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]

[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

I don't understand.

Was this an attempt at a serious response, calling for a reply?

It seemed more like something an elementary school student would say.

I assumed you were being rhetorical, and no further response was required.

What sort of proof(s) would be satisfactory to you?

[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

I don't understand.

Was this an attempt at a serious response, calling for a reply?

It seemed more like something an elementary school student would say.

I assumed you were being rhetorical, and no further response was required.

What sort of proof(s) would be satisfactory to you?

Sine I am unaware of any such proof existing, I cannot really say. But since you confidently make the claim that God exists, I expect you to support your claim with proof.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 70 by Volbrigade]

You are depending upon the logical fallacy known as a False Dichotomy. There are other alternatives, the most reasonable one is explicated by Dawkins in chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, where Dawkins describes the Weasel Program.

[Elijah John]

[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

I don't understand.

Was this an attempt at a serious response, calling for a reply?

It seemed more like something an elementary school student would say.

I assumed you were being rhetorical, and no further response was required.

What sort of proof(s) would be satisfactory to you?

Moderator Intervention

This whole exchange is little more than a series of unproductive one-liners. C'mon folks, you can do better.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 71 by Volbrigade]

See my topic dated from July 27, 2016 titled "Proof of the christian god". Last post on July 11, 2017.

"This topic will be dedicated to theists to provide that which has been claimed but never provided, to my knowledge, real scientific evidence of the Christian god. "

We'd all be interested in seeing your proof of this designer as requested in the topic above.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 71 by Volbrigade]

See my topic dated from July 27, 2016 titled "Proof of the christian god". Last post on July 11, 2017.

"This topic will be dedicated to theists to provide that which has been claimed but never provided, to my knowledge, real scientific evidence of the Christian god. "

We'd all be interested in seeing your proof of this designer as requested in the topic above.

I refer you to my question directed to Justin (which is not, despite a claim to the contrary, a "one liner". It is intended to clarify the skeptic's and denier's thinking on this matter).

Since the fact that a universe -- which had beginning -- exists; then a cause for its existence is demanded. Now, either that cause has a mind, or it is mindless.

The fact that everywhere we train our gaze, we find that detailed information has preceded us; and the fact that information requires intelligence -- that speaks to the "cause" having a mind. Intelligence.

If that is not sufficient proof for a Creator God -- what is it you're looking for?

For Him to enter into His creation as a man, and die in order to redeem you from your sins? In accordance with centuries-old predictions (prophesies)?

Would that do it?

[William]

[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.
Panpsychism regards consciousness as that which creates and shapes the universe making things visible. It is the ghost in the machine, and is only visible through the creation.
What you appear to be saying is that "we cannot see a creator of the universe but we can see the universe, therefore, the universe does not need a creator in order to exist."

This is a false dichotomy.

It may be argued that the universe would exist even if there was absolutely no consciousness within it, but even then and because of that, the universe would not exist in relation to there being no consciousness to acknowledge that it exists.

Since there is, and thus the universe can be acknowledged to exist, one cannot make the claim "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.

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 in no way means that I regard any organised religions idea of 'a creator' as being accurate or even honest, but that is another subject.

I exist as a self conscious being experiencing human life on a planet in a galaxy, in a universe.

Because of that, I am able to acknowledge the universe in relation to my position within it, and - as per the thread subject eclipses might indeed be regarded as evidence of design, but not on there own, as far as I am concerned. Personally I have not experienced a solar eclipse, but in relation to what I have and do subjectively experience, many things which are regarded as mindless coincidences do indeed align with situation, thought and circumstance which act as verification that an invisible intelligent consciousness both outside of my self and intimately related with my self, exists and can indeed be interacted with.

It is not religion which convinces me of this entity's existence, any more than it is science which convinces me that the entity does not exist. Both actually add something to the mix which reinforces that conviction.

But it is the entity itself who convinces me of its existence.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 76 by Volbrigade]

"Since the fact that a universe -- which had beginning -- exists; then a cause for its existence is demanded. Now, either that cause has a mind, or it is mindless. "

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?

"If that is not sufficient proof for a Creator God -- what is it you're looking for? "

My requirement for your proof/evidence was quite clear. Why is there no need for your god in nature? Show us with scientific evidence that your creator existed/exists. Quoting your holy book doesn't carry any weight in this forum.

You have chosen to believe in stories not hundreds of years old but thousands. Stories past around by multiple religions. Stories told and retold by goat herders thousands of years past who had no education, who thought the earth flat, the sun and stars revolved around the earth, etc. And you give these unfounded stories credibility above science.

[Volbrigade]

[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.
Panpsychism regards consciousness as that which creates and shapes the universe making things visible. It is the ghost in the machine, and is only visible through the creation.
What you appear to be saying is that "we cannot see a creator of the universe but we can see the universe, therefore, the universe does not need a creator in order to exist."

This is a false dichotomy.

It may be argued that the universe would exist even if there was absolutely no consciousness within it, but even then and because of that, the universe would not exist in relation to there being no consciousness to acknowledge that it exists.

Since there is, and thus the universe can be acknowledged to exist, one cannot make the claim "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.

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 in no way means that I regard any organised religions idea of 'a creator' as being accurate or even honest, but that is another subject.

I exist as a self conscious being experiencing human life on a planet in a galaxy, in a universe.

Because of that, I am able to acknowledge the universe in relation to my position within it, and - as per the thread subject eclipses might indeed be regarded as evidence of design, but not on there own, as far as I am concerned. Personally I have not experienced a solar eclipse, but in relation to what I have and do subjectively experience, many things which are regarded as mindless coincidences do indeed align with situation, thought and circumstance which act as verification that an invisible intelligent consciousness both outside of my self and intimately related with my self, exists and can indeed be interacted with.

It is not religion which convinces me of this entity's existence, any more than it is science which convinces me that the entity does not exist. Both actually add something to the mix which reinforces that conviction.

But it is the entity itself who convinces me of its existence.

I just liked this post.

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?

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.

But you have eloquently expressed why that is an a priori condition. A choice, a presupposition, a faith statement.

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

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.

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.

[H.sapiens]

[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.
Panpsychism regards consciousness as that which creates and shapes the universe making things visible. It is the ghost in the machine, and is only visible through the creation.
What you appear to be saying is that "we cannot see a creator of the universe but we can see the universe, therefore, the universe does not need a creator in order to exist."

This is a false dichotomy.

It may be argued that the universe would exist even if there was absolutely no consciousness within it, but even then and because of that, the universe would not exist in relation to there being no consciousness to acknowledge that it exists.

Since there is, and thus the universe can be acknowledged to exist, one cannot make the claim "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.

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 in no way means that I regard any organised religions idea of 'a creator' as being accurate or even honest, but that is another subject.

I exist as a self conscious being experiencing human life on a planet in a galaxy, in a universe.

Because of that, I am able to acknowledge the universe in relation to my position within it, and - as per the thread subject eclipses might indeed be regarded as evidence of design, but not on there own, as far as I am concerned. Personally I have not experienced a solar eclipse, but in relation to what I have and do subjectively experience, many things which are regarded as mindless coincidences do indeed align with situation, thought and circumstance which act as verification that an invisible intelligent consciousness both outside of my self and intimately related with my self, exists and can indeed be interacted with.

It is not religion which convinces me of this entity's existence, any more than it is science which convinces me that the entity does not exist. Both actually add something to the mix which reinforces that conviction.

But it is the entity itself who convinces me of its existence.

I just liked this post.

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?

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.

But you have eloquently expressed why that is an a priori condition. A choice, a presupposition, a faith statement.

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

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.

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.

Here's the fly in your ointment:

1. Anything that has an effect in the material world is amenable, by studying that effect, to observation or detection by technology and instrumentation.

2. Anything that is without effect in the material world is irrelevant, virtually by definition (e.g., it is without discernable effect).

3. There are two competing world views, the materialist view that is clearly demonstrable and the theistic that has nothing going for it but blue lights, smoke, mirrors, hand waving and lies.

4. Which is more rational, the materialistic or the theistic?

5. Which, in totality, must be rationalized and even then is often readily falsified in total?

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