Is the universe designed?

[painted wolf]

And yet other planets have very nice eclipses as well... so the 'designer' must love 'showing off'.

wa:do

 

[BucephalusBB]

And yet other planets have very nice eclipses as well... so the 'designer' must love 'showing off'.

wa:do

All a matter of Copy/Paste

 

[no_spoon]

And yet other planets have very nice eclipses as well... so the 'designer' must love 'showing off'.

wa:do

Are you saying that the exact fit that I described in my post occurs frequently? Yes, I know that eclipses are common and come in all different types. But I was of the impression that the ratio of sizes and distances of our moon and sun in relation to the earth was such that it was quite an incredible "coincidence". Even more so if you consider that the moon is an unusually large satellite for a planet our size, and the "audience" for the celestial display just happens to be sentient.

Don't forget how an eclipse appears depends on the position of the observer and we just happen to be in the position to see such great ones periodically.

As I said, I'm not saying this is proof of anything, just a bit curious. Unless all of the above is more common than I thought (hey, I learn something new every day).

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

Funny you should mention the revolution of the earth, sun and moon. The ratio of those distances and the sizes of the bodies is such that a solar eclipse is an incredibly accurate fit. The fit is so tight "Bailey's Beads" appear around the moon's disc, pin points of light that slip past due to lunar cratering...definitely not a "proof" but it could be the designer "showing off".

If you don't mind his abuse of Venomfangx, Thunderf00t made a video addressing the "perfection" of eclipses.

YouTube - Why Do People Laugh At Creationists? (pt. 2)

 

[painted wolf]

Are you saying that the exact fit that I described in my post occurs frequently? Yes, I know that eclipses are common and come in all different types. But I was of the impression that the ratio of sizes and distances of our moon and sun in relation to the earth was such that it was quite an incredible "coincidence". Even more so if you consider that the moon is an unusually large satellite for a planet our size, and the "audience" for the celestial display just happens to be sentient.

Don't forget how an eclipse appears depends on the position of the observer and we just happen to be in the position to see such great ones periodically.

As I said, I'm not saying this is proof of anything, just a bit curious. Unless all of the above is more common than I thought (hey, I learn something new every day).

That's what I'm saying.
The Gas giants each have moons that produce 'perfect' eclipses.
Pluto and Charon perfectly eclipse one another as they orbit. Binary stars do the same thing.

The other thing to remember, is that the majority of eclipses here on Earth are not perfect at all.
It's difficult to call it a miracle when so often they are hardly spectacular.

wa:do

 

[no_spoon]

The Gas giants each have moons that produce 'perfect' eclipses.

Woops, OK, I'll add this thread to my Firefox Read-It-Later add-on queue...clearly my astronomy knowledge needs improving...sorry about that!

Of course I knew totality was not always the case, nor (obviously) for everyone on earth, but until reading your info I thought it was still pretty impressive. I'll do research to correct my ignorance.

 

[Storm]

Does the relatively common nature of perfect eclipses make them any less impressive/ miraculous? If you see one as evidence of a designer, why not more? The only answer I can think of is anthropocentrism.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

Does the relatively common nature of perfect eclipses make them any less impressive/ miraculous? If you see one as evidence of a designer, why not more? The only answer I can think of is anthropocentrism.

Flowers and childbirth and falling stars and bacterial flagella and spider webs are all quite common; some call all of these things miraculous and evidence of design.

(I don't see any violation of natural law in flowers or childbirth, so tho I agree they are amazing things to behold, they are not miracles to me. I'm sure I'm just cold-hearted )

 

[Storm]

Flowers and childbirth and falling stars and bacterial flagella and spider webs are all quite common; some call all of these things miraculous and evidence of design.

(I don't see any violation of natural law in flowers or childbirth, so tho I agree they are amazing things to behold, they are not miracles to me. I'm sure I'm just cold-hearted )

I believe that "miracles happen within the rules." There's nothing supernatural about them. Of course, this means I favor the second definition of "miraculous," that being marvelous or wondrous.

I dunno, it just bugs me when people devalue things or lose their sense of wonder simply because we've figured out the mechanism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Funny you should mention the revolution of the earth, sun and moon. The ratio of those distances and the sizes of the bodies is such that a solar eclipse is an incredibly accurate fit. The fit is so tight "Bailey's Beads" appear around the moon's disc, pin points of light that slip past due to lunar cratering...definitely not a "proof" but it could be the designer "showing off".

Solar eclipses do look impressive. Many other things do not. Why is it so astounding that in all the natural phenomena that exist, there would be at least a few that we think look sorta neat?

I think this is a good example of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

 

[painted wolf]

I dunno, it just bugs me when people devalue things or lose their sense of wonder simply because we've figured out the mechanism.

For me finding out how it works adds to my sense of wonder.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

Glad to hear it!

 

[jrbogie]

You lost me on that point. You're saying that you know what evidence would look like that the Universe was designed, and you checked, and there isn't?

no, that is not even close to what i said. i never said that i know what evidence would look like did i? but i will now say, since you've made it an issue, that I THINK that any evidence that is put forth to explain how the universe was designed and who the designer was should be able to withstand the severe scrutiny of scientific methodology.

likewise, i did not say that i checked and that there isn't. but to clarify for you, i'll now say that I KNOW OF no evidence, albeit i have not checked all sources myself, that would scientifically support a hypothosis of a designer.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but we're not talking about looking for a "Made in Paradise" sticker, or an artist's signature in the bottom right hand corner.

we're not?? damn what a dummy i am for suggesting that we're looking for a "made in paradise sticker" huh?

For the life of me I can't think of what evidence of design would look like.

i've no idea what such evidence would look like either. indeed, i give it little thought. but i'm merely an amature scientist at best. but some real pros are about to accelerate neutrons at near the speed of light in opposite directions in a seventeen mile, underground particle accelerator in europe. they hope to discover evidence of what is called the higgins particle, some call it the god particle but many scientists think that's a silly misgnomer. anyway, hopefully it will lead us a little further along the path of knowledge of how the visible universe began. no i can't explain it all but perhaps the guys getting paid will be able to enlighten you. remember, i'm only a rank amature.

I realize this question could be the topic of entire books I haven't read, but at the moment I write this I am under the impression that the Universe is so vast and there are also hard and fast limitations to how far back into the past we can "see".

that is precisely why astro physicists refer to it as the "VISIBLE" universe. as you say, we have only been able to study evidence back to a few miliseconds AFTER the big bang MAY have occured. we have no real idea of what happened precisely at the time of the big bang and certainly not what happened before. nor do we know if there was only one big bang. does the universe go through a cycle of origin and destruction over and over again? is this the only universe? we just don't know do we? we can only observe the evidence that we have to observe. simple really.

Unless you're saying that the absence of proof is proof that there is absence (???).

my ex wife would constantly reply to statements that i'd make in a fashion such as you just did. for example, i might say "the sky is a pretty color of blue today". and she might reply with, "are you saying our grass is not a pretty color". jeez man. read the words and only the words.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I THINK that any evidence that is put forth to explain how the universe was designed and who the designer was should be able to withstand the severe scrutiny of scientific methodology.

I'd be curious to know what you "THINK" that sentence means. Whether or not the emergent quality/capacity of the universe constitutes sufficient evidence of design is essentially a metaphysical rather than methodological issue.

 

[jrbogie]

I'd be curious to know what you "THINK" that sentence means. Whether or not the emergent quality/capacity of the universe constitutes sufficient evidence of design is essentially a metaphysical rather than methodological issue.

you're on your own now. i "THINK" that what the sentence "MEANS" can be found in the words and punctuation that i used to convey that meaning. i'll admit that i'm too lazy to excercise my pinky finger on the shift key for correct capitalization but hey, this is not suppose to be work. now are you going to tell us all what YOU THINK IT MEANS??? HMMMMM???? and of course you have your opinion on what is and is not methodological. i've already presented my opinion on that.

 

[no_spoon]

jrbogie, I'm sorry, I really was not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to guess what you meant. In the posting I was replying to you only said:

it matters little how the universe "looks". there is simply no evidence to suggest that it was designed.

and I was trying to say that the absence of evidence does not mean something is not true. There are undoubtedly many things which are true for which we as yet have no evidence.

Looking back I guess I could have said: "you're right, no evidence exists, but what's your point?" but instead I tried to guess what you meant and for that I'm sorry. And I didn't think you or anyone else would seriously look for a "Made in Paradise" sticker, I was trying to be humorous.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is the universe designed?

Not in the sense of a God having designed it.

It is, however, shaped by the laws of physics (where they apply).

 

[jrbogie]

jrbogie, I'm sorry, I really was not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to guess what you meant. In the posting I was replying to you only said:

and I was trying to say that the absence of evidence does not mean something is not true. There are undoubtedly many things which are true for which we as yet have no evidence.

Looking back I guess I could have said: "you're right, no evidence exists, but what's your point?" but instead I tried to guess what you meant and for that I'm sorry. And I didn't think you or anyone else would seriously look for a "Made in Paradise" sticker, I was trying to be humorous.

hey i'm the clown here. lol. no worries. but as to what i'd have said to you asking what's my point, the point was simply that no evidence exists. and that was my only point. absence of evidence does not mean that something is untrue. i could not agree more on that. i would never say that what a christian or a muslim or a jew or an atheist says is untrue. but if i'm to be convinced that what they say is true, i need evidence before i'll even explore the possiblility. and even then the evidence must work with scientific methods which i am not capable of doing. i do some reading in science, i'm far from an expert in any field of science. but i lend credibility to what i read simple because it makes sense to me. the scientists have made a good arguement as i see it. scripture does not make sense to me so i lend little if any credibility to them. to say, "it just plain makes sense to me" is about as far as i'll go when talking about a science issue about which i might have some information.

 

[painted wolf]

I'd be curious to know what you "THINK" that sentence means. Whether or not the emergent quality/capacity of the universe constitutes sufficient evidence of design is essentially a metaphysical rather than methodological issue.

I agree... which is why discussions on the nature or existence of a designer should remain in the metaphysical realm of thought.

I can't do my work as a biologist and try to apply metaphysics to the data I collect. It simply won't work. However I can't step back in my personal life and not ponder the metaphysical when I contemplate the nature of the universe as I see it.

Ah the joys of dichotomy.

wa:do

 

[logician]

If the universe being designed implies a designer, then what designed the designer?

If intelligence cannot evolve on its own, how can a superintelligence just pop into existence?