Hacker News Reader

> we should assume there is more out there, otherwise we happen to find ourselves exactly in the center of everything and can see exactly as far as light could have traveled in the known age of the universe.

Is there a real argument against this view that warrants the use of "should"? Over half the world (believers in Genesis) would seem to believe we very well could be the center (with equally absent real argument).

View on HN

Over half the world are not "believers in Genesis" (by which I would guess you mean biblical literalists).

I was a bigger fan before Peter Gabriel left.

Literalism has nothing to do with it. Over half the world identify as believers in Moses's God. Less than a sixth believe in Stochastic Gas. Under the Gas model, it would perhaps be strange for us to be at center. Under the God model it would not.

Regardless, to say one way "should" be the answer is a religious argument not a scientific one, and it has questionable place in a scientific discussion.

Where in Genesis does it say we are the center of anything?

It doesn't, of course. But the universe is described as being intentionally created explicitly for Earth and Man, so it wouldn't be hard to go on to think we may be at the center.

The long history of geocentricity would support this being a plausible interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com