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�?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 38 by Volbrigade]

Well... rainbows are indeed impressive, wonderful, beautiful things. They are also a sign, given by God. As is the eclipse.

What sign is being sent with the eclipse (or any rainbow for that matter ... whether natural or created by your water hose)? Can you elaborate on what you mean by the word "sign"? Presumably this sign is meaningless unless it can be interpreted by the target audience ... which I assume to be humans in your view. If I can't discern any specific sign from a rainbow or an eclipse, does that mean it wasn't meant for me and is only a sign to certain people who have a mystical ability to interpret what these signs are supposed to mean?

Specifically, what sign is being sent to humans from this upcoming eclipse? I'd really like to hear what you think this is, because I'm absolutely certain that if I watch the eclipse (which I intend to do ... it is well worth the drive) I won't get any sign from a god ... I'll just be witnessing a normal celestial event that results from the perfectly predictable positioning of the earth, moon and sun as they all move in their orbits. There is no need to invoke any kind of divine signalling to explain it, and the 400 ratio didn't exist in the distant past, and won't in the distant future, because the moon's orbit increases by about 3.8 cm per year. Your argument is far too weak to hold any water, but I'm sure creation.com or some similar source who either ignore facts, or twist them to suit their nonsensical claims (their specialty), might support the same silly scenario.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by Justin108]

So if three or so stars, planets, a moon, whichever were to form a straight line... it means they align.



Notice all the stars that don't align. It is statistically probable that, given the existence of billions of stars, that at least some of them will align. It doesn't take a miracle. It doesn't take design.

As for the sun, moon and earth... because of the fact that the moon is constantly moving around the earth, it is inevitable that every now and then, the moon will be in front of the sun, forming a straight line. This is not rocket science.

I remember leaving a friends home after a social evening and looking up I made mention of how sharp the stars were looking and how beautiful Orion looked.
My friend asked me which was Orion as she had heard of it but did not know which stars made up its constellation.

I pointed up and said "well you know that one which is often called 'the pot'" and as soon as I had finished saying that, a shooting star went right through the very area we were looking at and my friend just went "wow!" while I continued - "Yep - that area - well that is called Orion's Belt...", and proceeded to point out the main stars in the constellation.

That was a nice wee coinciding event.

Intelligent agency behind all such events, or a dead mindless thing just doing what it does? Something in between the opposing opinions perhaps?

The third option works for me because it aligns nicely with my own experiences.

[Neatras]

Intelligent agency behind all such events, or a dead mindless thing just doing what it does? Something in between the opposing opinions perhaps?

The third option works for me because it aligns nicely with my own experiences.

I mean, your own experiences are subject to tons of psychological biases, and it seems like you're making an argument to moderation, or a "middle ground" fallacy.

In essence, the method [argument to moderation] is pragmatic and utilitarian and creates a new argument from the best parts of both sides.

So while it's not a bad thing to want to do, it would make sense if you pointed out which arguments from the side of the "intelligent agency makes all coincidental events happen" camp, took the most compelling arguments, and demonstrated how those fit together with our actual knowledge.

If a river dislodges a rock from the riverbed and sends it hurtling over a waterfall once every day, after a few thousand years some creature's gonna get hit in the head with the rock. If we look at the one instance where it happens, inferring a middle ground between dumb luck and intelligent agency still doesn't make much sense. Intelligent agents making coincidences happen is fun for injecting mystery into events in our lives in order to give us new insight into how our behaviors and actions affect our surroundings, but they fail to do anything about explaining what an intelligent, creative force would actually accomplish by the most mundane coincidences (which are always ignored in favor of the more grandiose or massive coincidences).

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by Neatras]

I have already stated my position in this thread in this post, and cannot explain the connection between acknowledging agency in relation to subjective experience and serendipity/synchronicity/coincidence as anything other than an interpersonal confirmation from intelligent agency to individual observer.

Call it what you like, (from outside looking in) makes no difference to those who see it as it is, through their subjective experience (inside looking out). It adds an otherwise unseen dimension to the one which is seen - apparently in a kind of superimposed manner - like two things merged...to the point where they are one.

Subjectively it also adds fun and play - a kind of hide and seek - the invisible friend is indeed inexplicably real and no more separate from me than I am from my sense of self identity. I am not the machinery. I am the ghost within the machinery.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 39 by Bust Nak]


BN:

Volbrigade wrote:

LOL. To each his own, I guess. I admit, I'd be pretty impressed if a monkey banging on a laptop keyboard produced "War and Peace".

More impressed than Leo Tolstoy writing it, right?

Well, sure. Because like amino acids randomly assembling themselves into proteins, which then assemble themselves into an information code which writes for a living cell (absent a living cell to provide a wall of protection for the event) -- it just couldn't happen by chance.

And neither does a solar eclipse.

Neat:

I'm just pointing out some rather interesting facts related to the coming eclipse. If they are not interesting to you, that is not my fault. Or my problem.

DNG:

"Silly"? I think it's silly that you can view an eclipse, and not see it as an obvious example of God's glorious handiwork.

The sign of the rainbow? That He would never destroy the world again with water, of course.

William:

I think you're on the right track. This world is pregnant with meaning. Signs and wonders. "Coincidence is not a Kosher word." Everything is a God incident.

The danger in being vaguely spiritual, of being satisfied with the "third option", is that you can miss the meaning beyond it all, and drift past the safe harbor of salvation.

Just something to put in your back pocket, should you ever need it.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 44 by William]

See, here's what I don't get.

You acknowledge there's no objective means of conveying your idea, and that it's entirely subjective. You say it makes no difference "to those who see it as it is," (which is both a claim and insulates you, who probably "sees it as it is," from having to verify your claims, which is inane).

You then follow it up with a claim. Then a claim. Then a claim. Then a claim.

I wanna see evidence, facts, verification. But all you are doing is making claims at me. It's not productive. My time is being wasted right this second. Do you understand that when you continue to make these claims on a debate forum, you are being impolite to those who actually have arguments?

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by Neatras]

Do you understand that when you continue to make these claims on a debate forum, you are being impolite to those who actually have arguments?

Nope. I am not being rude to have a position which is based upon subjective experience to do with theist and philosophical ideas in relation to objective reality.

Subjective claims are not the domain of empirical science but that does not make them rude, in any real sense, and thus something which should be censored from being mentioned in debate.
Certainly it can been seen by any reasonable individual that what I have posted is anything BUT rude and I would suggest that you cease conflating the domain of theism and philosophy re subjective experience with science and empirical evidence of objective reality as if one is not real while the other is.

My arguments coming from a theist/philosophical platform are no more or less relevant for that and it is - quite frankly - rude of you to imply otherwise.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 45 by Volbrigade]

"Silly"? I think it's silly that you can view an eclipse, and not see it as an obvious example of God's glorious handiwork.

I think that is the crux of why I can't understand a viewpoint like yours. I can sort of understand how people may think the development of a solar system and all of its contents could be the work of some divine creature ... especially so if they are ignorant of science at even the most basic level (eg. my mother was in that category). But to think a particular positioning of the earth, its moon, and the sun is some sort of sign from this divinity is another thing altogether.

The rainbow comment is obviously directly from the bible myth of Noah's flood, and if you're telling a story that outlandish may as well throw in the rainbow sign at the end for effect. But is there any such story in the bible relating to an eclipse? Or did you decide that an eclipse was a sign from god because that thought came to you without any connection to a biblical tall tale or similar (ie. you completely made it up)?

[Justin108]

I'm having a little trouble with that one. First of all -- Orion's belt. Do you happen to notice the perspective from which those stars align?

You see -- one planet with intelligent life (that we know of) in all the cosmos.

And it happens to be the only planet that we know of where a solar eclipse is possible, relative to the intelligent observer. Because, again, of the multiples of 400 mentioned.

Since I've addressed everything here already, it's clear that you don't bother considering anything I say. So I'll stop wasting my time.

I guess I could mention that 400 happens to be the gematrimetric value of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Tav), which means "truth". Or that if you google "surface temperature of the Sun, kelvin" you will get 5778 degrees. And 5778 just happens to be the next year on the Jewish calendar, beginning one lunar month after the eclipse.

But I won't.

"I won't mention the thing that I already mentioned by telling you that I won't mention it." Bravo.

Just about every one of your arguments can be answered with one simple word: coincidence. And here's the best part. We know coincidences exist. The same cannot be said for God, though.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 45 by Volbrigade]

"Silly"? I think it's silly that you can view an eclipse, and not see it as an obvious example of God's glorious handiwork.

I think that is the crux of why I can't understand a viewpoint like yours. I can sort of understand how people may think the development of a solar system and all of its contents could be the work of some divine creature ... especially so if they are ignorant of science at even the most basic level..

That is an ignorant, asinine, and insulting thing to say.

If this were a phone conversation, this is the point where I hang up on you.

Which is what I'm doing.

>click<