ChatterBank1 min ago
Is a Solar Eclipse evidence of a divine purpose?
26 Answers
It is, according to this religious commentator;
http://
coincidence-prof-dawkins/
From the article;
"One more thing I find intriguing. The sun is huge and ninety-three million miles away and the small moon is in our backyard, a mere quarter of a million miles away. Yet in an eclipse their discs precisely cover each other. Don’t therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way. It’s just a cosmic coincidence, isn’t it, Professor Dawkins?"
Well actually, yes, it is coincidence :) We know this, because science tells us about the variation from the perfect circular orbit of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth.What kind of a god wants to be associated with slapdash wobbly and eccentric orbits?
We also know, from science, that the size of the corona and hence the aesthetic impact, will vary from eclipse event to eclipse event. And indeed, in a few thousand years time science tells us that a "total eclipse" will look very different, since the moon is gradually receding from the earth. This knowledge only adds to the awesomeness though :) And because science tells us how eclipses occur, we also know that an eclipse cannot be considered some sort of exclusive message from god to mankind, since eclipses happen elsewhere within the solar system, indeed, throughout the galaxy.
The good doctor neatly illustrates a point some posters here have repeatedly inferred. That a science perspective or a rational understanding of a phenomenon somehow chills or degrades our aesthetic sense, whist having religion faith, or a spiritual belief, somehow enhances and warms our aesthetic appreciation.
But neither proposition is true. Understanding a phenomenon can only enhance our appreciation, our sense of wonder, because not only do we experience the visceral, sensory impact of a phenomenon, our intellect also experiences and is stimulated by the knowledge of the mechanics. Its like having a shot of expresso in a cappucino.
http://
coincidence-prof-dawkins/
From the article;
"One more thing I find intriguing. The sun is huge and ninety-three million miles away and the small moon is in our backyard, a mere quarter of a million miles away. Yet in an eclipse their discs precisely cover each other. Don’t therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way. It’s just a cosmic coincidence, isn’t it, Professor Dawkins?"
Well actually, yes, it is coincidence :) We know this, because science tells us about the variation from the perfect circular orbit of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth.What kind of a god wants to be associated with slapdash wobbly and eccentric orbits?
We also know, from science, that the size of the corona and hence the aesthetic impact, will vary from eclipse event to eclipse event. And indeed, in a few thousand years time science tells us that a "total eclipse" will look very different, since the moon is gradually receding from the earth. This knowledge only adds to the awesomeness though :) And because science tells us how eclipses occur, we also know that an eclipse cannot be considered some sort of exclusive message from god to mankind, since eclipses happen elsewhere within the solar system, indeed, throughout the galaxy.
The good doctor neatly illustrates a point some posters here have repeatedly inferred. That a science perspective or a rational understanding of a phenomenon somehow chills or degrades our aesthetic sense, whist having religion faith, or a spiritual belief, somehow enhances and warms our aesthetic appreciation.
But neither proposition is true. Understanding a phenomenon can only enhance our appreciation, our sense of wonder, because not only do we experience the visceral, sensory impact of a phenomenon, our intellect also experiences and is stimulated by the knowledge of the mechanics. Its like having a shot of expresso in a cappucino.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Isaiah 40:26 answers: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name.” Psalm 147:4 says: “He is counting the number of the stars.” What is “the number of the stars”? That is not a simple question. Astronomers estimate that there are over 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy alone. But ours is just one of many galaxies, and many of those swarm with even more stars. How many galaxies are there? Some astronomers have estimated 50 billion. Others have calculated that there may be as many as 125 billion. So man cannot even determine the number of galaxies, let alone the exact sum of all the billions of stars they contain. Yet, Jehovah knows that number. Moreover, he gives each star its own name!,So you know who I look to for answers
seeing that this flared straight out of the Watchtower, chakka, I don't think an original sensible comment from goodlife will emerge from his sun.
http
http
A a man of discernment, Solomon found that mirth and laughter alone are not satisfying, for they do not produce real and lasting happiness. Laughter may help us to forget your problems temporarily, but afterward they may loom up to an even greater degree. Solomon could rightly speak of laughter as “insanity.” Why? Because thoughtless laughter beclouds sound judgment. It may cause us to take very serious matters lightly. The kind of rejoicing associated with the words and actions of a court jester cannot be pointed to as producing something worthwhile. Discerning the import of Solomon’s experiment with laughter and mirth helps me to avoid Foolishness (Ecclesiastes 2:1, 2)
Thee problem is, Goodlife, that to accept your arguments as valid one must start from your basic, unstated principle, that the Bible is the direct word of God himself and is true in every respect. Unfortunately, not only atheists and members of non-Christian faiths reject this argument, but so do also devout Christians of other denominations. Consider this: why does the Authorised Version of the Old Testament exclude certain books (The Apocrypha) which are accepted into the canon of the Old Testament by the Catholic church? The answer is that those books point to a specific doctrine accepted by the Church of Rome but denied by Protestants. It was man who decided what should go into the Bible, not God.
goodlife // So man cannot even determine the number of galaxies, let alone the exact sum of all the billions of stars they contain. Yet, Jehovah knows that number. Moreover, he gives each star its own name! //
And why does Jehovah not tell us all those names?
Because it would take many more times the whole history of the Universe to say them. Even if they were short names the sheer number of them would take unimaginably long to speak them.
Then contemplate how long the vast majority of the names would have to be for each one to be unique. Indeed the longest of the names would take more than a lifetime to speak just one.
Goodlife's proposition is inane. Anyone could claim to know the number and just choose not to say. It is like a child boasting of something they are completely ignorant about.
Moreover it was science, not the Bible that revealed the nature of stars and the place of the Earth in the Universe. Like the other Holy book the writers of the Bible didn't have a clue. Yet the church threatened to kill anyone who claimed other than their facile doctrine.
And why does Jehovah not tell us all those names?
Because it would take many more times the whole history of the Universe to say them. Even if they were short names the sheer number of them would take unimaginably long to speak them.
Then contemplate how long the vast majority of the names would have to be for each one to be unique. Indeed the longest of the names would take more than a lifetime to speak just one.
Goodlife's proposition is inane. Anyone could claim to know the number and just choose not to say. It is like a child boasting of something they are completely ignorant about.
Moreover it was science, not the Bible that revealed the nature of stars and the place of the Earth in the Universe. Like the other Holy book the writers of the Bible didn't have a clue. Yet the church threatened to kill anyone who claimed other than their facile doctrine.
goodlife //The kind of rejoicing associated with the words and actions of a court jester cannot be pointed to as producing something worthwhile. Discerning the import of Solomon’s experiment with laughter and mirth helps me to avoid Foolishness (Ecclesiastes 2:1, 2) //
Science tells us that laughter is good for our health so the Bible is once again shown to be wrong. Solomon was an idiot.
Science tells us that laughter is good for our health so the Bible is once again shown to be wrong. Solomon was an idiot.
Yes, you will never find outstanding reason for trusting the Bible is that the Bible’s advice has always proved practical and beneficial whenever people trusted it enough to apply it, and finding out religious truth better than living under a delusion? And it better to know the facts than to be manipulated by lies, how sad.
@goodlife
You posted that it was "better to know the facts than to be manipulated by lies, how sad."
Could not agree more. It is a pity your own religious cult routinely reject facts, preferring the fictions of your own interpretations of a book of fable, all the way looking forward to the catastrophic and apocalyptic end to humanity.
You posted that it was "better to know the facts than to be manipulated by lies, how sad."
Could not agree more. It is a pity your own religious cult routinely reject facts, preferring the fictions of your own interpretations of a book of fable, all the way looking forward to the catastrophic and apocalyptic end to humanity.
Goodlife, you keep asserting that the bible contains 'facts'.
Your understanding of the definition of the word 'fact' is greatly at variance with that which I have.
A book of Chinese Whispers, edited and re-edited over the centuries by *men* where only the prevailing current thought was acceptable for inclusion can hardly be deemed to be in any way factual.
Your understanding of the definition of the word 'fact' is greatly at variance with that which I have.
A book of Chinese Whispers, edited and re-edited over the centuries by *men* where only the prevailing current thought was acceptable for inclusion can hardly be deemed to be in any way factual.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.