The Solar Eclipse: Coincidence? Or Evidence of Design?

[Volbrigade]

Here in the US, many people are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to observe a total solar eclipse. 14 million people reside in the path of totality. Many more are well within 90% of totality. The entire lower 48 will experience a degree of partiality.

Prompted by an PM exchange with another user, I am reminded of the astronomically small odds that the disc of the moon would fit precisely over the disc of the sun, relative to an observer on earth. This phenomenon allows for observation of the sun’s corona, which is otherwise undetectable to the naked eye. The observation and analysis of the corona led to advancements in the field of spectroscopy by Bunsen, Kirchhoff, Jansen, Huggins, Lockyear, and others. Those advancements, in turn, led to discoveries in astrophysics which have formed our current understanding(s) of the cosmos in which we exist.

Which begs an intriguing question. Is the precise matching of the diameter of the sun and moon, relative to the Earth, just another one of those “happy accidents� — a coincidence, comparable in scale to the probability of select amino acids linking up by chance to form proteins, which in turn link together to form a self-replicating code of protein “letters�, in the precise order necessary to code for a living cell, in Earth’s harsh primordial environment, 5 billion years or so ago? And those codes increasing in information content, through unguided cause-and-effect processes, in order to provide the blueprints for all living things?

A coincidence, like the simultaneous linkages of dimensionless constants — e.g., gravity, strong and weak force, electromagnetism — which provide the appearance of “fine tuning� the parameters of the universe? Of which incremental changes to would produce an environment too unstable for the periodic table, and thus the universe as we know it, to exist?

I’m sure the reader can see where I’m going with this. What if the appearance of “fine tuning� is related to the REALITY of fine tuning, by an Agent possessing mind, intelligence, and will, and which exists outside of the space time continuum which is Its (or “His�) creation?

And what if that Agent adjusted countless variables — i.e., the constants referred to; along with such physical factors as solar size, distance from star, axial tilt, position in a “clear� region of its galaxy, etc. — on one particular, specific planet, in order to generate an environment where intelligent life could not only exist, but have a sense of the scope of the cosmos in which it exists?

And what if the synchronicity displayed in a solar eclipse is not mere coincidence, but a deliberate design? The discoveries made possible by it, which have informed our astrophysical awareness, an indication that this universe is “designed� — by its Creator — “to be discovered�?

[H.sapiens]

HS --

"I" -- that is, the theist/Christian -- have precisely as much, and the same, "data" as you (the atheo-materialist-Whateverist).

Then pray, present it ... else you are revealed as a liar. It can't be seen, can't be heard, can't be touched, etc. Doesn't cut it.

But I have something else. It's called "truth": the context in which that data exists; a knowledge of its source and origin, from outside our time domain.

Ah ... invisible and double-secret, hidden from all but Volbrigade the Cognescenti. That's a textbook example of delusional thinking.

You have nothing but facts;

A pair of facts beats any number of fables, any day.

which, when aggregated, amount to nothing.

No, when aggregated facts amount to an accurate reflection of reality then sane people describe that as truth.

Because without God, all is nothing. A vanity. A "chasing after wind" (Ecclessiastes). Why, the poor impoverished Whateverist cannot even see the divine hand in the conditions that made for the remarkable eclipse yesterday.

Now you invoke your Orboros avatar and swallow your tale in a frenzy of circular argument. It is not a question of my vanity, rather it is an issue of the primary conceit of your fable: that it is reasonable and factual to extend the existence of an invisible friend beyond one's impressionable childhood on the basis of indivisible, indescribable and unknowable evidence.

I was at a local college for the viewing. It was almost disconcerting how steadfastly unimpressed many of the professors were, as the one disc slipped inexorably over it's "twin" (to 96% max in my locale; enough to substantially and surreally alter a bright, sunny day: casting the landscape into seeming infrared; sharpening shadows; confusing the mind with cloud cover like dimming, while retaining the shadows of midday; and casting pin-hole camera crescent suns under every tree).

It is, to some of us, "no big deal." I've seen a number of eclipses including one from an airborne observatory back in the 1970s that provided about an hour of totality. It is always interesting, but no longer spellbinding. I submit that your reaction was more one of a lack of experience than anything else.

Ironically, they shared exactly the same sentiment with the dull, unlearned clerk at the package store I frequented on the way home, whose assessment of the event was "huh. Big deal."

A lack of wonder. The dulling of the mind.

Do you know that the clerk was not an underemployed astronomer? Are you perhaps judging your fellow primate on the basis of his employment? In any case, you are, at least, projecting your own bias and deciding that familiarity due to understanding and habituation is identical to slack-jawed disinterest, I submit that in either case that speaks more to your failings then it does to any shadow of reality.

"...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools..." -- Romans ch. 1

More swallowing your own tail, try wikipedia, it's much more data dense.

No doubt I have merely provided a "passel of words", without meaning, to you. For the Whateverist, there is no meaning to be found.

"To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation."

Shakespeare described your situation well, in Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5 where Macbeth responds to Seyton's announcement, "The queen, my lord, is dead."

"... a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

You see, truth only flows from evidence not from unvetted fairy tales.

[William]

[Replying to post 78 by RonE]

This is your assumption, that the universe had a beginning, yet you are willing to assume that your god had no beginning, or cause. So why does the universe have to have a beginning?

Panpsychism = the way I see consciousness in relation to things.

It isn't any issue whether the universe had a beginning or not, except that everything in it appears to have had a beginning, so with that in mind it seems more pertinent to suppose that it did indeed have a beginning.

The concept of Consciousness as a undivided self conscious intelligent being,which has always been and will always be, is not too difficult to understand in that regard.

If there is a beginning to this universe, this does not infer that the creator of the universe has to have had one too.

[Volbrigade]

HS --

"I" -- that is, the theist/Christian -- have precisely as much, and the same, "data" as you (the atheo-materialist-Whateverist).

Then pray, present it ... else you are revealed as a liar. It can't be seen, can't be heard, can't be touched, etc. Doesn't cut it.

I have to be careful here. I don't want to overtly state that you're thick, as that is against board rules. And I've already received a warning for dealing with your unpleasant remarks and demeanor. Such as (for all practical purposes) calling me a liar. There is a pronounced double-standard on this board, with a pro atheo-Whateverist bias.

How you are unable to see that with regard to the physical, material, "natural" world, the data you have is precisely the data I have is... what I referred to in my last post. Romans 1.

It is our belief systems that differ. You believe that the universe... just happened. Is just one of those things. Like a solar eclipse. And microbes just happen to form, and somehow become men. Or whatever it is you believe -- if you believe anything. I'm not really interested. Because whatever it is, it ain't true. Nor is it interesting.

I will congratulate on your inadvertent uber-irony, by citing a Shakespeare quote that applies to the reality of the atheo-materialists' attitude toward this life. I have never seen anyone so inverted as to apply it to Christianity... I suppose I'd better let that one lie there.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 93 by Volbrigade]

I don't want to overtly state that you're thick, as that is against board rules.

Yet by typing the response as you did you've done exactly that!

The title of this OP asked whether the solar eclipse was coincidence, or evidence of design. So far the coincidence explanation is batting 1000 and the design explanation 0. All you've done is made handwaving claims that it is wondrous and couldn't possibly be anything but the handiwork of your particular favorite deity, without a single bit of supporting evidence or data.

On the other hand, the coincidence explanation is based on the known orbital mechanics of the sun, earth and moon that allowed the actual path of the moon's shadow to be predicted with high accuracy, decades in advance of it actually happening. No handwaving required.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 94 by DrNoGods]

I am... somewhat flabbergasted. Rendered slackjawed by your remarks.

"Coincidence... is batting 1000"?

I mean, even given that that is merely your opinion... (please note -- I didn't say "rank")

How. in. the. world...?

I'm sorry. I don't know how to proceed with a response, without being offensive or insulting. So I won't (proceed).

Be well...

[William]

[Replying to post 79 by Volbrigade]

You sound like you are where I was, at a certain point along what might be called... our metaphysical journey? Our "pilgrimage" through this world?

Many rivers, one ocean

The materialist position is unreasonable. It does not admit anything outside of itself -- outside of the material, the physical. It dismisses all that is not observable, empirical, measurable.

It is reasonable if one has no interest in the idea of a creator, although it can be unreasonable in how societies based upon materialism react to life.

I, like you, came to the conclusion that there MUST be more to this world than what can be accessed through technology and instrumentation.

The overall consciousness - which I sometimes refer to as 'the local GOD' in relation to us here on earth, can be accessed re communion, through instrumentation. Indeed the human form is an instrument in itself - but I am referring to what we think of as outside instrumentation, including coinciding incidences (serendipity, synchronicity) as well as communication devices such as runes, tarot, message boards (aka Ouija) - there are no limitations in that regard except in how we might view such devices and their usefulness.

There are many scientists that have arrived at the same conclusion. They insist that whatever that "more" is, it must conform to the reality revealed through science. It must be coherent, and consistent to itself, the way the laws of nature are.

I think that is a reasonable assumption to have.

Eventually, if you follow the trails long enough, you will find that the God of the Bible is the only candidate that checks all the boxes.

IMO, of course.

For me it was the other way around. The bible is like many other communication devices subject to abuse and has its chaff and wheat. For me it was necessary to remove myself from the organised religion of Christendom in order to carry that relationship through - I do recognize GOD in parts of the bible, but I also recognize human interference - political in nature and deceptive in agenda. Something to usurp the true nature of what GOD is and replace it with the false.

I am unfamiliar with many religions so would not claim the bible-based ones are the only ones which have the 'candidate' that checks all the boxes. Indeed I would be surprised if the other religions did not also echo certain truths about our local GOD - for me as a panpsychist, the biblical idea of GOD lacks a lot of substance - as it placed the idea of GOD as being separate from human consciousness as if it actually was.

For me, everything which can be seen to be obviously conscious, is and aspect of GOD, and when I make mention of the local GOD I am speaking specifically about the self conscious intelligent creative consciousness which uses the actual planet as its form and from their creates all the life forms on the planet and animates those forms by divesting itself INTO those forms, so from that Entities point of view, no conscious critter on the face of the earth is separate from IT.

From my own experience, ,most people identifying as being 'Christians' have the idea of a GOD who is separate from creation rather than partaking of the experience of creation and they have no particular regard for earth, the things of the earth and certainly do not see the earth as an abode for a self conscious, intelligent entity - although it is noted that many think that the earth is the devils abode/playground and so are most likely to think that what I am referring to as 'the local GOD' is the devil/god of this world.

This concept is an invention of those with political agenda who have managed to inject false ideas of GOD into the mix and I generally view the bible and other holy writ from organised religions as inventions of political cunning.

So that is the most likely area where we will part ways, as I do not consider the bible to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I do not consider it to being 'the word of any GOD' either. Sometimes things which hold certain truth are mistaken for holding all truth.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 96 by William]



"From my own experience, ,most people identifying as being 'Christians' have the idea of a GOD who is separate from creation rather than partaking of the experience of creation and they have no particular regard for earth, the things of the earth and certainly do not see the earth as an abode for a self conscious, intelligent entity - although it is noted that many think that the earth is the devils abode/playground and so are most likely to think that what I am referring to as 'the local GOD' is the devil/god of this world."

Yes and no. Some Christians as well as some Hindus, some Judaics, some Muslims etc. have their personal ideas to make sense of something that is beyond them.
So, if you tell me something which might be profound and true in itself, but as I can not digest it I shall have to translate it into what I can handle. Everybody does it.

I like your term 'local God' and it is scriptural - 'in Him we live and move and have our being'. Jesus did say 'my kingdom is not of this world'. That's why Christians and people of other faiths go through struggle of getting away from materialism and life of physical senses alone and strive towards the inner-life, the spiritual of love and compassion and forgivness.
Therefore everything is as it should be.

[Justin108]

There is a pronounced double-standard on this board, with a pro atheo-Whateverist bias.

Take it up with the openly Christian owner of this site.

[Justin108]

You have nothing but facts

Wait... was this meant to be a criticism?

[Bust Nak]

The two options you presented are not exhaustive. You are missing the other mindless, but non-random option.

I am missing it, because it does not exist.

Then what would you call my counter-example RE: two people turning up without planning to meet up, yet there was 100% chance that they meet up because that's what they always do?