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�?

[Neatras]

I recommend this thread be locked. There is no actual substance here, just a weak presupposition that a deity is responsible, and the tired respondents who point out that such assertions are themselves baseless.

Apophenia aside, Volbrigade is not articulating a reason for why he should be taken seriously, except by yet more special pleading. There are no ways to argue against such firmly biased opinions. In fact, I already pointed out that this thread doesn't serve a purpose as a scientific debate thread, and those with some comprehension of what a debate actually is should be able to see this to be the case.

This is better served in the General Chat sub-forum, where we can formally dissect Volbrigade's psychological tendency to dismiss the notion of coincidence out of a presuppositional bias, rather than with formal logic.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 56 by Volbrigade]

Respond to that? I suspect that you can not. It is never uncivil to point out an obvious truth.

Precisely why your post is uncivil.

Moderator Warning


Please don't do our job for us.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Justin108]

Opinion duly noted.

Of course, it is an erroneous opinion, since God is the uncaused Cause, the limitless Creator of our limited space-time environment. Therefore nothing -- whether anyone designates it "remarkable" or not -- can happen without, or apart from, Him.

Prove it.

Because without God, there is NOTHING.

Prove it.

But there IS something -- ergo, God.

Prove it.

[Bust Nak]

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.

You seem to be treating the phrase "by chance" as a synonyms for "naturally," why?

[Monta]

Opinion duly noted.

Of course, it is an erroneous opinion, since God is the uncaused Cause, the limitless Creator of our limited space-time environment. Therefore nothing -- whether anyone designates it "remarkable" or not -- can happen without, or apart from, Him.

Prove it.

Because without God, there is NOTHING.

Prove it.

But there IS something -- ergo, God.

Prove it.

Nature is the mirror image of God who has left many footprints for the seeker.

Others will not be convinced for they have already made up their mind.

[Justin108]

Opinion duly noted.

Of course, it is an erroneous opinion, since God is the uncaused Cause, the limitless Creator of our limited space-time environment. Therefore nothing -- whether anyone designates it "remarkable" or not -- can happen without, or apart from, Him.

Prove it.

Because without God, there is NOTHING.

Prove it.

But there IS something -- ergo, God.

Prove it.

Nature is the mirror image of God who has left many footprints for the seeker.

Others will not be convinced for they have already made up their mind.

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

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

[Volbrigade]

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.

You seem to be treating the phrase "by chance" as a synonyms for "naturally," why?

Because unless something happens deliberately, then it happens "by chance". If you and a friend arrange to meet for lunch, then your meeting is deliberate. If you happen to come across each other at the grocery store, then it is "by chance".

For something to be deliberate, it requires volition. Volition, in turn, requires intelligence. And intelligence requires a mind, which is an aspect of personality.

Ergo -- either the natural universe is the product of mindless, unguided processes; and thus everything is "by chance" (including this conversation) --

Or it is the product of a Mind, expressing its volition in design elements.

There is no possibility that either the kinds of intricate design we see in living things, or the living things themselves (i.e., the assembly of the components of reproducing cells -- DNA, enzymes, etc.) could have occurred "by chance".

And neither is the precise "fit" of the sun and moon that many of us will observe later today.

Let me anticipate one possible objection to my statement.

It might be said -- "what about the deliberate action involved with a spider weaving a web? Does that express "volition"? "Mind"?

To which I would answer "yes".

But not the spider's.

Rather, the Designer's.

[Bust Nak]

Because unless something happens deliberately, then it happens "by chance". If you and a friend arrange to meet for lunch, then your meeting is deliberate. If you happen to come across each other at the grocery store, then it is "by chance"...

What if you go to the grocery store every Wednesday at noon and your friend also goes to the grocery store every Wednesday at noon. It's not random that you meet each other, yet neither planned to meet up deliberately. It seems rather trivial to me that the dichotomy you presented is a false one.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 54 by Volbrigade]

Opinion duly noted.

Of course, it is an erroneous opinion, since God is the uncaused Cause, the limitless Creator of our limited space-time environment. Therefore nothing -- whether anyone designates it "remarkable" or not -- can happen without, or apart from, Him.

Prove it.

Because without God, there is NOTHING.

Prove it.

But there IS something -- ergo, God.

Prove it.

Nothing? Ok

[Volbrigade]

Because unless something happens deliberately, then it happens "by chance". If you and a friend arrange to meet for lunch, then your meeting is deliberate. If you happen to come across each other at the grocery store, then it is "by chance"...

What if you go to the grocery store every Wednesday at noon and your friend also goes to the grocery store every Wednesday at noon. It's not random that you meet each other, yet neither planned to meet up deliberately. It seems rather trivial to me that the dichotomy you presented is a false one.

I'm not particularly interested in what is, and is not, trivial to you. And that is by design.

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?



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

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

And that the only reason to choose the latter, is out of a deliberate, volitional need to deny the former.

Which, itself, is an ironic instance of design and volition.