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�?

[Volbrigade]

You have belief, I have data. You are bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I don't think it is possible for you to be more wrong.

The truth is:

You have beliefs. I have beliefs.

You, apparently, believe the material, measurable world is all that exists.

But even science has subverted that obsolete worldview, as it admits dimensions that are beyond the four measurable ones (3 spacial, and time). Six more, last I checked.

I believe there is an eternal, spiritual metacosm that transcends and subsumes and sustains our space-time cosmos; and can be said to intersect with it at every point --like a cube intersects with a corresponding plane square.

Your beliefs include no explanation, or reason, or purpose, or meaning for the reality we inhabit. The most that can be said, according to what you believe, is "existence exists." And that's the end of the story.

What an impoverishment of the true nature of our reality.

And here's the thing:

Your beliefs render you blind to that reality.

My beliefs inform the science that is the cornerstone of your belief system.

Science is great. It is the method of arriving at facts and truths about God's creation.

But its efficacy ends where that creation ends -- at the limits of our temporal, spacial, temporary environment, which is bounded on both ends of the size spectrum, and with regard to time (i.e., it is neither infinitely big or small; nor old).

You are waving your gun around, and talking big, in the midst of a spiritual war of which you are unaware, or in denial of.

And it fires only blanks.

Which makes you appear somewhat comical.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 81 by Volbrigade]

Which makes you appear somewhat comical.

I'm sure HS is perfectly capable of a proper response, but is that ever the pot calling the kettle black!

My beliefs inform the science that is the cornerstone of your belief system.

To the contrary, it is science that has shown that your beliefs are useless in explaining any natural phenomena, and are nothing more than 2000-3000 year old myths and tales concocted by people who lived long before the fields of chemistry, physics, mathematics, astronomy, biology, geology, etc. were developed. It is not possible that these ancient beliefs informed anything at all about modern science.

Your beliefs include no explanation, or reason, or purpose, or meaning for the reality we inhabit.

There is no need for any "reason" for our existence. We (humans) evolved from earlier creatures who evolved from still earlier ancestors all the way back to simple, single-celled organisms. Science has informed us that this is the case, and just because we have evolved a brain of sufficient complexity to ponder some meaning to our existence it does not follow that there is any such meaning. As far as we know there is none.

Science is great. It is the method of arriving at facts and truths about God's creation.

That would be correct if you left off the "about God's creation" part. There is zero evidence that any gods exists now, or have ever existed, outside the minds of people who still buy into such concepts.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 81 by Volbrigade]

Which makes you appear somewhat comical.

I'm sure HS is perfectly capable of a proper response, but is that ever the pot calling the kettle black!

LOL -- you don't know the difference between "comical", and a sense of humor.

My beliefs inform the science that is the cornerstone of your belief system.

To the contrary, it is science that has shown that your beliefs are useless in explaining any natural phenomena, and are nothing more than 2000-3000 year old myths and tales concocted by people who lived long before the fields of chemistry, physics, mathematics, astronomy, biology, geology, etc. were developed. It is not possible that these ancient beliefs informed anything at all about modern science.

I guess you never heard of Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Mendel, Maxwell... the list is long. I can't remember them all. I'll provide a complete list, should you soften to the point of being capable of receiving information. Right now, you and HS are like a couple of crabs, recoiled into your little materialist shells, self-soothing with self and mutual assurances. Think Dorothy in Oz: "there's no thing but matter. There's no thing but matter..."

LOL!

Your beliefs include no explanation, or reason, or purpose, or meaning for the reality we inhabit.

There is no need for any "reason" for our existence. We (humans) evolved from earlier creatures who evolved from still earlier ancestors all the way back to simple, single-celled organisms. Science has informed us that this is the case, and just because we have evolved a brain of sufficient complexity to ponder some meaning to our existence it does not follow that there is any such meaning. As far as we know there is none.

I'm sorry. I must have nodded off. You were saying... something about microbes assembling themselves by chance, and becoming men? Ha. That's a good one.

Science is great. It is the method of arriving at facts and truths about God's creation.

That would be correct if you left off the "about God's creation" part. There is zero evidence that any gods exists now, or have ever existed, outside the minds of people who still buy into such concepts.

Opinion duly noted.

And judged to be ill-informed, and silly.

Thanks for the comic relief, though.

[Justin108]

[Replying to Justin108]

The universe does not need a creator in order to exist.

It is unknown. The universe might not exist if there was no creator.

Very well, let me rephrase. There is nothing to suggest the universe needs a creator.

Others will not be convinced for they have already made up their mind that there is a creator.

I am one who has done just that. It is more reasonable to claim "The universe does need a creator in order to exist."

This is less my actual position and more me turning Volbrigade's logic on himself when he dismissed atheists as being unconvinced because they already made up their mind that there is no god.

[Justin108]

we find that detailed information has preceded us; and the fact that information requires intelligence

Define "information" and then prove that all information requires intelligence.

[H.sapiens]

You have belief, I have data. You are bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I don't think it is possible for you to be more wrong.

The truth is:

You have beliefs. I have beliefs.

No, I said it right the first time. You have belief, I have data. Let me add: you do not have data, I do not have belief.

You, apparently, believe the material, measurable world is all that exists.

No, again. I know that the material, measureable world exists and I know that despite your beliefs in never, neverland fairy tales, you have no examples of your fairytale world actually intruding on anyone's reality in such a way as to have a discernable effect. That's why you have only belief, that's why you have no data.

But even science has subverted that obsolete worldview, as it admits dimensions that are beyond the four measurable ones (3 spacial, and time). Six more, last I checked.

Extra dimensions? There may be as many as 12 dimensions, that 's what some theoretical physicists believe, but not a one, that has all his marbles, would push that beyond the level of belief as you are want to do. I guess you know more than all of them, eh?

I believe there is an eternal, spiritual metacosm that transcends and subsumes and sustains our space-time cosmos; and can be said to intersect with it at every point --like a cube intersects with a corresponding plane square.

You can believe in pink unicorns for all I care, but without data ... it's just smoke, mirrors and handwaving.

Your beliefs include no explanation, or reason, or purpose, or meaning for the reality we inhabit. The most that can be said, according to what you believe, is "existence exists." And that's the end of the story.

When you have data to support that claim, please let us know ... until then I am not interested in your beliefs and guesses.

What an impoverishment of the true nature of our reality.

Compared to your imagination ... likely, just as your imagination pales when compared to, say, Isaac Asimov's (the atheist scientist, author).

And here's the thing:

Your beliefs render you blind to that reality.

No, I remain open but you remain data free.

My beliefs inform the science that is the cornerstone of your belief system.

Your beliefs and ephemeral and meaningless.

Science is great. It is the method of arriving at facts and truths about God's creation.

God? What alternate dimension is it from? Since it has no power to have any demonstrable effect in our dimensions, it is likely nonexistent but in any case irrelevent.

But its efficacy ends where that creation ends -- at the limits of our temporal, spacial, temporary environment, which is bounded on both ends of the size spectrum, and with regard to time (i.e., it is neither infinitely big or small; nor old).

I got to hand it to you, you sure can pack a passel of words together in a row such that they are utterly without meaning.

You are waving your gun around, and talking big, in the midst of a spiritual war of which you are unaware, or in denial of.

And it fires only blanks.

It is such a fierce spiritual war that no one can detect it and I am invulnerable.

Which makes you appear somewhat comical.

Nah, when it comes to comics that makes me Superman to your Jughead.

[Bust Nak]

And so are two (or more) people deliberately going to the same destination on a regular basis.

Ever had a job? Gone to school?

Church?

Yes to all three. You have presented yet more red herring. Two (or more) people deliberately going to the same destination on a regular basis, does not change the fact that meeting up in my counter-example is neither random nor deliberate.

The point is, either this world is the product of a designer, or it is mindless, random, by chance, pointless, and meaningless.

And you are being challenged on that point, it is a false dichotomy.

I submit that the designer option is self-evident and axiomatic.

That's a separate issue. The two options you presented are not exhaustive. You are missing the other mindless, but non-random option.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 84 by Justin108]

"Very well, let me rephrase. There is nothing to suggest the universe needs a creator. "

Did you mean to say that considering that we know only
a spec of the universe?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 84 by Justin108]

"Very well, let me rephrase. There is nothing to suggest the universe needs a creator. "

Did you mean to say that considering that we know only
a spec of the universe?

Yes. Considering what we know of the universe, even if it's just a spec, there is nothing to suggest the need for a creator.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 87 by Bust Nak]

HS --

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

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.

You have nothing but facts; which, when aggregated, amount to nothing. 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.

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).

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.

"...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

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."

BN:

Quote:
I submit that the designer option is self-evident and axiomatic.

That's a separate issue. 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.