waterdog

Proof of God's Existence

670 posts in this topic

Here is something to contemplate the next time you look up at the moon. Why is the apparent size of the moon exactly the same as the apparent size of the sun? (the reason we can experience the so-called 'total eclipse').

Quoting from a Nasa website:

"Thanks to an apparently improbable coincidence, the Sun and the Moon are almost exactly the same size as seen from Earth. The Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, but it is also 400 times farther away. The table below, adapted from The Sun in Eclipse by Maunder and Moore, shows that there is no other planet where the angular diameter of a satellite is so close to that of the Sun."

A quote from Issac Asimov concerning this apparent 'improbable coincidence':

"There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."

In the interest of equal time, the website also tries to answer the question of 'why' this is so:

It has often been asked if the similarity of the Moon's and Sun's diameters can be simple coincidence. In the absence of more data about the statistical distribution of sizes of stars, planets, and moons in solar systems other than our own, it would seem that the most likely answer is "yes." Nevertheless, it is a fortunate coincidence for the denizens of Earth.

I don't suppose the obvious and more logical answer that I would have given would go over well on a government website. Here is my answer:

"It has often been asked if the similarity of the Moon's and Sun's diameters can be simple coincidence. What are the odds? One in a billion? One in a trillion? When one considers the unlikely probability, most scientists agree that it seems judicious to attend church regularly and to read your Bible every day."

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not entirely sure what your point is, so please forgive me if I’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick, but

Why is the visual similarity a blessing, how does it make us fortunate?

Also, If you will, picture yourself living several hundred years ago, (my ignorance of the history of geology prevents me from offering more definite dates), would not such phenomena as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, electrical storms and flash floods all have been considered proof positive of the existence of a higher being? (name of the deity dependant on region).

To put it another way, simply because no one has yet offered a convincing explanation for the apparent similarity ‘twixt sun and moon, why is it therefore necessary to invoke a supernatural power. I was always told that patience is a virtue, and am therefore inclined to wait for a reasoned explanation that does not boil down to “by means of a faculty”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear fool: thanks for your reply---

The 'blessing' refered to by the sources I quoted (I would assume) would be the scientific opportunity provided by the total eclipse (observation of the sun's corona).

For a more eloquent and moving description of the nature of a total eclipse, go to this webpage.

Mr. Eclipse

As for your thought experiment, the ancients would not have postulated a logical argument concerning the existance of natural phenonena such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes. The paradigm of their existance was to explain natural events through religious means.

The paradigm of our society is to explain natural events through scientific means. That is why I raised the issue of the relative size of the moon/sun. There is no rational scientific explanation. Our method has failed. Now, can I say that we will never find a scientific theory to explain the relative perspective size of the moon and the sun? Of course not. I cannot prove a negative.

All I can say to you is that the top scientists of our day do not understand the 'improbable coincidence'. My point of this intellectual exercise is to illustrate my belief that God has given men evidence of His existance in everyday things that we do not think much about ---we take for granted (other examples would be the four seasons, tides, snowfall etc). I had several courses in astronomy in high school and college and never once (to my recollection) did the professor(s) mention the amazing fact that the relative size of the moon and sun are the same.

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The paradigm of our society is to explain natural events through scientific means. That is why I raised the issue of the relative size of the moon/sun. There is no rational scientific explanation. Our method has failed.  Now, can I say that we will never find a scientific theory to explain the relative perspective size of the moon and the sun? Of course not. I cannot prove a negative.

here's a rational explanation: the moon is a specific size and is a specific distance from us. the sun is also a specific size and is also a specific distance from us.

this is no more fascinating than mobile phone being larger than my coworker's head when i hold it at arm's length. if i walk to a specific distance while he remains still, i can find a position where it is perfectly as tall as his head. amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had several courses in astronomy in high school and college and never once (to my recollection) did the professor(s) mention the amazing fact that the relative size of the moon and sun are the same.

It was never said because it is totally irrelevant to any proof, belief or postulate that God exists!

Nor does it offer any insight as to why man occupies planet earth. It is highly likely that complex life forms occupy other planets in different solar systems and in different galaxies, and these life forms are probably viewing one or more moons having much different sizes relative to their respective suns.

Don't be so arrogant as to believe that God's special animate creatures only include mankind.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The paradigm of our society is to explain natural events through scientific means. That is why I raised the issue of the relative size of the moon/sun. There is no rational scientific explanation. Our method has failed.  Now, can I say that we will never find a scientific theory to explain the relative perspective size of the moon and the sun? Of course not. I cannot prove a negative.

here's a rational explanation: the moon is a specific size and is a specific distance from us. the sun is also a specific size and is also a specific distance from us.

this is no more fascinating than mobile phone being larger than my coworker's head when i hold it at arm's length. if i walk to a specific distance while he remains still, i can find a position where it is perfectly as tall as his head. amazing

Honold:

(sarcasm on)

Wow. Now I understand. If only you could have explained this to Issac Asimov before he died!! Thank you for your wicked insight into problems perplexing the minds of astrophysicists everywhere!!

(sarcasm off)

JSF: thanks for the reply, but I disagree. It is relevant to the philosophical pondering of our existance. Also, I never said this conundrum offers any insight into 'why' man occupies earth, I said it offers insight into 'how' it came to be that man occupies earth. There is a difference. As to your statement that it is 'highly likely' that complex life forms are found elsewhere in space. Uh, no. You are wrong. God or no, we are a bizarre and highly irregular occurance in this universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you said 'there is no rational scientific explanation'. you even underlined it. i gave you a rational scientific explanation: fact and coincidence. explain to me what part of this doesn't make sense:. sun is so large and so far away, moon is so large and so far away, and from our perspective they appear to be the same size. is that not a rational explanation? what method has failed?

as for the 'uh no, you are wrong' part the portion of the universe with which we are familiar is infinitesimal. to make sweeping statements about it makes you a complete idiot. you don't know, so don't pretend to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contraversial part of waterdog's argument is "why" not "how". How is a simple matter of geometry. Why is a much deeper question?

Strangely, waterdog seems to have forgotten his own point. :D

Whether or not there is life on other planets pondering its impending demise due to imperfect positioning of stars and satalites is irrelevant to life on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waterdog

That the top scientists of today cannot explain the coincidence, (sorry wrong word, for surely a coincidence is just that). I mean, that the top scientists of today cannot explain the uncanny apparent similarity in the relative size of sun and moon is a good thing. It gives all those undergrads something to make their reputations on.

But it does not mean the method has failed.

The great beauty, for me at least, of the scientific method is that it does not offer certainties, only increasingly well informed speculation. It is not finished and therefore cannot have, unequivocally, failed, it can only have failed to deliver yet. Speaking for myself, I really like this, as it leaves open the possibility of discovery, the hope of a better understanding of our world through naught but our own brilliance, indeed, in the truest sense of the word, genius.

Of totalities and every day things; I remember the eclipse that passed over my patch of the planet in ’99, I was standing on the promenade reflecting an image of the sun onto the white fronted Georgian townhouses that overlook Brighton beach(I got an image of approx. 35 feet in diameter). There are few other things that can so strongly evoke in me the sense of wonder I see in my nephews eyes when he discovers some new trick that’s so full of novelty, so overburdened with possibility, so suffusing with awe, that he can but laugh at the sheer joy of it. Few but not none, and most all of those others (e.g. a good multi-hued sunset, or better still a rain bow) have detailed explanations as to the mechanisms involved.

Actually, coincidence was the right word, for it is just that.

and having read your response to honold, I rather feel the question is not why the coincidence, but rather why the human insistence that the coincidence must be significant? As such its one for the philosophers and evolutionary biologists to chew on, not the astrophysicists.

P.S.

you said, “The paradigm of our society is to explain natural events through scientific means.” hence natural science. (Science OED; 1. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied.)

P.P.S.

Generally I’m with Mervyn King on the word Paradigm, he said words to the effect that; when people use the word paradigm it usually means that they want to have a new idea but find that they can’t.

P.^3S.

Father Ted “the cows here (holding up toy cow) are small, but those (points out of window) are far away”

Dougal looks blank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can not rationalize a system until you know all the variables (what fool was saying) and in knowing all the variables, the system becomes irrational. This is because you confine the system within our setting and not as a general or a whole that can be related to other settings. This is what silly cosmologists and physicists try to do and eventually it fails... (I don't know why so don't ask)

A similiar argument holds why does the Earth have only one Moon.

The only way to prove God Exists is to have a physical relation between everything, and have a general system/model that can describe all behaviors. So until that day comes There is a God, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant to say: the only way to prove God does not Exists. With knowing all the relations, obviously everyone will start thinking so "what created all these relations" that I think will forever be a mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why?

let's say i walk into a room blindfolded, spin around for a full minute, and then shoot an arrow from a bow. 24 hours later i come back and do the same thing.

now waterdog walks in the room, sees two arrows within an inch of each other, and heads off to locate the archer that was obviously there to ask him why he was interested in firing arrows at that specific point in the wall since there was no target painted on the wall.

so there's the sun/moon thing. what amuses me more is the relationship with the 'life elsewhere' thing:

waterdog and i kite a plane to africa, and as soon as i step off i notice a very interesting flower. i observe aloud how nice it looks, and how i look forward to finding some more to pick or purchase and bring back home for my girlfriend to see.

now waterdog says definitively that the flower is unique, that no others at all like it exist on the continent of africa.

so what's it going to be, dude? you can't draw blind inferrences about the moon because of the not-so-random-seeming placement of the earth, claim it's logical, and still go forward to state that (despite the fact that earth represents the smallest of fractions of a universe we haven't begun to explore) human life is absolutely unique. those kind of perspectives can only be drawn from an assumption that everything has purpose. i would challenge you to prove that contention before you go on to use it as some sort of a plinth for half-assed rationalizations to back up a belief.

from the perspective of random placement, given how large we know the universe to be, it would seem extremely unlikely that such a sun/moon size situation didn't exist. from the perspective of logic, given how large we know the universe to be, it would seem extremely unlikely that life such as ours has not been or could not be duplicated elsewhere.

the onus is on you to prove that everything has purpose for your claim to begin to be considered by people who don't - and you can't bring god into it, because that's circular 'proof'.

really, you would have been better off saying, 'i'm happy and in love with my wife, therefore god exists.' that's something even cynics can smile about and simply nod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the fool. :P

I do believe in a 'creator', but I do not see how a coincidence can be considered proof of such.

Wow, all the pinecones that fell off my tree made what could roughly be considered to be the letter 'B', that must mean that God's name is BOB!!!

Coincidences are not proof. Likewise, lack of proof is not proof of a negative. (i.e. just because we can't prove that God DOES exist, doesn't prove that He DOESN'T.) Also, just because something cannot be DISPROVEN does not make it true. (i.e. we can't DISPROVE God's existence either, but that doesn't mean that it's proof that He DOES exist. It means we don't have proof one way or the other.)

'Proof' implies something that cannot logically be explained by any other reason. Random chance is a perfectly logical explanation for why the moon appears ALMOST the same size as the sun. If it can be explained some other way, then what you have is evidence. Evidence can be disproven, or proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "fact" you are quoting is in fact an exaggeration.

average diameter of the moon ~= 2160 miles

average distance from earth ~= 238857 miles (keep in mind orbits are ELIPTICAL, NOT CIRCULAR, so the distance you refer to isn't even a constant)

lunar distance/diameter ratio = 110.582

average diameter of the sun ~= 1392000 km (864949mi)

average distance from earth ~= 149600000 km (92957130mi)

ratio = 107.471

So even taking the averages which the sun is close to in spring/fall, rather than the 3 million miles closer we get during the winter (in northern hemisphere), it is almost 3% larger visually than the moon. (During winter its a 6% difference).

That's not so impressively close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many varied responses to reply to all, but thanks for the opinions.

1) Notice in my title of the thread, I included a question mark, thus implying that the matter was not decided, and thus open to debate. One definition of proof is a 'convincing or persuasive demonstration'--some would say this astronomical coincidence is just that, convincing.

2) I am amazed at the general lack of amazement of this group of people at something which is fantastically amazing. Glug is the worst offender of the group, seemingly yawning in boredom at the whole matter.

Whether you gravitate to the religious explanation or the 'roll of the dice' explanation, you should be astounded. Any alien visiting earth would ask in amazement, 'Your moon does what?'

3) I will deal with the probability of alien life in my next post.

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astrophysicist (and Christian) Hugh Ross PhD lists 200 variables that have to be fine-tuned in order for life (as we know it) to exist. Here are a few:

1) galaxy cluster type

if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit

if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

2) galaxy size

if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun¡¯s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.

if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time.

galaxy type

if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.

if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.

3) galaxy mass distribution

if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation.

if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabilized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms.

4) galaxy location

if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted

if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted.

if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation

5) supernovae eruptions

if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.

His summation (found here) is as follows:

Probability for occurrence of all 200 parameters ¡s 10-237

Maximum possible number of planets in universe ¡s 10-22

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10-215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

His conclusions are (of course) open to debate. Hey, even O.J. Simpson's guilt/innocence was open to debate. The point is, the model of our universe propogated by Star Trek and Star Wars is false. Our own solar system proves that. As far as we know, none of the other planets in our solar system support life. Therefore I contend the following:

With the current state of our knowledge concerning our universe and a proper analysis of statistics, a right-thinking person must choose ONE of the following 2 theorems as true:

1) God created the Universe and designed it specifically for humankind.

2) Life on planet earth is the biggest fortuity/fluke/happenstance ever realized and we are COMPLETELY alone in the universe. Life is precious beyond our imagination because of its rarity.

wrap your post-modernistic Trekkie UFO-ology x-files brains around that....

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many varied responses to reply to all, but thanks for the opinions.

1) Notice in my title of the thread, I included a question mark, thus implying that the matter was not decided, and thus open to debate. One definition of proof is a  'convincing or persuasive demonstration'--some would say this astronomical coincidence is just that, convincing.

2) I am amazed at the general lack of amazement of this group of people at something which is fantastically amazing. Glug is the worst offender of the group, seemingly yawning in boredom at the whole matter.

Whether you gravitate to the religious explanation or the 'roll of the dice' explanation, you should be astounded. Any alien visiting earth would ask in amazement, 'Your moon does what?'

3) I will deal with the probability of alien life in my next post.

Waterdog

Not to be a wet blanket, but the fact is that we DO know why the moon and sun look nearly the same size -- it has to do with their relative positions. The reason why they have those relative positions is due to the relative masses and forces of gravity involved. There is a scientific explanation, and there it is.

Unless you are asking why in the sense of what is the significance of the similarity in size, which seems like such a long shot for a random coincidence?

I can only answer that any answer to that question will ultimately be circular, as the question assumes a significance where the simplest answer truly is "coincidence." Jupiter and Mars look about the same size, too. So what? For that matter, our closed fists are about the same size as our heart. What are the odds? What does it mean?

Just to say where I currently stand, I'm pretty much agnostic, leaning towards atheist, but at the same time I do believe in something beyond the material, something spiritual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the current state of our knowledge concerning our universe and a proper analysis of statistics, a right-thinking person must choose ONE of the following 2 theorems as true:

1) God created the Universe and designed it specifically for humankind.

2) Life on planet earth is the biggest fortuity/fluke/happenstance ever realized and we are COMPLETELY alone in the universe. Life is precious beyond our imagination because of its rarity.

Sounds like the good old argument from design. Aside from the logical issue of what designed god, tell me how this scientist calculated the odds he did considering to calculate the odds of anything, you have to know and count up ALL the possible outcomes, and determine how many of the total would result in the event for which you are judging the odds. I'm curious as to how he arrived at these numbers.

And by the way -- assuming I accept all your arguments about the odds, I can't see any means by which to select between 1 and 2; both are equally unproven, as well as equally unprovable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
`
Maximum possible number of planets in universe ¡s 10-22

lol

With the current state of our knowledge concerning our universe and a proper analysis of statistics, a right-thinking person must choose ONE of the following 2 theorems as true

i present to you a third theorem:

3) nutjobs on internet forums that quote a singular source (without reference material) are not to be trusted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many varied responses to reply to all, but thanks for the opinions.

1) Notice in my title of the thread, I included a question mark, thus implying that the matter was not decided, and thus open to debate. One definition of proof is a  'convincing or persuasive demonstration'--some would say this astronomical coincidence is just that, convincing.

2) I am amazed at the general lack of amazement of this group of people at something which is fantastically amazing. Glug is the worst offender of the group, seemingly yawning in boredom at the whole matter.

Whether you gravitate to the religious explanation or the 'roll of the dice' explanation, you should be astounded. Any alien visiting earth would ask in amazement, 'Your moon does what?'

3) I will deal with the probability of alien life in my next post.

Waterdog

I'm always amazed when I look at the moon, it's insipirational. Add rain or fog it looks crazy.

I did realize that you put a question mark that's why I avoided the probability talk which leads to nowhere.

In addition, a statement must be proven for it to be true, you cannot say that if there's no disproof or there's no proof therefore... etc.

If Kepler's laws, Tycho Brahe's measurements, and Newton's law of gravitation were ignored then you have no proof to discredit; the earth is the center of the universe, or the earth orbits the sun constructing a circle.

I dont believe in either explanation, except sometimes religion has some things in it that triggers question leading to scientific discoveries, here's an odd example; Newton searched feverously through the Book of Daniel to find the location of Heaven, and topography of Hell. And his main drive was to prove astronimical data to correspond with events in the bible. -Howard Anton, Calculus and Analyical Geometry, 6th Ed.

I took a stellar astrophysics course and the probability is in fact very low, simply because the energy and time involved in reactions between clusters (in what's termed planetary nebulae) must be in some specific nature (I forget the conditions), but it almost always turns out to a star, (if anything) which is itself pretty rare. And since there's a neutron star collapsing every ten seconds with all the UV and gamma radiation emitted for light years, from an observable point, you can realize why life is so precious,

This is a Great discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astrophysicist (and Christian) Hugh Ross PhD lists 200 variables that have to be fine-tuned in order for life (as we know it) to exist. Here are a few:

With the current state of our knowledge concerning our universe and a proper analysis of statistics, a right-thinking person must choose ONE of the following 2 theorems as true:

1) God created the Universe and designed it specifically for humankind.

2) Life on planet earth is the biggest fortuity/fluke/happenstance ever realized and we are COMPLETELY alone in the universe. Life is precious beyond our imagination because of its rarity.

I've seen many 'formulas' such as this. Not only that, but I've seen the same formula used both FOR and AGAINST the argument of life on other planets. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they are the only expert, or even that they are right. (Even Einstein was wrong in his original theory of relativity, as he later admitted.)

The simple fact is that we don't have enough information to do the calculation. Some of the major calculations in these are "what percentage of star systems have planets", "what percentage of planets are the right size and distance from their star to hold life", "how often the chemical elements combine to produce simple protiens" and "how often do simple protiens combine to produce a 'living' organism." We don't know the answers to those, plus many others.

We have only just started to discover planets around other stars in the past 10 years. Right now, we can only detect Jupiter-sized planets (I think a few smaller ones have been detected, but nothing Earth-sized, IIRC.) But, we have found that a very large percentage of the star systems we survey have planets! (Greater than 50% of those searched, again, IIRC.) Twelve years ago, most scientists who were doing these calculations assumed low percentages for star systems with planets. Now it looks like lots of systems have planets, and we can't even detect small planets yet. For all we know, our nine-planet (eight, ten, count however you like...) might be BELOW average. Of course, it could also be above average. We just don't know.

And as for the protiens producing life? Well, in laboratory experiments, we've been able to randomly produce protiens, but most of those experiments have been considered suspect. Of course, on Earth, by most estimates, it took over 1 billion years for simple protiens to turn into living organisms, then FOUR billion more to even move to multi-cellular organisms. Was our planet a fluke? Is it so rare for simple protiens to turn into life, that we're the only planet with life? I doubt it. Is it so rare for simple life to turn into complex life that we're the only planet with complex life? I doubt it. Again, evolving to intelligent life took about another 1 billion years (if my numbers are wrong, I'm sorry, I'm doing this off the top of my head, as quick google searches aren't turning up what I'm looking for. I'm probably using the wrong search phrases.) And humans have only been an 'intelligent' species for a few thousand (maybe tens of thousands at most) years. We know that the dinosaurs were here for millions of years. Why didn't some dinosaur species become intelligent? We don't know.

What it all comes down to is that it isn't just 2 theorems. You have to add two more (at least:)

3) Life is common. The laws of physics are such that the odds of intelligent life ocurring are so high, that we just have to go to the next star system to find it. But, the laws of physics also are such that interstellar travel really is out of the easy reach of even the most advanced societies. (Hey, we could send people to Alpha Centauri in a couple decades at the rate technology is increasing, but it wouldn't be worth the trip, as thousands of years would pass on Earth in the mean time.)

4) Life is the end result of what <insert your religion's term for the creator of the universe here> started. Maybe humans are the direct end result of this, on purpose. But it doesn't rule out other life elsewhere. Heck, it doesn't even rule out that <deity> didn't create other 'special children' on other planets.

As for me? I believe in a creator. I closely follow the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith in beliefs (I believe that a man named Jesus lived about 2000 years ago, I believe that he thought he was the son of God, and that he believed that he died to save us from sin. I waffle on the truth of his statements.) I also have a very scientific mind, and believe that anything is possible until disproven, and nothing is indisputable until proven. Hence, I believe alot *COULD* be true, but doubt most of it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one are not amazed by this "proof" of Gods existance. (What God by the way? there is a lot to choose from). First of all I've heard it before and second I have too agree with Glug, it's not that impressively exact ;)

I think "God" could have made a lot of better "proofs" in that case, like the year being exactly 400 days long, or there being exactly 10 months in a year, made PI exacly 3, or something like that more useful.

... and since the moon is slowly distancing itself for Earth (I would if I had such a strange neighbour <_< ) this apparent fact will become less and less exact... Hmm... maybe it was more exact a couple of hundred million years ago? Ahhh! God it not a whitebearded man sitting on a cloud somewhere, he's a dinosaur who created the Tyrannosaurus Rex in his image and is pissed off with us taking over! Scaaaary :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many varied responses to reply to all, but thanks for the opinions.

1) Notice in my title of the thread, I included a question mark, thus implying that the matter was not decided, and thus open to debate. One definition of proof is a  'convincing or persuasive demonstration'--some would say this astronomical coincidence is just that, convincing.

2) I am amazed at the general lack of amazement of this group of people at something which is fantastically amazing. Glug is the worst offender of the group, seemingly yawning in boredom at the whole matter.

Whether you gravitate to the religious explanation or the 'roll of the dice' explanation, you should be astounded. Any alien visiting earth would ask in amazement, 'Your moon does what?'

3) I will deal with the probability of alien life in my next post.

Waterdog

It is not uncommon for the lesser minded to attribute to supernatural forces phenomenon that is beyond their comprehension.

That many here aren't amazed simply shows that this example is not beyond their comprehension. That nows gives you two things that are beyond your comprehension, this moon thing, which is not quite an accurate representation of the facts as you presented it, and the lack of amazement on the part of others.

To the unamazed, watch out for accusations that you are in league with the devil any minute now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the unamazed, watch out for accusations that you are in league with the devil any minute now.

I dunno, I'm not sure I'd mind being in the league with the devil. Ever since I've known what the devil/satan is supposed to be (I was raised Christian Scientist, and they do not have "satan"), I've pictured him as a kind of Prometheus character. For those unfamiliar with Prometheus, he gave fire (among other things) to humans, despite Zeus' determination that they should not have it. He was subsequently punished.

This isn't altogether unlike the myth of satan who gives knowledge of good and evil to Adam and Eve, despite a God that wished humans to remain ignorant. It has always echoed very strongly for me.

Call me a heretic. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now