupation of israel (mostly due to anti-foreigner sentiment among the jewish community, some texts only being written in greek were destroyed)

If being aethist means simply being skeptic in the face of a lack of proof then I’m afraid that very few actual aethists exist and I doubt you’re one of them.

79. terrymullett - 12 November, 2006

Re: Paul
“Just because you observe celestial objects at ‘n’ distance does not mean that they’ve moved there over time – if you really want to start with the statement that a supernatural being created it, they could’ve created it in any state.”

Think about it a minute. What does “light year” mean? If something is 1 light year away, it takes light from it one year to get here. If you’re seeing something a billion light years away, a billion years must have elapsed for the light to get here for you to see… It doesn’t matter, for the sake of this argument, how long the galaxy took to get out there, but how long its light took to get here.

Anyway, about the whole thing, maybe a creator put together the weird and wonderful world we see as part of His dramatic program to put humanity in the way of the curse of hereditary damnation and then turn around to offer them a deal for redemption – which is in a nutshell the mainstream Christianity I was brought up with – but if so, then the creator looks more insane than He did before we learned so much about the universe.

80. The Sphinx - 12 November, 2006

Kill God? RUBBISH. If there is something that makes me believe even more in God it’s the immense nature of our universe. Something huge like that CAN’T be a coincidence. And if you think it can, what about us humans? Also a by-mere-chance thing? If you really think very hard about it, you’ll realize that it’s all nonsense. “Killed God” my ass..

81. Thomas - 12 November, 2006

I don’t see how this is a fatal blow to God. In the first place, the Bible was not written by God, therefore the author of Genesis didn’t have God’s datebook to decide exactly when creation occurred. Those who take the Bible literally down to the word have missed the entire point of God’s and Jesus’s message in it. It is instructions for the soul, not body. If you do believe that Genesis was divinely inspired, how are you certain that the 7 days of creation are literal 24 hour days?

Religion should not be seen as a block to scientific discovery, but unfortunately it usually is. People are too stubborn to compromise between their beliefs and scientific fact. I personally believe in a divine being, being that I am Roman Catholic, but I do not follow extremest christian beliefs that dictate such minute things as the time of creation.

My $.02…

82. Shaan - 12 November, 2006

You are sooo wrong. Not all religions claim that the earth and universe is around 6000yrs. What they say is that MAN is about 6000 years not the earth or universe. This judgment is based on Bible chronology. The Bible doesn’t have anything in it that claims the earth/universe is 6000yrs old. Both the universe and earth were created loooong before man. People just believe in too much scientific crap that seems to have forever changing theories.
Read the following article for a better understanding of creation/evolution.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1996/1/22/article_01.htm

83. Stack - 12 November, 2006

I read this article and realize there only must be a God. Thanks for opening my eyes even more. He must be pretty big ;)

84. Ravneet Singh - 12 November, 2006

The rules of science are what we perceive the world to be.

We have defined what it means to “alive”, yet even using these rules we cannot prove something is NOT alive, only that it is alive. The reason for this is that the things we see in this universe can only be observed for x amount of time. If we assume something to be not alive then we must say that it does not perform those things that living beings perform. But we cannot say that it does not perform these things because it might take that thing x + 1 time to perform it. Thus, science cannot say something is not alive.

Another scenario is when we say that the universe is x years old. We can come to conclusions by studying our environment and its properties. But what if our universe was created as I typed the letter ‘I’ and all of the “evidence” of our past was placed within this universe. How can ANYONE who was created within this universe say that the universe is only 5 minutes old. Thus these people from their perception of the world cannot understand the truth.

This is the same thing as hibernating a computer and copying its image over to another computer. A process cannot tell how long ago the computer has been on for.

From the point of view of Sikhs, the description of God has not been proven wrong. The description of what science clams to see is not proven wrong either.

Sikhism says that what we perceive from our senses is not how world actually is. That is another reason Science cannot prove/disprove the theory of God.

Science is starting to become another religion. The bad part about this is that since Science claims the truth to be what we perceive and thus to make decision only based off of what we perceive, it redefines what the meaning of life is. According to science us humans are no different then computers. A computer turns on communicates with the world and reacts to it. That is exactly what a human being is, if they do not attempt to understand God. Thus, just like computers humans are worthless and expendable.

Thus following the belief of “science” their would be more trouble within this world.

Sikhism also says that those who do not attempt to reach God, are worthless. It would make no difference if they had been born or not. Even though their existence is meaning less, they are still loved equally by God. Thus a Sikh also loves even those who are useless. (Science does not).

If you want to study a religion that upon disproving you could disprove the existence of God, you should learn about Sikhism.

85. gregulator - 12 November, 2006

Has anyone seen the picture of outer space that closely resembles a cross section of a neuron in your brain. I think it’s all a simulation. None of this is real. Good day.

86. AssOuttaUandMe - 12 November, 2006

Your assumption that “6000 years” is in earth years is your first problem. In science, all parameters of any theory must be clearly, and factually defined before making any comparisons that prove or disprove another theory.

87. somaking - 12 November, 2006

Science cannot answer all the questions we could ever ask. Remeber Godels theorem?

So its illogical to expect science to determine if there’s a God or not.

88. Christian Curious? - 12 November, 2006

“Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!” –Job 22:12

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou has ordained; What is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!” –Psalm 8:3-4,9

“He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power his understanding is infinite.” –Psalm 147:4-5

“Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.” –Psalm 148:3-5

Now, don’t pat yourself on the back too much because we have only begun to scratch the surface in our knowledge and understanding of the God of the universe. I know your post sounds rather intellectual and fascinating, but you are really only asking “Which came first? The Chicken? Or the egg?”

The answer is simple really, because wouldn’t God have created the world to exist as if it had always been?

At the moment of creation, the grown chicken would have existed without ever being hatched. Mature plants would reproduce seeds yet never having been planted in the first place. Huge trees would have had many years worth of rings and the universe’s stars and galaxies would have shined as if forever light-years away although in reality everything created would have been ONLY DAYS OLD after creation.

There’s a vast creation beyond our current knowledge just waiting to be discovered everyday by instruments such as the Hubble. Rather than show that no God exists, quite the opposite is true. We constantly discover that we really dont know very much at all about our world and this should give us pause in declaring that God is dead. Because how can we claim to be so sure about Him, when we evidently know so little about His creation?

Discoveries in science only strengthen my faith. To know that such an amazing and complex God cares anything about us at all (as shown through Jesus Christ in God’s message to us the Bible), shows His tremendous love for His most prized and highest creation–you and I.

89. Lawrence A Greene II - 12 November, 2006

I truly believe the universe is billions of years old, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a “God”. I can say with confidence that man’s ability to understand what’s around him is not without error. I don’t believe it took 6000 years and I’m quite sure our understanding of God in all areas is quite flawed. But our determination and desire is helping us to understand scientificly that there is a purpose to the things we are finding all around us, yet must not conclude our findings and establish it as fact, as we all have learned so many times that there is so much more to the things we had “just” discovered. There have been thousands of scientists who have staked a claim that their findings have lead to a so-called undisputable fact, only to find later on that either it wasn’t true or there was more to the story than what we could see at the time. And with God, come on the bible was written 400 years after Jesus by King James’s scribes . as if there wasn’t going to be any error or political influence involved in writting that book. I sure the day is coming that we will all be surprised as to how all this came to be, just don’t be so hasty to leave out God :)

I can live with the idea of there being a God who designed and orchastrated this universe. But in the attempt to understand and interperet God will at first lead us to an understaning no diffrent that child

90. Ravneet Singh - 12 November, 2006

BTW if you want to know how Sikhism says how this world will come to live in peace, here it is:

The world will only come to live in peace once we realize the truth. Once we realize the equality in man and the rest of the universe. All other religions/science try to separate God’s creations in “good” and “bad”, when in reality God does not perceive anyone as good or bad. Who are we to try to judge others, if God has not passed judgment. Once people realize that God does not see the color of one’s skin nor the language of ones tongue in which one tries to repeat God’s name, we will come to realize the truth and thus fall in love with God and understand his greatness.

If you think about this from the perspective of Science.

All objects including living beings are created from the same basic elements – TRUE.
Good and bad are just relative to ones experience – TRUE.

This article just like religious fanatics is trying to separate God’s creations be claiming to understand the “truth”.

91. s8 - 12 November, 2006

i understand you wanted a catchy title, however… i find it extremely stupid. the abovesuggested one could do a much better job. but in general i consider this whole true/false arguing absolutely pointless and boring – people who take creationists and Bible literally are just as naive as their opponents.

92. Sam I Am - 12 November, 2006

Wow. This has to be one of the ignorant things I’ve ever read in my entire life. Just goes to show that just because you can publish something on the internet doesn’t mean you should.

93. Daver - 12 November, 2006

I’m a Christian and I’m studying for my Ph.D in Applied Physics. My faith isn’t challenged by questioning the Genesis account of creation, since I believe we are saved by Jesus’ work on the cross alone, and not by any legalistic adherence to theologically minor points such as Genesis 1.

But I can’t rule out Genesis. The truth is that there’s a heck of a lot that we don’t understand about physics at points of singularity. And Genesis doesn’t say much about the conditions in which the Earth was created. So who knows? Perhaps it is possible that “6 days” is correct with some very strange physics occurring at creation. My point is, I can’t rule it out. God is infinite and our understanding is finite.

I believe the difference is in how one views the world. ‘Enlightened’ people believe that, given sufficient time, humanity can understand and conquer all problems. Others believe that there are things beyond our comprehension, that there is something “more” to the world than what can be measured.

Part of wisdom is realizing when you don’t (or can’t) have all the answers, judging for yourself and coming to your own conclusions. I can accept that we disagree, and I respect your point of view…. But can you accept that I am intelligent enough consider these things for myself, and come to a different conclusion?

94. Faraaz - 12 November, 2006

I agree with everything that you stated except that Hubble killed God. Just because Christianity states one thing doesn’t mean that all religions do. In fact, I don’t believe that we were created in God’s image. God is too beautiful to be put into an image we can see on this Earth. Furthermore, science is provable and if God truly made the Earth and all things on it, science should conform to what God has said in His books. If the books say something different, then obviously they are wrong since we can prove and test science. When you find that science and religion go together in one book, then you have found the truth.

Check out the Qur’an: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8552135092079886288

Science and religion are in perfect harmony. All that modern science has come up with today, is in perfect agreement with the Qur’an, including your points about astronomy which were very well thought out.

95. Brian - 12 November, 2006

God is seperate from time. He createdtime.

Science is just figuring out the amazing things God already did.

96. DaveHimself - 12 November, 2006

This comment is directed to those of you with faith in a god who are attacking the title of this post. It is a “headline” it is designed to grab your attention. It should spark thought not retaliation. It even has three periods at the end to remind you to keep reading and to keep thinking. Those of you who follow the tennants of a set of books that are constantly interpreted and re-interpreted should know better than to take four words at face value. Why not twist the meaning of the words to say what you would like them to mean the same way you’ve done with your holy books.

97. terrymullett - 12 November, 2006

empT3:

First, an atheist is not simply someone who is skeptical in the face of a lack of proof. An atheist affirms that God is a fiction. Proving there is no God is futile (as proving a negative generally is) and proving there is one is unnecessary because of faith. The whole proof argument is time poorly spent, as, outside Math and Philosophy classes, proof of most things is impractical anyway. We find a way to proceed with confidence using a probabilistic sort of reasoning. This particular atheist, for instance, considers his capacity for spotting Bronze Age mythology sufficient for moving past the supposed conundrum of proof.

Second, are you seriously suggesting that if Old Testament writers had the vocabulary to discuss quantum mechanics then a more accurate explanation would be found in that text? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but are you falling back on the old argument that God revealed His truth in terms humans could understand? My response to that has always been, if God was trying so hard to be understood, then why are religions so saturated with mysteries?

98. the forester - 12 November, 2006

This is a plain reiteration of an old argument. It would take a stupid God to create all those galaxies and stars so far away that the light would never reach us, wouldn’t it? How illogical is it to consider that a God who created sources of light (stars) is incapable of creating rays of light between them? This is the “appearance of age” counter to your challenge, and it is the only consistent means of considering any type of creation ex nihilo whatsoever. A created human being would have blood already pumping in his veins, would have electrical signals already flowing between neural synapses. If so, why rule out rays of light between stars that give an appearance of age?

Since this post didn’t do it for me, allow me to invite you to read the question that will kill Darwin.

99. monteiro - 12 November, 2006

i disagree with the fact that the universe was created 6000 years ago. i study the bible and nothing in the bible says that…better, if you read with attention you can conclude that there was life before us…

i believe that the universe can have million and millions of years, i believe that earth can have million and millions of years, but “our” earth, our living earth have 6000years…i believe in that…its a matter of faith!

100. Kat - 12 November, 2006

That doesn’t explain anything about there not being a God. Cause it doens’t explain how anything came together by science.

101. Meh - 12 November, 2006

It’s scary to read so many comments trying to validate their beliefs in a child’s story.

Being scared of death makes you come up with some strange comforts, like religion.

If only people were greatful for being alive, rather than trying to prove the equivilant of the easter bunny and santa exists.

If scientology lasts for 1500 years, will that make it as valid as Islam is now? 2,000 years later, will it have the standing of Christianity? We know it is utter rubbish now, but time seem to prove otherwise.

Get over what you read in a book, written by HUMANS, clueless humans at that.

Great picture, it would be amazing to know what is there… not even starting with string theory etc.

102. tchilds - 12 November, 2006

to all of the athiests out there:

I am a believer in God. I believe in heaven and hell, and a code of moral conduct. I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus. I seek to help my fellow man, live in an upright way, do harm to no one, and be at peace with all mankind, using my particular religious framework. this provides me with a stable happy life, with friends who love me and count on me, a community of like minded individuals who are there for me when I need them, and the hope of an afterlife. If, when I die, there is no afterlife, will I know it? no I will not, and I will have still died a happy man, with a legacy left to my childrens children. so now I that I am pushing up daises I wont know that either, I wont even know that I was wrong about any of it, my concousness will just wink out of existence! whereas you mr or mrs athiest, will definately know it if you are wrong, and when you stand before your creator you will have a lot to answer for. either way I win, because if there is no afterlife, and you and I are both dead, you wont even be able to say “see I told you so!” think long and hard about this before you thumb your nose at God!

oh and by the way there are just as many scientific proofs for a young earth old universe theory. no one was there at the beginning, it is all a matter of faith. and darwinism is not scientific fact it is just as religious as any other belief system.

103. Meh - 12 November, 2006

Oh and don’t start with the ‘faith’ stuff. Faith in what? What someone else wrote thousands of years ago?

104. mywholelife - 12 November, 2006

“Thanks should go to Hubble for opening our eyes. If only some men would open theirs. Being a Christian or being a Muslim means being different. Being a Human means being the same. Comments are appreciated.”

That just about says it all. Jai Ma!

105. Jack - 12 November, 2006

If god can do anything, why does he need to prepare at all??

106. mike - 12 November, 2006

What youre saying is that the only path to “god” is christianity or being a muslim.

Just because you may have –apparently– tried to disprove two religions you havent destroyed the notion there god exists. You have only sorda kinda killed (through flawed logic) that one concept of god may be incorrect.

Somethin created us. God

107. God - 12 November, 2006
108. Whitey Bear - 12 November, 2006

Wow, that was really stupid.

109. Saintnollid - 12 November, 2006

Here’s an excellent debate on this very topic.

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/147

110. Meh - 12 November, 2006

Sorry mike, God forgot to leave his signature on our DNA structure, but a number of other species did during “Evolution”.

Who are we meant to believe? Ramblings of an old book where stoning women is all good, our something we can actually develop and study.

Oh, I remember. Faith.

111. Common Sense - 12 November, 2006

Ah yes – Man is the pinnacle of God’s creations…

God made the Universe in all its glory – trillions upon trillions of stars and everything in-between, a planet for us to live on, and all the species we share it with, just so we can fight, kill, rape and destroy it all in His name…

yeah right…

Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded, nothing more. If you feel a need for faith or religion just to explain your existence, ask yourself why you need it – are you deficient? Are you unable to exist without requiring that a concrete force or being is watching over you? Are you so afraid of death that you have to believe in an after-life? When you die, thats it – you are dead. There is no Hell, no Heaven, you are DEAD, you cease to exist. Don’t be afraid to die, because when you are dead, you won’t have regrets, you won’t be sad, because you are DEAD…

Why do you live your life according to a book written centuries ago by men who had no means of explaining the phenomenon of the world around them? If the book of Genesis can be proven to be completely false, how can any of the other books be taken seriously?

If God is all knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, why do we have mass-murders? Why do we have rapes? Why do we have plagues and epidemics ravaging the innocent? Why are there babies dying in incredible pain and suffering all over the world? God could stop it right? He could cure all illness in a flash right? Well if God truly exists then would he really want humanity to be murdering each other in his name? He must be a sadistic freak then – watching us all the time while we suffer and die. Hmm – the next time you have a loved one dying and you pray to God for help and he doesn’t answer – think of this; God has the power to cure your loved one – if he doesn’t, its because he wants you to suffer, he killed your loved one – Oh boy, what a wonderful loving God he is huh?

If you can’t live your life without religion, without a straw to grasp at, you are weak. You are holding the rest of the world back by trying to impose archaic and medieval customs on everyone else because you are afraid of change.

112. Mediodiablo - 12 November, 2006

It is interesting to read about Dr. Michael Brown, and it reminds me of a passage of Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian. This is what he says:
“You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother’s knee.”

113. Bobby - 12 November, 2006

Well its just sad how hard scientist try to disprove religion, yet they can never really do it. I don’t get why they need too, your gonna die anyway. And whats with the name “Hubble killed god” whoever wrote that is a stupid idiot like common that article proved nothing. All it said was that theres stars in the universe. Why don’t you scientist us your time to find cures for desises or invent a new product that will help people don’t wast your time on god, we’ll see what happens in the end.

True scientists are agnostic. If religion were wrong, then surely atheism would be just as wrong.(I agree)

114. John - 12 November, 2006

Excellent article. Absolutely fascinating. Religion is silly.

115. chtrace - 12 November, 2006

The photo doesn’t disprove God or some higher power. It disproves all the organized religions that people follow. If a power, that is greater than my ability to understand, somewhow began the “Big Bang” that is the
present understanding of our universe…I somehow have a real issue understanding how He/She decided to give humans all these rules…don’t eat pork…worship on Saturdays….worship on Sundays…women are subserviet to men…either convert your neighbor or kill him

Religion is a fable…good stories with a purpose…but that is all there is to it. Any Christians or Muslims want to explain why we haven’t seen any miracles since we have had the ability to investigate and measure things with real science and procedures…it’s because there weren’t any miracles. But they made great stories to manage and control the masses of uneducated peoples.

The body of Human knowledge just keeps getting larger and larger. The confined dogma of the worlds religions just keep getting harder and harder to justify…except with blind faith

116. Andrew - 12 November, 2006

This is a reasonable debate point to raise, and as a Christian I am happy to see it debated on the internet, however there are two valid answers for it:

1) Not all Christians believe that God created the world/universe about 6000 years ago. Many believe he let it sit for millions/billions of years before man was then created last. Time to God is not the same as time for man. He is eternal, so billions of years as we know time is not a problem for him. The human mind has trouble comprehending it, but we are so puny compared to someone who can create the universe, we shouldn’t try and impose our limited concepts onto God.

2) If God created all those millions of galaxies with billions of stars, created all matter and the laws by which they work, then He is truly omnipotent and quite capable of making everything look as if it is really old. He could have changed those laws for a time, making the speed of light millions of times faster than it is now. This is part of the Apparent Age theory of creation. Why would God want to do this? Some people say it’s too much like a trick. There is a simple answer. He doesn’t want science to be able to measure and prove that the universe is 6000 years old, because then man would be forced to admit there is a God, because no alternate theory would cover it. God doesn’t want people to be forced into believing Him, He wants to require faith. So He doesn’t let science prove He exists. So if he made it 6000 years ago, I believe He also used Apparent Age.

Therefore your post does not prove that God doesn’t exist, nor even disprove the young earth theory of creation, as long as you include Apparent Age with young earth. Some Christians do believe in young earth without Apparent Age and then yes your post of course causes them pretty fatal problems.

117. jamie - 12 November, 2006

With regards to humans being created in the last small portion of time – how do you know that those other galaxies don’t have vast civilizations already build and earth is just a new place?

118. Lou (Linda) - 12 November, 2006

Studies show that upwards of 90 percent of people who are involved in car accidents on any given day ate breakfast that day. Therefore, it must be reasoned that eating breakfast causes car accidents.

You can look for data to support any theory and you can interpret it to support that theory, but truth remains truth, whether or not you believe it.

It’s of little importance really whether or not we believe that God exists. What is important is that God believes WE exist. And then take it from there.

119. yea - 12 November, 2006

You’re an idiot… this does not prove that God does not exist… only that the story of creation is not meant to be taken literally

120. Jack - 12 November, 2006

tchilds:

I suppose truth doesn’t matter to you then? god is not the only path to a happy and fufilling life, and if the cost of having that is belief in a false idol (not to mention countless atrocities committed in its name), then I say no.

And no, a 6000 year universe is simply absurd. You can simply say that “god did it”, and I would have no retort, since god can do anything. But that pretty much ends any rational discussion. And how about that creation of the earth in 6 days thing… doesn’t that kind of go against scientific fact? Oh right, 6 days isn’t really 6 days to a god.

Evolution is not a belief system. It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is definitely far more developed than the theory of gravitation, which has actually undergone major changes in the last century.

I’m technically agnostic, but only in the sense that being athiest is a slap in the face to my religious friends. I think most non-religious people are the same way – they do not proclaim “I am an athiest, and proud of if” just to be polite.

121. kaza - 12 November, 2006

This is not proof. It just shows that the wonder of our universe is bigger than we thought.

What is time to God? God by the definition in the Bible is outside of it. We interperate the Bible to say that the Hebrew word day means 24 hours. The word for day in the Genesis is YOWM. I looked up its definition: YOWM: sunrise to sunset; sunset to sunset; a space of time (defined by an associated term); an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days)

So if one day is a space of time. It does not necessarily mean 24 hours. It could have been billions of years.

There are ten events in which chapter 1 of Genesis describes.
1. Time and Space created at a single instance
2. It goes on a describes the earth as formless and void. An important point is that the second verse describes the point of view. The point of view of the narrative is from the surface of the planet. Not from out in space.
3. The atmosphere goes from opaque to transluecent.
4. water is separated from land.
5. Early vegitation appeared
6. Atmosphere went from transluecent ot clear. Allowing the sun and moon to be clearly visible from the surface.
7. Life began in the oceans, then early flying creatures.
8. Later large animals appeared.
9. Lastly, man appeared.
10. God rested from creation. God is still resting from creation. We are still in the seventh day of creation. One day God will start creating again after Man has been restored to grace.

Genesis is not a science text. It just states the origin of the universe and of man. Man’s original state. His fall from grace and his need of salvation. That theme plays over and over throughtout the Bible.

I believe if you look at look at my simple list of events that they are in the right order. The random chance is that happening by itself is 1/10!.

kaza

122. Ron Norvell - 12 November, 2006

What if, when God created the universe, he created it complete with a 15 billion year history. If so, then to science it wouldn’t matter when the universe was created and to religion it wouldn’t matter how old the universe is. Apples and oranges people.

123. s8 - 12 November, 2006

man, now this is what you get – i hope you are reading this and have read every single comment people post. think well about what you’ve written and i’d love to see your response to this avelanche. please drop me a note when you’re done – i’m not your regular reader. i’d suggest you to watch “elegant universe” and consider what science actually is…

124. How Hubble Killed God… Emerging reaction « Emerging South Africa - 12 November, 2006

[...] I read some of the top posts, fastest growing blogs, and new posts from WordPress from time to time. So I read How Hubble Killed God… just now. I’m actually getting quite fed-up with the topic, but I’ll write something again. This is just some short thoughts, but it might give a possible alternative. I also agree with Hubble, but won’t credit it for killing God. [...]

125. David - 12 November, 2006

Absolutely this kills any ridiculous fundamentalist christian notions of a 6,000 year old earth. Implying these Hubble data killed any notion of god is pure ignorance.

126. cam - 12 November, 2006

Only the US seems to believe that the world is only a few thousand years old. the bible says that science is there to help describe the world. they are turning faith into dogma. that is not what relegon should be.

127. cobus - 12 November, 2006

Well, if God existed it would be quite a long shot to say that Hubble Killed God.
But the photo do prove one thing. Hubble definitely killed your perception of the Creator God. It didn’t necesserrily kill the Creator God, but your perception… definitely.
Your polemic is against a God that created the universe 6000 years ago, with man as his reason for creating it. Well, that perception is challenged by Hubble. But that is just a perception. A lot of us have a completely different perception of God…
I also agree with Hubble, but won’t credit it for killing God.
http://emergingsa.wordpress.com/2006/11/12/how-hubble-killed-god-emerging-reaction/

128. Jack - 12 November, 2006

Bobby:

Many scientists are agnostic or believe in god. Those who do try to disprove it do so because religions is dangerous.

ask yourself, how many people each year are killed by religion? I bet it’s just as bad as any individual disease.

And no, religion is not a source of morality. Morality is inherent in man, and I think it’s a pretty dark world-view to think that people behave ethically only out of fear of divine retribution.

129. Loren - 12 November, 2006

This article doesn’t bring any new information to the table.

“In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

“Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none” (Isaiah 43:10 sentence 2)

““I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.””

So the things taken from these verses are

1) The heavens and earth were created, due to the context and because of translation, it’s logical that the term “heavens” is the universe.

2) God, YHWH, or Jehovah is timeless as he created the heavens and the earth

1) According to my understanding the heavens existed for x-amount of time beforehand and the first six days were about the forming of the earth, with the seventh following as the sabbath in which no work was to be done, currently it is the seventh day.

A creation day is different from a day (1000 years,) at the moment I can’t find the verse to back it up, but if anyone can it would be appreciated

It bothers me that many people who claim to be christian don’t have a fundamental knowledge and arge without fact. If you would like to disprove what I say, please provide as much fact as possible, not opinion.

My following question for everyone is, looking at the picture above, what type of energy would it take to create those constilations?

130. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Hello everyone. Firstly, I am totally overwhelmed. I go to bed with 1 comment and wake up to over 100. Please let me clarify this whole situation.

As DaveHimself correctly determined, the Headline, “How Hubble Killed God…” is exactly that – a headline. It’s aimed at attracting attention. You see them everday on the front page of the newspaper. There are three dots after the headline – not a single period. This article offers no proof whatsoever – it is meant to question. Unfortunately, it appears that many read the headline and went straight to the comments. If you notice in the article, I never got to any conclusion of Hubble killing God. I have no idea what caused the Big Bang and I don’t think anyone really KNOWS.

This article was meant to be a sister article to “Which is Stronger: Manfluence or Godfluence – http://stuhasic.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/which-is-stronger-manfluence-or-godfluence/

Again, it’s just about asking questions. If that Hubble image makes you see and believe in God even stronger and it makes you happy, then that’s just great. But the article was not hate-filled. I even included links to various points of view throughout.

Thanks again everyone.

Stu.

131. Tim - 12 November, 2006

All of this talk of billions of light years is a little bit on the insane side. It all stems from a misconception of the base in our triangulation techniques for distance calculation. The earth may well be stationary as God has told us.

132. Jay Vaughan - 12 November, 2006

Give Me A Break. This anti-religion rant doesn’t prove anything more than that there are idiots in the world who have nothing better to do with their limited time in the universe than erect straw men and burn them.

God is not an entity you ‘kill’ or ‘defeat’. God is a concept, an idea, a potential. God is All Things. The more you look, the more you will see; it is God, the Infinite Potential for All things, which provides this to you .. Its not some enemy you ‘need to defeat’ or even can, because you are part of the concept, too. The more *YOU* look, the more God will provide, because that is the nature of life: it is infinitely boundless.

Describe the universe in whatever words you see fit, but you can no more kill God than you can defeat a word. No matter what dress Quixote wears, Scientist or Priest (or both, Priestly Scientists), God will continue, forever, for as long as there is life around to describe things ..

133. Peter - 12 November, 2006

noone will kill God unless they disprove the law of conservation of mass. No matter what Dawkins believes nothing we know of can create matter, let alone enough for the big bang. Thats why we’ll never disprove God’s existence. But the universe is old as hell and hubble proves it, I can’t believe they’re letting it go.

134. eatdjorange - 12 November, 2006

very nicely touch on the article. make you wonder huh? who is our creator?

We’re souless meat machines. Only our creator have a soul. Soul can NOT be created. In a higher place there live a society that don’t fight about who has soul and who doesn’t. They know without a doubt that a soul exist in each and everyone of them and after death they live in eternal heaven.

Us, as souless meat machines will always fight about and doubt if we do have a soul or not. If you have a soul you’ll know beyond a doubt. Since we don’t have one we reasons for it. Our creator wanted us to have soul but can never recreate it. Just like when we create AI, they are spirtual machines love, learn, hate, actions and reaction to thier experiences but souless.

I’m not saying soul doesn’t exisit, it very well exist and we often dream about it since our creation but its cannot be found in anyone of us. It belongs to someone else.

135. wayne - 12 November, 2006

Show me where it says that the early is only 6,000 years old in the bible…

Guess what? It doesn’t.

136. David - 12 November, 2006

stuhasic – “Unfortunately, it appears that many read the headline and went straight to the comments. If you notice in the article, I never got to any conclusion of Hubble killing God.”

I most definitely did not go straight to the comments, I did however notice your article did nothing to clarify the sensationalist headline on it so I wouldn’t fall back too hard on the above quoted argument. You maybe be technically right in that you did not finally conclude it killed god, but you did assert it with that headline. Many of us may find such a tactic hard to swallow when the article itself is supposed to be based on solid facts.

137. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Hi David,

And the solid facts of your argument are…?

138. MateFrio - 12 November, 2006

To claim there is no God is to claim an infinite wisdom of all things in the universe.

So, you have proven you are God or just not as smart as you think you are.

139. David - 12 November, 2006

stuhasic – I am not arguing any fundamentalist or religious viewpoints whatsoever. I am an athiest. But none of this has anything to do with your intellectually dishonest manner of presenting this article (which you did not address by the way).

140. Jonathan - 12 November, 2006

The job of scientific theory is not to disprove God. It’s the job of the believers to prove him.

141. white - 12 November, 2006

saturday november 11 2006 4:37 pm
i have heard 15.5 Billion years but they dont say if its in Light years or not ,
i think it is more older than that more like 16 billion years if god is for real then god could make it stop ,
the universe is hell and not heaven i believe all of the planets will stop at the frozen wall of the universe and then the universe will freeze eternaly , the holy bible is talking about 6,000 years during 6 dispensations and not the age of the universe , in the beginning god created the spiritual planet earth with his spiritual words of god the holy spirit god is a spirit and god spoke the spiritual words to create a spiritual creation in the beginning of the creation of mankind was in the beginning of the 6,000 years and not from the beginning of the universe

142. Peter Goodman - 12 November, 2006

I’m not too sure what the argument you are trying to make is.. I was expecting to see something that actually proves the age of the earth absent of carbon dating. Although an interesting article, I think you really didn’t make any substantive/empirical arguments that disprove the existance God. In fact, you’ve probably made the case for God, or a possible being of near omnipotent power, by showing just how large the universe is and how little we understand about it. Nevertheless, good article. In the future, if you’re going to take on such a controversial claim, please make sure to read over your article and see if your argument supports your thesis, as it really hasn’t in this article.

143. Punjab - 12 November, 2006

Dear God believers;

Don’t worry: no matter the research, the discovery, the breakthrough, etc — your God-of-the-gaps will continue to survive and provide you with some semblance of peace and comfort in the fact that you are indeed wasting your life just sliding-by, holding on to that “at least I have an eternal afterlife” to look forward to.

Yeah, we know, it makes you feel better to believe… but we also note the irony that that is very similar to what a heroin addict woud say in reference to their life-drug.

So, again, continue to float through your one absolutely, positively-does exitist life… as though it were a trial run.

Sincerely,
Pj

144. Jerryatrics - 12 November, 2006

Religion serves to unify and identify cultures. In evolutionary terms the belief system of the individual made him a member of a clan to which he/she gave allegiance and was accepted as a bona fide member. This is an important part of our survival skill. If you believed in the prevailing belief of your creation myth, your offspring had a better chance of survival than if you believed in some alternative. Hence individuals are willing to die as martyrs for their faith, i,e, to “prove” their faith and to increase the likelihood of survival of their clan (my daddy was a martyr and so I deserve to survive more than some disgusting non-believer.)

We need God to justify the outrageous acts of religion and as such the concept is created in vague terms that can mean anything that supports the religious belief system. Hubble pictures, as wondrous as they are, have nothing to do with this process and therefore are irrelevant. I get a similar feeling by looking through a microscope at a drop of pond water in summertime or speaking at length to a troubled person about his/her belief system.

God is designed in the image and likeness of man and is by its nature a concept that cannot be addressed in a meaningful way unless you already believe, in which case there is no good reason to talk about it, except within the context of trying to define the clan and assert its unity (superiority).

“Proving” this or that is silly. This is not mathematics. We infer the time line of evolution of the universe and man and come up with disprovable theories. Everything else is poppycock.

145. Phil - 12 November, 2006

Though I don’t necessary subscribe to all your comments…I do very much appreciate that picture from the Hubble. I actually have not seen that one before today (Nov. 11, 2006) and I think it’s just amazing.

Thanks!

146. Alan - 12 November, 2006

That picture doesn’t prove anything. Answer me this, where did all the materials (noble gases, etc) that supposedly were involved in the Big Bang come from?

The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so where did all the original energy for the universe come from if not from God?

147. Steve - 12 November, 2006

The Bible says the very first thing God created was light. Yeah . . . just light. Not the source of the light. The source of the light, the stars, came a few days later. It’s therefore logical to assume that he created every single bit of light that goes from Earth to its eventual source. It’s like he created the cup half full instead of creating it full and pouring it out from there. The fact is, there is no way you can prove God DIDN’T create the universe any more than you can prove that he DID. The Hubble picture, if we realize that God created the light before he created anything else, is exactly what we would expect to find when we start with the Bible.

148. StevieRay - 12 November, 2006

Excellent article.

There are several posts about not taking the Bible literally. How can you take any part of the Bible seriously if you’re willing to admit that a lot of it is bullshit?

Bobby wrote “True scientists are agnostic. If religion were wrong, then surely atheism would be just as wrong.(I agree) ”

Being agnostic goes against science. Agnostics believe that the existence of God can never be proved or disproved. The whole purpose of science is to make discoveries and to prove and disprove theories. If every scientist was agnostic, they would all throw their hands in the air and say, “it can’t be proven so let’s not even try!”

149. Alex - 12 November, 2006

You could easily say the same photo proves God.

Intelligent Design is such a dangerous subject. In my opinion, it is actually quite good THEOLOGY, but INCREDIBLY BAD SCIENCE.

I look at the photo attached to this blog and see prof that an amazing force abides in out universe, a force that is creative by nature. This force, in my opinion creates universes, galaxies, sheep, humans, and even our own thoughts. The same creative force! To me it is divine. Now, I would never kill someone for believing different, or make you study what I believe in public school, and I would NEVER tell anyone to abandon science, because to me science is simply the inquiry into the nature of this same force. How does this divine creative force work? That is what science tells us. Does science prove or disprove the existence of this force? Absolutely not. I believe it because to me it feels true.

150. timethief - 12 November, 2006

Differences over such hot-button subjects as the literal truth of the Bible, the validity of the theory of evolution, and the existence of God remain bitter. But a growing chorus of voices on both sides is arguing for saving the planet first, and worrying about other issues later.

Global warming is a reality and we can do something about it if we act in concert and quickly. Therefore, it’s my hope that those who feel so convinced that (1) god exists (2) that “he” created the Universe and all in it, and that (3) “he” is in control of everything, won’t fail to do what’s required to ensure we actually leave a planet worth living on behind for the next generation.

It’s my fear that the god peddling bible thumpers and their industrial allies will ensure that this little earth light will no longer shine in the universe.

151. Khannea Suntzu - 12 November, 2006

Old news, realized this decades ago. As obvious as a sledgehammer. However the fundamentalists will take a while to let it sink in. When the first christian hangs in space, a few dozen million klicks from space in the asteroid belt, and can’t find the earth in the scatter of lights, he’ll think twice.

However he will come up with new types of religious belief. If you want examples, GURPS Transhuman Space, a real nice series of roleplaying books, gives all the old beliefs in this new context plus a bunch of new ones besides.

Human minds are damaged equipment. Worse, these damaged machines will do anything to create copies of itself, carrying the same damaged memes. So expect humans to create robots who believe in Allah as well.

152. Jawad Shuaib - 12 November, 2006

If the oceans were ink the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another Ocean like it, for its Aid.

153. Andrew - 12 November, 2006

God created a mature universe as in he didn’t start the big bang or start evolution, if you believe God could make planets and galaxies then you also believe he created the light rays that are reflected to planet.

154. How Common Sense Killed God - 12 November, 2006

Scratch that one out of the bible.. up next: the raping and killing of the men, women, and children of babylon

155. SmartGuy - 12 November, 2006

It’s not “God or Allah”…Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. Allah is just Arabic for God. The Bible is wrong? Oh, alert the media, people need to know.

156. Paul Thunder - 12 November, 2006

To say God is dead,.. one has not seen the beauty within this world and in space.
It took a very long time to create such beauty, too get it just right, “too prefect beauty.”

No human being will ever be able to say “I Man am God, I have Perfected Beauty.”
Just as man will never be able to say ‘I man have the power over Life & Death.”
Only God holds the power of Life and death and of Great beauty.

However much anyone tries to say there is no God,…only proves there is a God and “He is alive!.”
And in Him we live & we survive.

So thank you again for just proving yet again God is alive. :)

157. seneca - 12 November, 2006

I am amazed that you think these thoughts are original or out-of-the-ordinary.

You must be very young.

Seneca

158. NEo - 12 November, 2006

I can understand your resentment against all religions and their interpretation on God, life and anything in between. But I also claim that before using the word “all” you should have read Hindu interpretation. Not Buddhism (as we think they are synonyms) but Hindu scriptures like veda, updanishad, gita etc. I bet a it wont be disappointing.

159. Eric - 12 November, 2006

How does this disprove God? When God showed Moses all of His creations, Moses saw worlds without number (Moses 1:33, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/1/33#33). If anything, this picture only lends support to the scriptures being factual and accurate.

160. nnwo - 12 November, 2006

How anyone can believe in a god is beyond me. The individual must be either brainwashed, uneducated or suffer extreme narrow mindedness.

161. tony - 12 November, 2006

oww. the christian logic is an offense to the philosophies of an atheist.
your 2-d logic, inability to resolve all your contradictions and perceive religion from a neutral point of view is suffice to say your general population is intellectually incompetent, in the sense of higher thinking and theism of course.

the bible has many contradictions. now that science proves the impossibilities of critical events occuring in the bible it is in the christian resolve to re-evaluate them as ‘parables’. Stories which are told ficticiously because according to Christians our minds are incapable of understanding god’s logic and therefore he analogises his morals and ideals through stories. though strangely enough theyre not clarified and are reported as though truely existing events. that in itself is a contradiction, trying to clarify one’s logic through simplification processes, and yet deliberately misstating information as factual when it is contraire to this.

Jesus? the explanations behind his miracle works?
if you weren’t aware all the non-existent events that are scientifically verifiable as such have been RE-dubbed ‘parables’. The line stops at claiming jesus’ life and works are ficticious visual metaphors. As we all know Jesus’ life is fundamental to the teachings and events that occured in the new testament which is the most quintessential reading of many catholics. Therefore jesus cannot be claimed to be non-existent, although science suggests otherwise.
another view on jesus’ works could be to assume he was a charismatic character which according to bible readings suggests this as part of his personality. his works could be mere fallacies, exaggerated accounts and as it is no longer verifiable to this day is believed as factual content.
kind of like what BENNY HINN would be 1000 years from now.
and dont say hes not fake.

162. Ted Sbardella - 12 November, 2006

Wow we are special. It took a giant extraordinarily complex and imaginably huge universe to come up with us.

163. Michael - 12 November, 2006

All this picture proves is that someone’s interpretation of God is flawed. It is my opinion that all human interpretations of God are at the very least flawed.

I believe there is a God that created this universe. Making up myths about how God did this or why seems just stupid and arrogant to me.

The spiritual leaders of our history have been molded by other men into a shape that fits their needs. Usually that shape is one that makes other interpretations evil.

I feel God’s presence and love. That alone is enough for me.

164. tony - 12 November, 2006

of course the above commentary isn’t directed at the author which is quite apparently an atheist or agnostic but rather to the multiple christians who commented with poor wit, narrow-mindedness and ironic fundamentalism.

165. hiscity - 12 November, 2006

Just cross connecting the discussion.

http://www.digg.com/space/How_Hubble_Killed_God#c3790761

166. Peter M. Abraham - 12 November, 2006

God created everything in their proper position; and created the light beams from their location to the Earth. A giant telescope in space did not harm God, or disprove the age of a young planet Earth. Thank you.

167. tchilds - 12 November, 2006

Jack,
thought I would respond using the body of your response:

tchilds:

I suppose truth doesn’t matter to you then? god is not the only path to a happy and fufilling life, and if the cost of having that is belief in a false idol (not to mention countless atrocities committed in its name), then I say no.

“all religous belief systems have there share of genocide, including athiesm, or does marx, stalin and lenin, and idi amin and pol pot not come to mind, simply because people do evil in the name of a “God” or system of belief, or lack thereof, in no way negates the existence or non existence of God.” using your logic you should not be an athiest, because more people have been killed by athiest regimes than all of the holy wars ever fought.”

And no, a 6000 year universe is simply absurd. You can simply say that “god did it”, and I would have no retort, since god can do anything. But that pretty much ends any rational discussion. And how about that creation of the earth in 6 days thing… doesn’t that kind of go against scientific fact? Oh right, 6 days isn’t really 6 days to a god.

” if I said I could scientifically prove the six days of creation, would that change your mind, dont think so. hugh ross and other astrophysicists are what are called “old earth scientists” there are differences in theory as to how God created, do not lump us all into the same catagory.”

Evolution is not a belief system. It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is definitely far more developed than the theory of gravitation, which has actually undergone major changes in the last century.

“sadly you are mistaken that evolution is proven, it is not. adaptation within a species is, and genetic isolation to form a distinct subspecies is. but dna changes from 1 species to another is not. snakes do not lay aggs and birds pop out, there are no transitional fossils ANYWHERE. the ascent of man diagram seen in so many old text books is so phone, just look at piltdown man, what a hoax! and remember using information theory and the fact that we are all carbon based life forms, and we use the same building blocks of life, only proves we are from the same planet not that we evolved from the same distinct ancestor. there are so many holes in evolutionary theory as to make it laughable.” http://www.icr.org is a good place to start, or http://www.answersingenesis if you like”

I’m technically agnostic, but only in the sense that being athiest is a slap in the face to my religious friends. I think most non-religious people are the same way – they do not proclaim “I am an athiest, and proud of if” just to be polite.

“I think an agnostic is a more honest way of saying what you believe, only if you had all the knowledge in the universe vcould you say without a doubt there is no God, but to say you dont know for sure that is more intellectually honest. “

168. Albert - 12 November, 2006

I’m not sure how this “kills God”??

“God created the heavens and the earth”. So if anything, it seems to prove that randomness is less likely and God is more likely. “Creation calls”.

169. Kathy - 12 November, 2006

A few things I’d like to talk about:

1. I’m not claiming that I am a genius, however, there are some comments on here that are completely ignorant. This comes from all sides of the argument. If you want to make a point, put a little research into it first. Don’t pull statistics out of no where, or state theories that you do not understand.

2. Yes, this image does raise questions and is a big development, but nothing is ever completely known. This means there is room for many theories. I personally believe in a possibility of multiple theories.

3. I have no problem believing in a God, however one should never become so close minded that they reject any other ideas that might conflict with your own. How about instead of rejecting them, do what some others have done, try and explore them.

4. I have my own theories and ideas about what this image means to me, however I’m not out to change the world one comment at a time. The only idea I wish to convey is that people remain open minded. I’m not saying forget your own beliefs, but take the time to really think about life. Do not just throw something away because it doesn’t match your own idea of how the world works.

170. reconciled - 12 November, 2006

“It’s not “God or Allah”…Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. Allah is just Arabic for God…”

Umm, no we don’t. You need to do your research–the God of Christianity and Judaism is not the same as the god of Islam. They are completely differently faiths.

171. graphicartist2k5 - 12 November, 2006

yeah, just because some scientist looked deep into space with the hubble telescope and found out there were a buttload more stars out there that he/she didn’t previously know existed does not mean that God is somehow “defeated” by these images. this is THE lamest thing i’ve read in a good, long while. is that all you got with your argument against whether or not God exists? that’s a pretty damn weak standpoint to me. and i fully agree with what eric said concerning the fact that it only lends support to the scripture references in God’s Word being true.

172. Mustansar - 12 November, 2006
173. Margellons - 12 November, 2006

If the rope representing the age of the universe (12 billion years) is a kilometer long (1000 meters), then civilization (10,000 years) would be represented by the last 0.8mm.

Or if it were a mile long, then civilization would be entirely within the last 1/16th of an inch.

174. daniel - 12 November, 2006

Here’s how it is…
God exists, He started creating the earth some time ago and placed man on the earth only 6000 years ago. As for the galaxies that are a billion light years away, they are there because God created and put them there.
Humans haven’t only existed for the last 6000 years, they have existed much much longer than that, it only seems that way because we view our earth as a unique planet with intelligent life on it. There many more planets with humans living on them, the universe is so big we just don’t know of any others yet. This may all seem a little weird but it’s the truth.

175. B_to_G - 12 November, 2006

Looking at the expanse of the universe and declaring it artwork from some super natural being that is in your resemblance is probably about as conceded as you can get. What an outstanding insult to all other beings that may inhabit the universe. I advise you to take a minute and actually attempt to comprehend the mind-numbing probability that you are here, and conscience of your own thought . Do not be so quick to quick to place judgment on something that you haven’t the slightest idea about.

176. Aaron - 12 November, 2006

I have some questions in reply to the article. What if God created the universe in a pre-expanded state. Things may appear as though they would take millions of years to drift appart, but were actually placed that way a mere 6,000 years ago. Or, God could have created a universe that started spreading very rapidly, but as time passed, the expansion slowed, leaving us with the great distances between galaxies with little time elapsed. To demonstrate this, last idea, take a bucket of water. Pour it out on a flat surface. At first the water spreads rapidly, rushing away from the center, but as time passes the flow of water slows.

In the article, the question was asked, why God would create such a vast universe if man is the focus of it all. I believe that God created the universe for His glory. He made it so vast and huge so we would recognize his power and greatness. If you were capable of making something that impressive, would you not do it to prove your greatness to others? I believe the universe was created to prove to man the true greatness, power, and awesomeness of The Creator.

177. Jaime - 12 November, 2006

Last night the christian radio announcer (calm music makes a calm driver) said “The world is a vast and confusing place. Quit thinking…just believe what it says in the buybull”.
Intelligent design is just a new version of the now defunct creationism. Because the idiot christians still think they are entitled to shove their mythological beast down the throats of non-gulliable, and place religious restrictions on research, the scientists have just begun the long slow thorough process of shredding ID to pieces.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/rl_bestof.shtml

It’s impossible to argue successfully with science, because it uses cold hard indisputable logic instead of “feel good” theology. Wonder what stupid thing the christians will propose after ID becomes firmly debunked?

178. Miranda - 12 November, 2006

Unfortunately, some people argue that the objects of the heavens were created ‘to prove God’s glory’ and were in fact created 6,000 years ago with the light already traveling at light-speed outward, so that we could view something millions of years old despite it’s not being that age at all.

Talk about your religious double-talk. And talk about missing the point of the wonder and beauty and sheer awesomeness of the Universe for some narrow, small-minded, uninformed book written at a time when people knew nothing about how extraordinary the reality we inhabit really is.

Religion is just so small. And the universe is so big. It makes me sad that all these people are missing out on how amazing everything is in favor of some uninformed drivel written thousands of years ago.

179. Brett - 12 November, 2006

If you want to disprove the 6,000 year old Earth theory you should probably do your research first. On the first day God created light and separated it from the darkness. God didn’t created stars until day 4 of creation. I submit that since this is the case in Genesis you are not disproving the literal translation. In fact saying that light was already en rout from these distant stars agrees with the literal translation.

180. nataS - 12 November, 2006

LMAO… yes… there is no proof that God doesn’t exist and hence God exists? What a wonderful argument. I myself choose to not believe in God but believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean just like God…. you cant prove it does not exist… therefore it does correct?

181. David - 12 November, 2006

“If you were capable of making something that impressive, would you not do it to prove your greatness to others?”

This God sounds like its got a little bit of a self esteem problem. No, if I could make a universe the last thing on my mind would be making sure I could convince a bunch of monkeys that I created anyway.

182. Pedro - 12 November, 2006

I am a Christian, more specifically, Catholic. It would be irresponsible to claim that the Universe is 6,000 years old. There’s too much scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Yet, when I see this photograph, I see an example of the existence of God. When it was published, it made me believe more in God. The universe is perfect. I believe in God and I have no proof the God exists, yet I also have no proof that God does not exist.

We have not been able to understand what happened right before the Big Bang, when we do, we will have more insight into the existence of God. In the mean time, it would be irresponsible to claim that God exists or that God doesn’t exist. As of right now it is a matter of faith and I believe in God.

183. Vulcanius - 12 November, 2006

Reading these comments is hilarious.

I bet the author sure wishes he had AdSense now…

184. Brett Keller - 12 November, 2006

I know your title is in jest, but some of the responses gave me the better laugh. No one can really believe God is dead in the first place, because if he were dead he would have never lived. Either he never was, or he always was, is, and will be. Your choice.
I myself, as a devout Pastafarian, prefer my beautiful Deity who has been proven true by the Hubble and other instruments of science over and over.

185. manny c - 12 November, 2006

I would rather live my entire life, living, breathing, and following GOD, passing away and finding out that there is no GOD. Than living my life as if there was no GOD, passing away and finding out that there is a GOD.

Have a nice day!

186. Itkovian - 12 November, 2006

Reread Genesis. Nowhere it says that the universe or even the earth is 6000 years old. Some religious zealots claim that, but they’re wrong. Just read the words, and bear in mind that ‘day’ can also mean a period of time, in ancient Hebrew.

187. Matthew Reed - 12 November, 2006

I’m going to play the devils advocate here, and ask

“What if the HUDF image itself is part of the global conspiracy to have humans believe the univers is older than it actually is?”

There would be no way to absolutely prove the image really is of other incredibly distant galaxies.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe the universe is about 16 billion years old, and that its pathetically arrogant and incredibly ignorant to believe Humanity makes up the entire history of the universe, but “what if”?

188. ll - 12 November, 2006

Faith: believe without question.

Questioning what and whom exactly? God… or the people telling you what God is?

Trust that you, and all others, are fallible. Use logic and open mindedness to build internal strength so that you can avoid “drinking the Koolaid” – be it served by science or religion.

189. ll - 12 November, 2006

oops – made a mistake

Faith: belief without question.

One more item of proof that I am a fallible human

190. ll - 12 November, 2006

Matthew, Your answer is this: build a Hubble telescope, aim it at the same spot everyday over a year and take a picture. It will cost you many, many dollars, probably over 100, but it is at least possible.

191. mike - 12 November, 2006

bull

192. Jack - 12 November, 2006

Is god then simply a life insurance policy? That’s a rather sad way to live your life.

193. poopemerges - 12 November, 2006

Ummm…

Point numbe 1. THe Bible does not necessitate a young earth of any age..you’re confused and so are the people who claim it does.

But point number 2. Arguing that this proves anythting is a little suspect from even the creation account in Gensis because for one God creats the light prior, which whether one choose to believe it or not for the purpsoes of the argument would be the answer…
and secondly in the genesis account everything is created wit hage…in other words God does not creat a sperm and then an egg and wait for it to develop he creates a man with age…he all create grass not seeds and trees not seeds…so it stand to reason that the everything is going to show signs of that age no mater their chronological age…

I am not suggesting that you believe this, only that this would be the answer…

194. Thrice - 12 November, 2006

Addressing this part of it

“If Time since creation was a kilometre long piece of rope, intelligent Man is represented only by the last half-metre of that rope”

Assuming man was 100,00 years, that should be ~1 cm not half meter.

195. Jerry - 12 November, 2006

What a sensationalistic title. Shame on you.

196. Neil Mohr - 12 November, 2006

Well this doesn’t disprove God’s existence but then it never was suppose to was it? It disproves the insane idea the Earth was created in 6,000 years. Frankly not that needed more discrediting, to argue carbon or radiological dating doesn’t work pretty much breaks all the electronic gizmos we use today, praise science.

197. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Thanks Thrice!! Damn calculator. Forgot to add the extra zeros. I’ll correct it in the article. I based it on 6,000 years or intelligent man vs 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (according to the Hubble site).

198. zecrose - 12 November, 2006

It’s funny how some people who challenge the title “How Hubble Killed God…” totally ignore the thesis of the article and harangue their non-existent arguments.

199. mark - 12 November, 2006

I’d like to know what brad and Phil have to say on the matter.

m

200. Dave Brueck - 12 November, 2006

Cool image! I’m a Mormon, and we’ve always believed that God is the creator of an infinite number of worlds. Not only did many worlds come long before our earth, new worlds are still being created.

201. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

That’s coming soon Mark. Ben’s got School Certificate exams all week, so he’ll have to wait… :)

202. brian - 12 November, 2006

When did god create himself?

203. Drews - 12 November, 2006

Great article, puts things into perspective (or makes you even more confused!)

204. Gary - 12 November, 2006

Just what is the other view here? I’m sick of people bashing the Christian view…what else have we got to believe here; That a cloud of nothingness came along with another cloud of nothingness and a “big bang” happened that magically created an expanding universe with a galaxy that has an earth that can support life that can think for itself and hence conclude how they arrived here? Ummmm it’s easy to attempt to disprove someone elses idea when you dont have an idea yourself.

205. Gregg - 12 November, 2006

There is a scientist named Gerald Schroeder who has done the math on the expansion of the universe from God’s perspective. He has calculated that , depending on your point of view, the universe is both 16 billion and 6 thousand years old.

The first day of creation, the universe expanded by 8 billion years.
The second day of creation, the universe expanded by 4 billion years.
The third day of creation, the universe expanded 2 billion years.
The fourth day of creation, the universe expanded 1 billion years.
The fifth day of creation, the universe expanded .5 billion years.
The sixth day of creation, the universe expanded .25 billion years.

This sixth day was when Adam was created. So looking back, from Adam’s perspective, the earth looked to be about 15.75 billion years old.

Prior to Adam, there was only God, so God could describe creation from any perspective he chose. The Bible speaks of God being everywhere.

God described himself to Moses as “I AM The I AM”. Christ said “before Abraham was, I AM.” John 1:1 states in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. This “Word” refers to Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth… The rest of the
Genesis 1 describes how God “Spoke” and things were created.

The Bible says that 1000 years to God is as a day, and a day is as a 1000 years to God.

God is everywhere, in every time, At every time.

The point is that God is not bound by time, but we are.
Man was made in God’s Image. God is a spirit.
Adam was spiritually alive. Adam disobeyed God.(which is sin).
From that point on, adam and all of his Offspring were spiritually condemned to death.

So Man is a sinner, condemned to spiritual death from his mortal birth.
God is Holy and perfect. He does not tolerate sin.
Man cannot do enough good works to earn back spiritual life.
God loves us in spite of our sin, so he gave us a way out.
God became man in the mortal form of Jesus Christ.
Jesus lived a perfect sinless life.
Jesus was crucified on a Cross and his blood was shed to pay the penalty for our sin.
Jesus died and was buried and rose again the third day.

Jesus offers spiritual life to those who are willing to repent from their sin and put their trust in Him to be Lord in their lives.

Jesus is coming back to rule the earth with a rod of iron.

Friend, please trust him before it is too late.

206. Diller - 12 November, 2006

Bottom line: 1. If God exist He is Omnopotent., 2. If God is Ompnipotent He can do anything., 3. Anything would, necessarily, include being able to create a universe which would be indistinguishable from a non-God-Made universe. Therefore we are left with the conclusion that there will never be anything in the universe which will be able to disprove the existence of God. So there you have it. No way to disprove Gods’ existence. having said that the idea of God if looked at from a critical pesimistic perspective looks exactly like a really big hoax/scam which appeals to our need for answers.
As for proving the existence of God, also impossible for much the same reasons. If God doesnt want to be obvious in his existence He wont be. For all the believers out there, it should be noted that some writings in an old book, be it written by a dead carpenter, or illiterate spice merchant dont prove jack.

207. FTW!!! - 12 November, 2006

Good job… You got some diggs and now your blog got some hits Huzzah!

If you REALLY want to nitpick you’d be able to tell us because of your 8 foot drinking straw you poked God in the eye and killed him…

Better yet you were able to find out that Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden a little while ago… Or that 7 days is of a different representation in a simulated environment such as a Quantum CPU…

Fact is nothing you’ve said is original or inspiring at all the very least you made the faithful more devout and less likely to listen to people (such as yourself) spouting on about how God is dead but was never alive in the first place… The true God just is.

You have succeeded in being another loud mouth for the faithful to rally against.

208. andy - 12 November, 2006

well something made that so there is a god

209. The cure for 1984 is 1776 - Shaghaghi.net » How Hubble Killed God - 12 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God is an interesting look at how this image gave insight into the age of the universe [...]

210. David - 12 November, 2006

“well something made that so there is a god”

Explain what made god then?

211. bbeq - 12 November, 2006

There is purpose in everything, including the heavenly bodies dearly debated in this post.

Why prepare the one-kilometre rope when we are on the last half a centimetre of it? Some answers I’m coming up with:
1. A divine way to check for consistency; I don’t think we sensitive humans can handle too much of cosmic beta-testings. Even relatively minor things like global warming send us on a panic spree.
2. The galaxies and stars fuel our desire to advance sciences. We can already see outer-space pens and high-performance fabrics used in everyday life; most started off as a supplementary research in cosmology.
3. Stars and galaxies exist as vitamins to our soul; I certainly enjoy looking at the night sky. I even have stacks of wallpapers of these heavenly bodies in my harddisk.
4. The overly elaborate sky decorations serve as the source of livelihood of so many scientists, as well as giving us something to talk about in this blog ^^

Let’s chill out, and be non-defensive and non-offensive towards each other. Have a nice day :)) Cheers, –Marsha.

212. mikehawk - 12 November, 2006

You didn’t disprove God with this argument. You can’t disprove a fairy-tale with facts, because the fairy tale is not constrained in it’s counterarguments. A simple rejoinder is that God created the galaxies 6000 years ago, but created them in such a way that they LOOK much older to us. There does not have to be logical consistency on the side of religion. Which is unfortunate and unfair, in that some religious people will try to discredit all of science by pointing out things that haven’t been figured out yet (e.g. “evolution is false because you haven’t shown all of the intermediate fossils”).

213. Pat - 12 November, 2006

Hey,

Nice article but Im afraid the argument isnt quite right. Although i have no feelings either way, i can clearly falibilty in the logic. Showing us how incomprehensibly insignificant in size, compared to time and space, we are isnt provng or disproving our supposed importance. Xians ‘believe’, they dont ask for evidence…had we been the centre of the universe, where would faith come into it? If God didnt pose a question, we would be forced into knowledge not believe and our freewill stripped.

Besides, bible passages such as Genesis 1 (‘Creation Week’) may or may not be meant litternally. The evolutionary order seems about right, however the time scale is off…perhaps its allegorical, perhaps this was before our scale of time was invented. EIther way, nothing is proved in this article, its barely even evidence against God.

Pat

214. Rebecca Aguilar - 12 November, 2006

Those spiral armed galaxies in the HUDF… are simply… wondrous.

Sorry, it doesn’t kill God for me. The HUDF actually makes the concept for me.

215. Ray Trygstad - 12 November, 2006

No Christians that I associate with–and I am a lay preacher and an active member of a mainline Protestant congregation–actually believe that the Universe is only 6000 years old. And most also believe in evolution. Amazingly enough, this in no way diminishes our faith or the intensity of our belief in the grace of God. I cannot speak for any other Christians, but even if it is true that we have created God in our own image, my life is still enriched and in no way diminished by my faith.

If you are right and my faith is wrong, I have lost nothing but gained much. If death truly means the eternal cessation of my consciousness with no afterlife, I have still had a lifetime of association of people who believe that there is a God who loves us, and who calls upon us to extend the same unconditional love and forgiveness we receive from Him to our fellow humans. My life is better for it, plain and simple, and if it reduces my fear of death, I am also the better for it. But if my faith is right and you are mistaken, when you meet your death…well. it’s gonna be really, really hot, buddy.

216. enlightenment - 12 November, 2006

As long as people refuse to believe that there is *no* god we will be cast into petty wars driven by our desire to defend our ‘our’ god and kill the ‘infidels’ for their belief in ‘ther’ god

Get a clue – there is no god – we’re all alike on this tiny blue dot – when we die our life is over – that’s all there is – let’s make the best of it while we’re here!

217. enlightenment - 12 November, 2006

Ray,

Sure it’s nice to ‘beleive’ in god – but you’re saying not believeing in ‘your’ god is sending ppl to hell?

surely – that’s the whole problem – every religion thinks their god is ‘right’ and will kill anyone else because their god will reward them – you’re no better than a crazy terrorist!

get over the god delusion – we all need to move on!

218. mikehawk - 12 November, 2006

See, people like Ray Trygstad amuse me to no end. They base their lives on believing the unknowable, and taunt others for not agreeing with them. This to me is the worst example of arrogance combined with stupidity.
So many religions have come and gone, Ray. In the not-too distant future, Christianity will be added to the list of obsolete, quaint, primitive beliefs that ignorant people followed so that they wouldn’t have to trouble themselves with thinking about the universe.
It’s much easier to believe the ramblings of a bunch of goatherders from two thousand years ago, right Ray?

219. Ivan Minic - 12 November, 2006

People must have faith in something…

220. 1111 - 12 November, 2006

11111111

221. Thrice - 12 November, 2006

“Thanks Thrice!! Damn calculator. Forgot to add the extra zeros. I’ll correct it in the article. I based it on 6,000 years or intelligent man vs 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (according to the Hubble site).”

heh np :)

222. Bill Conner - 12 November, 2006

Most people will agree that the universe is infinite, a boundless expanse in every direction. We would also agree that the universere is also eternal, extending in time in every possible direction endlessly. Events like a Big Bang occur within the universe without -being- the universe and its extent in time and space is insignificant simply because an infinite expanse cannot be “filled” and there is always the same amount of time before any event as there is after it. Everything always exists at the exact center of an infinite universe and at exactly halfway through enternity.

The whole concept of size or duration is only meaningful when comparing the relationship of one thing to another. A thing by itself has neither size nor duration; it just is. Scale can only be measured against something else, it cannot be absolute and fixed. We observe the galaxies, calculate their distances from each other based on measures that depend on standards of scale we find useful, and believe we understand something about the universe. All we really know is how things comapre to our sense of scale. Our whole observational context is so human-centric that it’s only relevant to humans and really says nothing important about the universe itself.

Being infinite, everything that can possibly exist within the universe is, literally, exactly the same size and everything is at the exact center of that endless expanse. Being eternal, everything happens at exactly the same time and has the exact same duration. It is the observer (us) who creates the illusion of uniquesness. Things do not exist “out there” in the universe, but within the perceptions of the observer.

223. Cy - 12 November, 2006

Very splendid and worthwhile! Just one point before I read beyond the first para or three: It is no big deal if I look back in time by viewing CNN with a delay of a couple of seconds. The flow of matter in the two seconds makes no significant difference. 15 billion years is similarly insignificant in the flow of the cosmos. Big Bang is still a theory, and a very silly one too. I do accept that red shirt means expansion. Too complicated an explanation. cyquick.wordpress.com

224. Cy - 12 November, 2006

CORRECTION: I do NOT accept that red shift means expansion. Sorry. Cy

225. Paul - 12 November, 2006

Re: terrymullett Says:
November 12th, 2006 at 7:20 am

“Think about it a minute. What does “light year” mean? If something is 1 light year away, it takes light from it one year to get here. If you’re seeing something a billion light years away, a billion years must have elapsed for the light to get here for you to see… It doesn’t matter, for the sake of this argument, how long the galaxy took to get out there, but how long its light took to get here.”

Wrong, if you’re basing everything on the creative work of a supernatural being. Just as the objects could be created a billion light years away, photons could have been created in the interlying space and given direction. You’re trying to mix science and God again – it is pointless.

God doesn’t have to play by our rules.

226. TexMex - 12 November, 2006

The Bible says that God created Adam as a full grown man. So if there was a picture of Adam taken five minutes after he was created, it would disprove that God exists?

It’s interesting how hard some people try to discredit God. If he doesn’t exist, why get yourself worked into a lather? There is something about the idea of a creator God that is extremely discomforting to those who would rather not be accountable to anyone, especially the God of the Bible.

227. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

OK, I’ve left it for a long time now and no-one seems to have uncovered the hidden point in their comments.

In this article and it’s ister article:
http://stuhasic.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/which-is-stronger-manfluence-or-godfluence/ – I discussed the Christian and the Islamic point of view on the concept of God. These two religions together are the most common and make up more than half of the planet’s population.

In this huge scheme of things, a tiny part of which Hubble has exposed, we’re all humans. Why do we waste time and precious life with Christians and Muslims fighting
and killing each other under all this grandeur? It makes absolutely no sense.

That’s what Manfluence is all about.

228. ifmanis5 - 12 November, 2006

Good post. Better comments. And the best PR and use of sensationalism/Digg Baiting I’ve seen in a long, long time!

There are many good points to take from your post. I particularly enjoyed the point that we, in the stellar scope of things, are so infinitesimally insignificant. Each night I am painfully aware of this when I look up into the “heavens”. :)

Human beings have a penchant for categorizing everything (especially ourselves – Christian, Jew, Muslim, black, white, purple, etc.) as well as a natural tendency to make war on our spiritual, political, and territorial trespassers.

Stu, even your post echoes this (e.g., How Hubble KILLED God). So apropos; such a humanistic title.

We’re so genetically predisposed to myopia, as our amygdala wages a constant battle against our neocortex in our every waking hour.

I don’t portend to think that we are the center of the universe; this is such an arrogant position. And you make a good case for the probability of other intelligent life somewhere in the universe. To me, this is a foregone conclusion.

But I’d also like to think that we are all part of some intelligent design. Is this really such a stretch?

In closing, I wish I had the clarity and purity of a child, as I was talking with my 8 year old son moments ago about this very post (astronomically as opposed to philosophically).

I think he summed it up the mystery of life pretty well: “there can’t be something from nothing. This is impossible.”

And then he hit me with a paraphrased Qui Gon Jin zinger: ”we must always be mindful of the future and the past, but not at the expense of the moment”. Man, I love this kid.

May the God of your choice bless all of you!!! :)

229. Tony Freedman - 12 November, 2006

Read the Genesis (Bereshit) in it’s original – Hebrew…it all makes perfect sense.

230. phantastes - 12 November, 2006

For those in the Darwinian evolutionary camp, perhaps you would enjoy this thought from the man himself:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

–Charles Darwin, in The Origin of Species

It’s called “irreducible complexity”… and the very eyes you are using to read this are in fact the evidence of its existence.

Darwin was very intelligent… smart enough to know the limits of his own thinking.

231. Tyler - 12 November, 2006

I assume this has been said, but regardless I thought I’d mention that Edwin Hubble had nothing to do with the Hubble Space Telescope; it’s only named after him.

232. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Hi ifmanis5:

Digg Baiting? Must just have been a good title because it wasn’t really intentional. There was only ever one post to digg. You can tell by the hits to my other posts. This was totally unexpected. If it’s causing some people to think, I’m happy. And congratulations to you for the joy you see in your child. Star Wars wasn’t all bad. ;) My son’s a little older, but his influence on me has been staggering.

Thanks.

233. Draco - 12 November, 2006

Very nice article, however you guys discuss only about Christianity and Islam.
Have anybody looked into Vedas – Hinduism (well Hinduism is not a religion, Its a way of life. The West has named it as a religion). It clearly explains whats there in the picture above, about infinite universe and of course creation of humans and how we all come into being. And clearly defines the concept of GOD.

And the creation was not done in just 6 days, its a continuous process… If somebody killed GOD then the creation stops. At this very moment something is being created and destroyed. And when Hubble took this picture it saw the process of creation. didn’t kill it.

234. Marcel - 12 November, 2006

My computer evolved too..

The parts came together by accident.

The Dell sign is a just a church that is trying to rob me of my dough and free will.

235. huldah - 12 November, 2006

The heavens are God’s throne, the earth is His footstool. The Bible does not say we are His only creations, just that we were created in His image, that only humans are fallen, (not the rest of His creation), and He sent His Son down here to save us from ourselves. the photos from Hubble declare His glory as much as the molecule. But like most art, its all in how you CHOOSE to interpret what you see.

236. Bleh - 12 November, 2006

Well…even in the bible it says “God has been forever and will remain forever.” So….he obviously had infinite time to create everything he could think of before creating intelligent life. The theory that creation is based around humans isn’t even in the bible. Ignorance is bliss to smart-asses.

237. ifmanis5 - 12 November, 2006

No worries Stu. I was just busting your chops about Digg Baiting. I’m sure I’m just subconsciously jealous, as I have never ever achieved as many Diggs as you in all of my posts. ;)

This is a great post and I hope others gleaned your point from it…I certainly did.

238. Bob Hart - 12 November, 2006

Hi, Stu.

Who is the statement “Hubble killed God…” addressed to? Certainly not non-believers, because for them He was never alive. It’s clearly addressed to believers, but how does a non-believer such as yourself, determine whether or not God is dead? Surely it would only be by detecting the absence of things He is responsible for, but since you have never credited Him with anything, then you are not qualified to make the call.

You have to ask believers whether or not God is dead, because they know how He sustains this creation. What are they going to say? Of course God isn’t dead! God is love, and we only know love because He exists. It would please Him if you acknowledged the gift, but being the loving deity that He is, He won’t twist your arm.

Cheers,
Bob

239. David - 12 November, 2006

I find it amazing how little people know about this topic…

The young earth creationist (YEC) camp have three different models that can explain distant starlight, and CMB radiation. (CDK, GTD, and ASC). They’re not perfect (otherwise there wouldn’t be three), but more research is being done to test them. But three is better than one, especially with the dramatic shifts that occur in science, when new discoveries are made. An example would be recent shifts in beliefs regarding lunar vulcanism. It was believed that volcanic activity stopped 3.2 billion years ago. Now they’re saying that is stopped 2 million years ago. That’s more than a 99% decrease in time scale. (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061106/full/061106-12.html) I still don’t get why they would think it stopped 3.2 billion years ago, as the rate of recession would put the moon in contact with the earth 1.37 billion years ago… but that’s another matter…

The Big Bang model isn’t perfect either, and guess what? It has its own distant starlight problem that hasn’t been solved, known as the Horizon Problem.

Distant starlight as a trump card against creationism is pointless, as it is a problem for both camps (but at least the creationists have some plausible answers).

Regarding the question of where did God come from? This question comes from the assumption that everything must have a cause.
The correct assumption should be that everything finite must have a cause. If God is infinite, he cannot have a cause. If God was ’caused’, then he must have been caused by something ‘bigger’, which effectively makes him finite.

240. Nadia - 12 November, 2006

The author of this article must of known this was going to offend a lot of people. I’m offended, though only because he didn’t adequately research the religions and then stated what he did know of them as fact. Other than that all I have to say is that we are all going to die someday, and if anyone else can come up with a more plausable explanation for everything(life/the universe) than Monotheistic religions have, i would like to hear it.

241. ifmanis5 - 12 November, 2006

Nadia –

Here’s my explanation:

242. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Sorry if I offended you Nadia, it wasn’t my intention. The statements of fact you refer to are not mine. I included links to other websites to make the points about religion for me. Not sure if you clicked on them or not. The blue text in the article are links to other sites with “reputable” information on the religions.

Stu.

243. Abu Sahajj - 12 November, 2006

“I discussed the Christian and the Islamic point of view on the concept of God. These two religions together are the most common and make up more than half of the planet’s population.”

Yes but it appears that your research on Islamic Science particularly the branch concerning cosmology is not as extensive as your research of the Hubble.

What if I was to tell you that there are no great contradictions to your claims in Islamic Cosmology… then what would you say?

wasalaam

244. Timothy Kim - 12 November, 2006

Maybe you should change the title. Because, even though you can justify and explain how it’s not misleading, it has misled lot of people. So why not change it?

245. notapundit - 12 November, 2006

Science has its limitations. My response is one I posted on a similar blog post arguing that theologians are not keeping pace with science. Pope Benedict would argue otherwise. Pope Benedict makes an excellent point:

The Pope further observed: “The scientific method itself, in its gathering of data and in the processing and use of those data in projections, has inherent limitations that necessarily restrict scientific predictability to specific contexts and approaches.

The Big Bang Theory is such an example of the inherent limitations of the scientific method and context. Astronomers and cosmologists of the early 20th century were able to determine that the universe is expanding. Well if it is expanding, it must have a starting point. Where and when did that starting point begin? Wow, now astrophysicists, astronomers, and cosmologists where on the verge of answering the age old questions, where did the universe come from? what is the origin of our universe? where did we come from?

It seemed that men like Hubbell were on the verge of placing science and technology on a plateau above philosophy and theology. As they scaled this plateau to come to teach us all about the origin of our universe, they developed scientific methods, theories, formulas and technologies to test their theories. They believed they were on the verge of explaining fully the origin of the universe, the origin of our existence, the meaning of life. As they worked hard to climb that plateau and nearing the top they came to provide evidence for viability of the Big Bang Theory, that the universe was created at a single point in time, from a cosmic explosion of either a dense point of matter, or a point of no matter. Having reached the plateau, they found waiting at the top of the plateau a theologian ready to explain to them where the single point came from. What irony. The theologian explained the universe was created by God. The creator of the universe is God. A theologian just like Pope Benedict. Why?

Because science hit its limit as Pope Benedict properly points out. Within the framework of its theory and scientific method it could prove its Big Bang Theory but it cannot explain the origin of the universe. Science may explain how it happened, but it cannot explain who made it happen. This is the realm of metaphysics and theology.

246. mymindshere - 12 November, 2006

I just would like to say thanks. This is a very very interesting article.

247. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Hi Abu,

Thanks for your comment. Is the link I made to the “Islam for Today” website not a good one? Does it contain factually incorrect information from the Islamic point of view of creation and the universe?

My exact words were: “In Islam, Allah created the Big Bang and all the rules that followed it. The Earth took many years to form and every new scientific discovery can be explained away by attributing it to Allah.” So yes, you are right, there are no great contradictions. But based on that logic, there would be no point for any science, no point for trying to build knowledge and we’d all live in huts or caves and just accept that’s the way it is.

The article does not say thre is no God. The article says there are many man-made concepts of God and they can’t all be right.

248. Jase - 12 November, 2006

You’re all flipping mad! lol You religious freaks will hear nothing of an alternative argument, coz you “believe”. Good on you all, but please don’t try to take the moral high ground in the name of religion coz it makes you look even more silly. ;)

249. stuhasic - 12 November, 2006

Hi Timothy Kim:

Good question. “Why not change the title of the article?”. Let me ask a question. Was there any value in the content of the article? If most people told me “no”, then I’d probably change it. While there’s 240 comments here and another 300 on digg, people are talking about the subject. 46,000 have been to the blog. Let’s say the article was called “Hubble Questions some Religions”, it probably would have received no more than 200 reads (over time). That’s the experience of other articles at this site and I think they’re worthy of a wider readership.

There are much worse things on the Internet than this article. It is not hate-filled (unlike some of the comments that I’m happy to leave posted). Is the reason for changing the title to stop people reading it?

250. e.p. - 12 November, 2006

Or God in His infinite wisdom “Set the stars in motion”? Surely God didn’t create Adam and Eve as newborns, or trees as seedlings. The mountains had age, the trees were ripe and bearing fruit, and the stars were in motion. Who cares how many or how far… its an infinite God we are talking about.

251. Cafe Leone - Words unRead » I Wish I Wrote This… - 12 November, 2006

[...] I Wish I Wrote This… By danleone How Hubble Killed God… Though I do not agree with the conclusion that the stunning image taken by Hubble kills the argument for god, I do love the article. The image and the article does seem to put a hole in the “6000 year old universe” argument but I do not know how many Christians take the bible that literally. I am also not so sure about combining the Christian god and the Muslim god in drawing his conclusion. I have no idea if Muslims claim that the universe is only 6000 years old. Ultimately, I don’t care because god doesn’t exist. The rest is just trivialities. [...]

252. Michael - 12 November, 2006

Thanks for posting your ideas in the article for the public. I think these are very important ideas to consider, something each person should have a conclusion about; each one of us should know what we believe and why. As an engineer and Christian, I didn’t follow the logic, science, or theology in your article. I see that some of your statements should be researched further. Setting that aside, here is a short excerpt to also consider in line with the subject of your article:

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts-i.e. of materialism and astronomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.

253. empT3 - 12 November, 2006

I feel the need to respond to what tony and nnwo said regarding my being brainwashed, narrowminded or uneducated, as well as the bible being full of contradictions.

1) Science is in and of itself full of contradictions, so much so that newtonian physics was deemed an incomplete theory around the 1900′s directly following plancks (spelling?) work regarding quanta. Quantum Mechanics which is what is widely regarded as being more complete actually is considered MORE complete because it actually doesn’t explain anything so much as it helps us mathmatically expound upon what we’ve scientifically proven. Ask someone with a degree in quantum mechanics what an electron looks like and he’ll likely need a calculator to explain it.

2)I don’t consider myself to be uneducated by your standards unless you happen to have a PHd handy

3)I also don’t see myself as being narrowminded as I’ve never limited myself in what I believe or what I’m willing to accept.

4)There’s little evidence to show that I’ve been brainwashed as I’ve met more so-called aetheists intent on making me believe the same as them than christians who feel the need to do the same (I’ve not always been christian). Although I’ll concede I probably wouldn’t know if I’ve been brainwashed.

254. IrreduciblyComplex - 12 November, 2006

“How Huble Killed God” – just 2 things…

1.The speed of light has recently been proven not to be a constant. (This is very interesting thing to look into).

2.When GOD created everything 6000 years ago He did things like create Adam and Eve as full grown humans and not infants. (Imagine what it would be like to not be a baby for any period of time but to come to conciousness as an adult). He also created mature plants, animals, etc. at the time of creation. He initially created things in their full mature states all across the board. So, I don’t see why light being visible from so far away instantly wouldn’t be any different.

255. Paster Ized - 12 November, 2006

Interesting, this. i remember looking at this photo when it first came from NASA and thinking “how cool”. After reading your comments and staring at this picture again – this time just trying to comprehend what it is – and the vertigo arrives. If you don’t know what i am talking about then you haven’t put the time into thinking on it. It has to do with the fact that that our brains are not designed for that . Only a god could know what this thing is.

You are wrong, though, in your suppostion that Hubble killed god. i think that this Hubble picture doesn’t kill god; actually it suggests the very high possibility that god could exist.

Was it not Arthur C. Clarke who said that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”? That, i think, is what is most relevant here.

If my descendants 2 or 3 thousand of years from now will be able to look at this very same photo and truely absorb and understand it, then i would have to consider them gods, would i not?…. and if this is true, then perhaps we should make sure that the planet gives our childrens’ childrens’ children what they need to survive…..

256. Greg in Maryland - 12 November, 2006

I think this is a well written, though provoking article. This summer I did a little study with a group of Orthodox Jews and another interesting perspective on G-d and the story of creation. Gerhard Schroeder argues that through the Theory of Relativity you can explain how the world and presumably the universe is billions of years old and 6,000 years old at the same time. Very interesting and worth checking out… Try this link:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
Look at the section about Einstein and those after it.

257. sexgod - 12 November, 2006

It’s all about the title, which is simply a lie. Lies get us nowhere closer to the truth, which should be all our endeavors. That said, I’m not interested in the article. The picture is nice, but that’s only because God is beautiful.

258. Burybobz - 12 November, 2006

So, let me understand.
god creates man, god creates 12,500,000,000,000,000,000 star systems, god creates infinity so he can be called Infinite god, man disputes god, man creates other god(s), man fights man in god knows which gods name, god creates belief blinkers, man wears blinkers, man destroys god, god destroys man.
I hope n pray I’m merely confused.

259. vishva - 12 November, 2006

God! Iremember nitche when he says “The Gos Is Dead”.
Anyway, There has to be such a God in the first hand for the Hubble to Kill. I don’t mean to offence, but the Hubble’s work may be proving a fact that literally kill the “Concept of God”. There is a difference between a concept and an entity.

Open to discuss

https://vishva.wordpress.com

260. Mike - 12 November, 2006

Interesting,

does anyone know who purposed the big bang theory? A Jesuit Priest and Physicist … check it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

interesting

261. emarkay - 12 November, 2006

There is no god.
(Note, however, that that statement, in itself can not be validated.)

However, if there is a god, its only literal explanation and validation must then be beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.

Thus, as an atheist, I do not discount the possibility that there could be something infinite out there; or, even something finite, but it’s existence is intangible to us.

And it surely is not something dehydrating on a cross, empowering a regime, blowing up buildings, or strumming a guitar on stage…

That’s mankind’s sole (soul) domain.

262. sweska - 12 November, 2006

great article! and i love the issues you deal in here… parallel divergence!

263. Sam Majda - 12 November, 2006

Bluish-Green Colored Sand Grain Hidden In The Dunes Of Inculta Maxima

Went on to Google Earth searching for God
Zoomed in the places that I used to know
Walked again over polished cobblestone path
To an old church where I thought I saw…

My Universe was about to expand…
Fast to infinity – yet without the bang
The pixels stop here, can I go beyond ?
Keep zooming in memories living in my mind

They say He rules, He pulls all the strings
That’s very comforting He saves us from doom
But, why is He like, plural – so much user links
And He hasn’t told us what’s beyond the Moon

It was fuzzy then…, a bit clearer now
What was simple-small, so close to a touch
Precipitated into…what is it ?… oh…, wow !
A mighty nothingness !, funny terms – ain’t much

Light disperses quickly into distant mush
Zooming out away, far from faintness sight
And where are we now, questions start to rush
How He’s gonna find us – it’s more then just night

Copyright mzsquare2006 c

264. Diller - 12 November, 2006

The existence of God is absolutly impossible to prove or disprove. Agnosticism is the only logical conclusion. Both belief and disbelief lack evidential support.

265. Eric - 12 November, 2006

My comments:

The author assumes that given there were millions and millions of years before Adam and Eve, the statements “Earth is the most important place in the universe” and “man [is] the reason for creation” is called into question. More time in his opinion means more importance.

Plus, the heavens are incredibly beautiful. Superbly and magnificently beautiful. The heavens dwarf the earth. Magnitude in beauty and magnitude in size in his opinion means more importance.

The burden of proof is on him, it seems. Time, beauty, size…these claims are lacking arguments in demonstrating that the importance of the heavens is more than man. Until then, he is begging the question: “Look, my observations prove my already-existent beliefs about the inherent worth of the universe in time, beauty, and size.” He mistakes his beginning for the end.

He ends up revealing that he believes there are many man-made concepts of God, and his purpose for writing it was to make us think. Well, it makes me think, such that I would ask him to demonstrate his beliefs. To have a dialogue about the principles from which he makes conclusions. But if he is already committed to his position, saying “Thanks should go to Hubble for opening our eyes”, and all he is concerned about is asking us to think with the apparent presumption that he has no more thinking to do, such that we are limited to comments and not real communal thinking, then it should be pointed out that we thank him for the controversy but we cannot go much further in thought unless he steps up to the plate.

So, it could be said, “Son of Hubble, do you have faith in a particular Revelation, or more faith in what you hold to be scientific? Do you not notice that your conclusions are based on beliefs about (1) what constitutes importance in a thing (magnitude of time, beauty, and size) and (2) what constitutes a good reason for creation (nothing is clearly suggested as an alternative to man)? From where do you get such notions, if not from a particular Revelation, and can you defend these notions? We would benefit most from your response. After all, you are still alive, and you are the best interpreter of yourself.”

266. Jim C. - 12 November, 2006

“1. The headline is meant to be sensational, but the article does not necessarily address the statement. The first line of the article refers to the concept of God.”

Don’t give misleading titles to your articles.

“2. There are three dots after the title… (it means that the title is not conclusive in any way)”

It’s called an “ellipsis”. It does NOT directly imply “not conclusive”. Learn what things mean before you use them. Otherwise you just look stupid.

” 5. The whole purpose of the article is to get people to think.”

That’s a cop-out, trying to divert people from the fact that the article’s poorly written and of little real value.

“But please don’t dismiss the article based on the headline.”

Again, don’t give articles dismissable headlines. Show us you’re making an effort by picking a good one.

“What it does highlight is there are many man-made concepts of God.”

Duh.

“Who’s to say which are right?”

Then why bother discussing them?

267. Masood Hosseini - 12 November, 2006

Do not go for a drop of water when you can reach the sea. Our knowledge about the universe is like a drop of water and understanding God, the creator is to understand ourselves and our environment. Human being is the greatest creation of God in the whole universe and there’ll be time when all we see is God. So don’t hurry for a conclusion about God yet as you’ll eventually become present in front of him and have to answer for whatever you’ve said and done.

268. Fenrir - 12 November, 2006

Time is a pre-determined limit that happens before our eyes, what determines what time is and how it passes? Who is to say that time is guided by words and expressions as ‘years?’ It is only our own literal translation I believe, and it cannot be determined. Im not arguing the point, just the basis on the set of ‘time’ that it involves over the ‘long time’ it took for man.. so yes i just another extremely small view that indicates a difference in slight opinion over the historical reasoning… so i just typed up a small slight paragraph to hardly show the very small view can differ… way to go Fenrir!!! hopefully i didnt confuse anyone nor I hope this wasted their time. Im just saying that in many cases the essence of Time passes differently and some could believe that a so-to-speak, God’s Day is like 10000 years long or something hahah. Or you could believe that A normal Day is 24 hours long, and also disagree. Just agree even. AGREE to disagree to Agree to argue the point no matter what you believe. So many different ways to approach.. Bring up Thoughts and opinions! Need more agressive things to make us think louder! Its not meant to offend anyone, it just wants ideas and strong thoughts going through your heads and maybe relate a few no matter how different they are!

269. Matthew Weflen - 12 November, 2006

Pointing out that a telescope image (however cool it may be) contradicts various ‘young earth’ theories of creationism is not only painfully obvious, but sophomoric and not ‘enlightening’ in the least.

Woah, dude… you mean SCIENCE contradicts RELIGION? Sholy SHEEEIIITTE!

Welcome to the Enlightenment – I guess it took the Internet 400 years to catch up with the whole science/religion debate.

I want these three minutes of my life back.

270. Colin - 12 November, 2006

You’re either following the word of God or you’re a hypocrite.

The Bible is not a buffet. You cannot pick and choose what parts you want to believe. Believe and follow every word or you’re wasting God’s time. Don’t lie to yourself and God.

How ’bout this beauty:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

That’s right, your holy and compassionate God wants to kill homosexuals. Several of my friends are gay and they are beautiful and loving people.

Now are you going to tell me this isn’t God’s word? Huh? It is or it isn’t. You can’t have Adam and Eve and not this. It’s all or nothing.

Yeah, I know I’m going to hell. Howard Stern and me both!

271. 5 preguntas que me hago al ver las estrellas. « Memo’s Webplace - 12 November, 2006

[...] Una noche despejada en la ciudad es algo de admirarse. En Monterrey, como tal vez suceda en otras ciudades del mundo, ya es raro ver una noche estrellada. Sin embargo podemos de vez en cuando, tener la oportunidad de admirar la grandeza en que vivimos. Cada vez que volteo a contemplar el cielo, me admiro del tamaño que tiene nuestro imaginado “globo” que llamamos Universo. Y mis preguntas me inundan mi conciencia. Stu en su post How the Hubble killed God… nos habla de como una de las más espectaculares fotografías que he visito del universo, nos puede indicar la edad del mismo. Stu, nos explica de una manera sencilla la sorprendente distancia que existe entre las galaxias. Esta fotografía fue tomada por el Hubble, y es un muy pequeño pedazo del cielo que vemos: el mismo que logramos observar a traves de un popote. [...]

272. Faith in a Jpg - 12 November, 2006

The bible does say that the heavens are folded. Things may be closer then you think with your straw…. Interesting note, one of the main creators of the Hubble telescope who passed away in the 90s was challenged by a christian who gave him Chuck Missler tapes … He used to listen to the tapes and throw things while listening, but He kept listening. Family member mentioned he asked for a priest on his death bed. doesn’t prove a thing but I tell you what, there are NO atheist in fox holes. Put your faith in the LORD JESUS, not a .jpg.. Lets get with the program..

273. Diller - 12 November, 2006

If there is a God He’s a prick i might add.

274. thekitchen - 12 November, 2006

Its hard not to read this article and see a presupposition that will draw conclusions against the exisitence of God. All Hail the God of Modernism: Science!

I’m sorry, but your argument is weaker than a cup of Coke served at one of those dodgy takeaway joints. Your logic will have to be much better if your going to take a God down who’s been going strong for over 4000 years…

And for all your Athiests out there….it’s so great to see you all coming out of your shells! You’re an endangered species now days, and I fear that this new age of spiritually aware postmodernity will see you all become extinct!

Looking at that picture taken by hubble makes me feel the incredible beauty that we can see in the Universe. But if God doesn’t exist where does this sense of beauty come from? It serves no naturalistic darwinian purpose… makes you think.

275. chris - 12 November, 2006

You do realise that the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old (actually, 6010 years old this october 4th). has no scriptural basis, right? In fact, there is nothing in the Bible dealing with the age of the earth and most people who aren’t out of their minds view the Bible – especially the stories of creation – as allegorical.

I know you think you had a deep insightful philosophical revelation from all of this but really, its trite and hackneyed. People have been doing ‘if the history of the earth is a single year/mile, yardstick, day, whatever’ for the past 75 years. They’ve been marvelling at the size of the universe for longer. They’ve been thinking of the implications of that for even longer (several centuries going back to at leats Bruno in the western tradition).

Look, the thing is that for someone who really believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago none of this matters. ‘What about fossils/background radiation/hubble pictures/genetic drift/etc etc etc’ all has a very simply answer. Do you really think that a being that could create a universe and bring all of creation into existance couldn’t create what we see as we see it? There is *no* way to prove that didn’t happen any more than there is *any* way to prove that it did happen. We all make some certain basic assumptions about what we accept as first principles and bend observed data (which we cant even prove is actually ‘real’ and not being corrupted by the limitations of our perceptions) to meet the assumptions build off of those first principles.

Until you disprove the first principle you *cannot* tear down the frameworks that grows out of it because it is internally logically consistent. Disproving thos efirst principles is going to be tough as some very smart people have been working on them for some 2700 years. You’d do a lot better if you invested your energy in getting the religious types to play nice with you (and you with them natch) and stop getting all worked up over it.

276. chris - 12 November, 2006

Oh by the way…

While I am a christian I do believe in science and some of my fellow christians here are kind of embarassing. Something I’d like to say to them…

God gave us brains, free will, and curiosity. We use these to better learn the nature of God’s creation and through that the nature of God. As such, science is as much a tool of religious knowledge as it is of natural knowledge. Those that are afraid of, or reject, science are only, in no small way, rejecting one of the greatest gifts God has given to us. Really, if science can undermine your faith how strong was your faith in the first place?

277. Fenrir - 12 November, 2006

… …….. ……… .. …. ok… if this was the death star trench run most of you would be like….. .. like…. DEAD!!! Yes Splattered all over the walls..
“Stay on target,” you guys keep arguing with eachother… how far is it getting other than making the larger group of us think your all kids. Its not meant to say its Fact this way or Fact that way or YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THIS… its only to make us express an idea or anything we have to make other think… THE PEN IS BLUE… STARS are really Galaxies.. Jeez Stop arguing and make a topic, not a debate over why change that title or why we should give up everything, or any of that. Put it aside? Agree to disagree to agree to … forget it i give up… i know theres going to be like 500 more posts after this all being a load of SPAM

278. bansa - 12 November, 2006

the comments to this article make me sick. why do people have to be so close minded and take a picture that is so incredible and then try to deny it with religion. all you guys are doing is slowing down the process of figuring out how things *really* happened. bash atheists saying they need to examine religion before talking about it? i guarantee 9 out of 10 atheists know 100% more about religion than any theist does. ever ask a random person what the 10 commandments are? what the 5 pillars of islam are? about pagan religions? as for people who say a lot of christians dont agree with the 6000 year subject, you cant pick and choose things you want to believe in a religion like its food off a menu. such as you cant disagree with the 6000 year thing and then turn around and spout some bs about how the universe is so huge because god truly loves us so much that he gave us all of this. religion is the bane of this earth and without it the earth would be a much more peaceful place. i wonder if the inhabitants of those other galaxies have moved past their religious phases as we need to do ourselves.

279. cobus - 12 November, 2006

Well, I’ll give it to you. You have the most read blog on WordPress, and it might continue for a while. I can’t even try and follow all the comments any more. And that’s really great. And some of the comments are great as well. It looks like quite a lot of people has gotten over the whole “Science killed God” thing. And thanx for the ADDENDUM, it’s true this might get you thinking in different ways. I would like someone to delve into something else than fundamentalist opinions before they make claims on Genesis. But OK, my faith is mine, if I believe it to be rational, than I guess that’s just me as well.

280. Wie Hubble Gott tötete… « Zappis Welt - 12 November, 2006

[...] Der zunehmende christliche Fanatismus in unserer Gesellschaft mach mir mindestens genauso viele Sorgen, wie die Ausländerfeindlichkeit bzw. der Rassismus ansich. Bei meinen Rundtouren im Netz fiel mir dieser Beitrag über Hubble, Gott und die Welt so sehr auf, dass ich mich entschlossen habe ihn aus den Englischen zu übersetzen.  Ich hoffe, dass meine Übersetzung nicht genauso wirre Reaktionen auslöst, wie das Original. [...]

281. My Blogs worth??? « aniNOsaintlife - 13 November, 2006

[...] One of the top posts today on wordpress. How hubble Killed God  Filed under: Funny and Weird, Daily Dose!!   |   [...]

282. Carol Levesque » Blog Archive » How Hubble Killed God… - 13 November, 2006

[...] read more | digg story [...]

283. Parallel Divergence !!!! « My Attitude - 13 November, 2006

[...] Nice article and great blog but wrong title for the article…………. The title should have been like this: “How hubble killed false Gods” Here is the link if anyone wants to read it…… http://stuhasic.wordpress.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god/ [...]

284. Man And God « aniNOsaintlife - 13 November, 2006

[...] WHile i was reading the comments in the article How Hubble Killed God  .  one of the best posts i have read in recent times..@!!! and one of the posts with over 280 comments!!! what the!!!! i have picked up one of My favorites here [...]

285. its about time» Blog Archive » links for 2006-11-11 - 13 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence What a read:) (tags: creationism evolution god hubble image photo religion galaxies science) [...]

286. How Hubble Killed God « rain in calsifer’s firepit - 13 November, 2006

[...] Fascinating comments: March 9, 2004: NASA releases a single image taken by the Hubble Space telescope that proves a fatal blow to the concept of God, but despite the compelling evidence, many simply don’t comprehend the significance of the image. … more [...]

287. Interesting take on Jehovah’s creation « Fish-Wrap.net - 13 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God — actually, the “comments” are more interesting I understand now … you’re talking about the One who created the universe but supposedly wasn’t bright enough (my bad – lousy pun) to make it so that light from billions of light years away was already “in place” for earthlings to see. But even if you believe the “Big Bang” Theory, it would be scientifically plausible to think that the light from all the stars (including the sun), began their shiny little lives in close proximity, thus allowing their “light” to shine from their inception as they travelled away from the epicenter of the explosion (and a BIG one it surely must have been). This would assume that they sped to their appointed places in the universe AT or NEAR the speed of light (but not faster), so that the laws of physics would remain in effect for the next couple of billion years. [...]

288. Hubble didn’t “kill God” « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub - 13 November, 2006

[...] Stu Hasic argues that a photo from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) “killed God,” or at least the notion that God played a role in creation. [...]

289. Prime News Blog » Blog Archive » How Hubble Killed God… - 13 November, 2006

[...] March 9, 2004: NASA releases a single image taken by the Hubble Space telescope that proves a fatal blow to the concept of God, but despite the compelling evidence, many simply don’t comprehend the significance of the image.read more | digg story [...]

290. Procrastinatory Linkage « Punctuated Palaver - 13 November, 2006

[...] Them’s be GALAXIES, people!  Click here to see what the hell youre looking at, and further ruminations on the amazement that is what we thought was empty space but is actually existential manna. [...]

291. NASA against God « Cambalache Bit - 14 November, 2006

[...] Enlace| How Hubble killed God [...]

292. How Hubble Killed God « Progressive Atheist - 14 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel DivergenceA good article explaining some interesting points. Perhaps, I would have pointed out something like that sometime in the future, too (At least when my blog is  visited a bit more often) However, the author did an excellent job, so it is convenient for me [...]

293. Hubble killed God? « Green Baggins - 14 November, 2006

[...] There is quite the discussion going on here. The author claims that the light in the universe shows us what the universe looked like billions of years ago. He claims that the fact that we can even see these far off galaxies means that th universe is old. He neglects one small fact: none of us were there at the beginning. If we weren’t there, then isn’t it possible that God not only created these far off galaxies, but also created the light path from those galaxies to us? [...]

294. n0ah Productions » How Hubble Killed God… - 14 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence “March 9, 2004: NASA releases a single image taken by the Hubble Space telescope that proves a fatal blow to the concept of God, but despite the compelling evidence, many simply don’t comprehend the significance of the image.” [...]

295. links for 2006-11-13 « the adventures of a baby codemonkey - 14 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence March 9, 2004: NASA releases a single image taken by the Hubble Space telescope that proves a fatal blow to the concept of God, but despite the compelling evidence, many simply don’t comprehend the significance of the image. (tags: news religion) [...]

296. holy crap existence is so big. « Shoepolish of the Outhouse - 14 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God.   [...]

297. People Unclear on the Concept of God « Careful Thought II - 14 November, 2006

[...] Guess what?  God is dead.  Wanna know who killed Him?  It was that Hubble guy.  Some misguided folks took a look at a couple snaps from the HubbleScope and decided that it proved that if God wasn’t dead He was least very much unwell.  Boy, is He going to be surprised when He finds out. [...]

298. Monday Randomness « Under Zenith - 14 November, 2006

[...] This is an interesting article on how an image taken by the Hubble space telescope disproves the God/Creation theory of the universe. [...]

299. Growing up - 14 November, 2006

[...] I just read this post from a featured blog on wordpress. It says the the hubble telescope has disproved God. I thought the title was interesting so I hopped over there. I had never thought about it before, but because stars are so far away, when we see their light, we are actually looking back in time. We’re seeing light that happened years and years ago. Or really, billions of years ago. It simultaneously causes doubt and belief. Its weird to believe that the universe has been around so long, yet humans have been around for a brief period of time in comparison. Why did God take so long to do that if we were the purpose of his creation? But also, when I see things like this article, I think, “there is no way that this happened on accident.” [...]

300. Hubble killed God? Oh really? « Mike Hawk - 15 November, 2006

[...] Another blog had a post worth reading, titled “How Hubble killed God“.  Apparently the author believes that if you find one logically weak point in people’s beliefs in God, one mistake in God’s purported writings (perhaps due to a typo or a mistranslation by some barely literate monk, or an embellishment by one of the sheep-herders that helped pass down the stories of the Bible orally (no Ted Haggard jokes here, please)), then you can invalidate the whole religion.  In this example, the Biblical claim of a 6000-year-old universe is contradicted by scientific evidence of a multi-billion year age. [...]

301. Nerd News Radio » Blog Archive » NNR #9 - 16 November, 2006

[...] Hubble v. God [...]

302. First Draft » We. Are. Small. - 16 November, 2006

[...] I read an interesting post the other day titled “How Hubble Killed God“.  Now, with a title like that it is sure to draw a crowd, and sure enough, it was posted on Digg soon enough.  Thousands of comments poured in from both sides, focusing on only the title and completely missing the point of the post.  Granted, such a bold title was probably ill-advised, but for those who have ever pondered the size of our universe, this is a nice 10-minute read that attempts to provide some perspective. [...]

303. Peter Johnston » Blog Archive » No to NUS! - 16 November, 2006

[...] Tonight I was randoming around on the internet, as I’m prone to do whilst bored, and found this blog which makes reference to this picture. The blog basically talks about creation and how the Bible says God created the world within a certain time, while the image is only a 12 millionth of the sky, and contains nearly 10,000 galaxies – each containing billions of stars, and each one of those more than likely having orbiting planets. The God thing wasn’t really what interested me, it was just the depth that the image reached, and the number of objects in it. I’ve believed for a long time that we aren’t alone in the universe, and I think seeing that photo just reinforced that. I wish I was back home now, so that I could look out the window and see stars, rather than the murky glow of city lights, but it’ll probably be Christmas before I can do that. [...]

304. RETURN TO YOUR FATHER'S HOUSE - 17 November, 2006

“How Hubble Killed God” – another reply.

Dear Stu,
Thank you for your message.
I agree that many responses to your post were highly disagreeable. (I hope mine wasn’t one of them). That shouldn’t happen. Don’t let it disturb you.
You are obviously a thinking man, and if I rea…

305. How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence at zinger - 17 November, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God… « Parallel Divergence [...]

306. A response to “How Hubble Killed God…” « Continued - 18 November, 2006

[...] While signing up for this blog account with WordPress, I noticed the title How Hubble Killed God… in the list of Hot Posts Today. The post, while interesting, presented some arguments against the existence of God that fall short. [...]

307. what i end up doing « i am sophia - 22 November, 2006
308. Creation vs. Spontaneous Combustion « Finding and Proclaiming the Truth. Period. - 22 November, 2006

[...] When I logged on here tonight, I saw a good article called “How Hubble Killed God. As you might have imagined, this article details how some of the data from the Hubble telescope disproves the notion that the earth is only about 6000 years old. You really should read it, since he explains his position much better than I ever could, but to give you the gist of it, his argument centers around the distance of the images the telescope has captured. [...]

309. Tamer Hosny - 25 November, 2006

ancient greek art

Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. Tamer Hosny.

310. Whatever you want it to mean « STOP&THINK blog - 26 November, 2006

[...] This was the top post on WordPress today.  It is an interesting bit about what an image from the Hubble telescope says about God.  The writer is non-offensive in the way he writes, but his commenters weren’t.  All I have to say is if God could create Adam as a grown man and a tree as a grown tree, He could also create a grown universe with mature lightyears. [...]

311. How Hubble Killed God?? No it proved Him! « Irfan’s /root on the Web - 27 November, 2006

[...] First of all this is hardly the type of post I write in my blog, which are mostly technical and technology oriented, but today on WordPress this particular article “How Hubble Killed God” became popular and I think it could decieve people, so I decided to write a counter-article saying how it infact proved that He exists. [...]

312. Did the Hubble kill God? « The Fearsome Foursome - 30 November, 2006
313. Your one stop reptile community - A question about evolution and snakes - 7 December, 2006

[...] How Hubble Killed God… Parallel Divergence "What was the first fatal blow to religion?" __________________ when i was little i dreamed of giant snakes and dragons…. now i live with them. [...]

314. Aussichtspunkt - Religiöse Einöde der Unendlichkeit « - Pflog - - 16 December, 2006

[...] Ich las vor kurzem in einem Blog darüber, wie das Hubble Teleskop Gott getötet hat (how hubble killed god – englisch) – Teil des Eintrags war ein Bild von Hubble, welches auf einem kleinen des Himmels über hundert andere Galaxien zeigte. Dann habe ich mit einem Freund darüber gesprochen, wie klein wir in der gesamtheit eigentlicht sind. Er denkt, dass unsere winzigkeit WIRKLICH deprimierend ist… [...]

315. Easy Does It University » Merry Christmas! - 24 December, 2006

[...] How Hubble killed God. [...]

316. So that’s where it’s been hiding « THE NEWS sUcKs - 9 January, 2007

[...] Hubble may have killed God but it found the rest of the universe. Scientists have published the first detailed map of dark matter – the invisible material that makes up most of the cosmos. [...]

317. my contemplations - 5 April, 2007

[...] some of you might remember How Hubble Killed God from a couple of months [...]

318. Debunking the Science Success Question at Jon Strong - 5 May, 2007

[...] years away. This image which lands a fatal blow to young Earth creationists has been called the image that killed God. A clear refutation of seven day creation, this is another glaring example of how oblivious many [...]

319. The Leisure Suite :: How Hubble Killed God :: June :: 2007 - 9 June, 2007

[...] open your eyes and read more here. [...]

320. merchant - 30 June, 2007

Hi. Very nice blog. I’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol.

321. The Spiritual Quest « The Quest - 22 October, 2007

[...] How Hubble Killed GOD [...]

322. Paul Clair » Blog Archive » Newfound Cosmos Interest - 27 December, 2007

[...] is why the UDF is jokingly referred as “How Hubble Killed God.”  To believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth and nothing in between is to be totally [...]

323. Creationist challenges scientists $10,000 contest to prove evolution; will lose $10,000 | Death and Taxes - 27 March, 2013

[...] Dr Mastropaolo states that even though “creationists are smart”, he goes further to say that “there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial” to support the theory of evolution. Except: dinosaurs, where oil comes from, useless human appendages like the appendix of the tailbone, sweat glands, the ability for humans’ eyes to adjust in the dark, and the fact that the earth is a round ball hanging in a universe and isn’t anything special, really, when you step back far enough to look at it, as humans have been doing with the wonderful advances in technology, such as the Hubble Telescope (which many Christians disapprove of due to the fact that it shows just how insignificant of a planet…). [...]

324. Creationist challenges scientists in a $10,000 contest to prove evolution; will lose $10,000 | Brav's Bookmarks - 27 March, 2013

[...] Dr Mastropaolo states that even though “creationists are smart”, he goes further to say that “there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial” to support the theory of evolution. Except: dinosaurs, where oil comes from, useless human appendages like the appendix of the tailbone, sweat glands, the ability for humans’ eyes to adjust in the dark, and the fact that the earth is a round ball hanging in a universe and isn’t anything special, really, when you step back far enough to look at it, as humans have been doing with the wonderful advances in technology, such as the Hubble Telescope (which many Christians disapprove of due to the fact that it shows just how insignificant of a planet…). [...]

325. Ultra Deep Field – Part 2 | Pastor's Desk - 6 June, 2013

[…] More, how can so many people look into the heavens and see such “emptiness”.  http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god/ […]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers

%d bloggers like this: