The Moon and Design

Originally posted by chaney3
I will certainly think twice before entering here again Ghost. 🙂

A lead pipe is fine.

I often pop into this forum to learn something from people who really know what they are talking about.

Bring unscientific nonsense in here at your peril.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I often pop into this forum to learn something from people who really know what they are talking about.

Bring unscientific nonsense in here at your peril.

The hardcore atheism in this forum doesn't help.

Atheism is not a prerequisite for science, that much I do know.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's all you've got? Did you even bother to read my post? What do you think of my argument. What flaws do you see in it?

[b]I'm curious twitehead, do you have any respect at all for ANY scientist that may believe in Design?
Sure. I have a lot of respect for many Christians and people of other religions. I have no respect for people who claim th ...[text shortened]... hion instead of dodging at every turn. I want to steal it so I can get myself a million dollars.[/b]

My OP suggests Design.

If I could really prove a designer, or God, it would change the world. But obviously I cannot do that.

At the same time though, you cannot prove 'No God", unless you think you can?

We then will agree to disagree?

The name 'God particle' interests me, as I said to humy. Do you know why they named it God particle? Seems somebody thought enough of God to name it that, a scientist likely.

Originally posted by chaney3
The orbit of the moon, and the size fluctuations are part of the design, along with the exact distance between the sun and moon at the time of an eclipse.

This is not a cosmic accident.

Repeated insistence does not an argument make.

Originally posted by chaney3
My OP suggests Design.

If I could really prove a designer, or God, it would change the world. But obviously I cannot do that.

At the same time though, you cannot prove 'No God", unless you think you can?

We then will agree to disagree?

The name 'God particle' interests me, as I said to humy. Do you know why they named it God particle? Seems somebody thought enough of God to name it that, a scientist likely.

Actually it is called the "God particle" because someone named it the "goddamn particle" in some book and it was censored by the editor.

The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" in popular media outside the scientific community.[173][174][175][176][177] The nickname comes from the title of the 1993 book on the Higgs boson and particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Nobel Physics prizewinner and Fermilab director Leon Lederman.[24] Lederman wrote it in the context of failing US government support for the Superconducting Super Collider,[178] a part-constructed titanic[179][180] competitor to the Large Hadron Collider with planned collision energies of 2 × 20 TeV that was championed by Lederman since its 1983 inception[178][181][182] and shut down in 1993. The book sought in part to promote awareness of the significance and need for such a project in the face of its possible loss of funding.[183] Lederman, a leading researcher in the field, wanted to title his book The Goddamn Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? But his editor decided that the title was too controversial and convinced Lederman to change the title to The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?[184]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Nickname

Originally posted by chaney3


At the same time though, you cannot prove 'No God", unless you think you can?

We can prove there isn't the young-Earth anti-evolution kind of God;
The evidence for old Earth and evolution does just that.
In contrast, you can show no evidence that the Earth is young and Goddidit.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually it is called the "God particle" because someone named it the "goddamn particle" in some book and it was censored by the editor.

The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" in popular media outside the scientific community.[173][174][175][176][177] The nickname comes from the title of the 1993 book on the Higgs boson and ...[text shortened]... e Answer, What is the Question?[184]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Nickname

Lederman is an atheist. It surprises me that he agreed on the term God particle at the editor's request. You would think if a new title was needed, he would demand that God be kept out of it. Strange.

Originally posted by humy
We can prove there isn't the young-Earth anti-evolution kind of God;
The evidence for old Earth and evolution does just that.
In contrast, you can show no evidence that the Earth is young and Goddidit.

I believe that the earth was created by God, or Design.

But I offer no proof of God, or when. I am not an enemy of science, and do try to listen.

The difference between me and you is that while I respect science, as you do, I still leave room for God's involvement, despite my lack of proof.

Originally posted by chaney3
I believe that the earth was created by God, or Design.

But I offer no proof of God, or when. I am not an enemy of science, and do try to listen.

The difference between me and you is that while I respect science, as you do, I still leave room for God's involvement, despite my lack of proof.

Listen, believe whatever you want. There is no way to rule out "Intellegent Design". Any Scientist worth his salt knows that. Personally, when I see elegent pattern, after pattern, after pattern... arise in our understanding of the universe, I think "design" myself. The problem I have, is I'm not sure if it isn't my own brain that is designing it. Personally I choose to abstain from absolute judgement.

However, even if you do make a judgement, I can assure you there is no point in discussing that judgement here. The way I see it, the very first self aware beings probably had it right. “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” ( William Blake). Basically I think science is taking the long scenic ( and very fruitful ) route to "Design" in one form or another. It just may take until the end of time before we find out.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Listen, believe whatever you want. There is no way to rule out "Intellegent Design". Any Scientist worth his salt knows that. Personally, when I see elegent pattern, after pattern, after pattern... arise in our understanding of the universe, I think "design" myself. The problem I have, is I'm not sure if it isn't my own brain that is designing it. Per ...[text shortened]... to "Design" in one form or another. It just may take until the end of time before we find out.

An excellent and refreshing, open minded post.

Appreciated.

Originally posted by chaney3
The hardcore atheism in this forum doesn't help.

Nonsense. Almost no one here has expressed 'hard core atheism'. You just can't seem to handle criticism and interpret it as opposition to your beliefs. Almost all posters have merely pointed out that your OP's claim is outright wrong. You don't understand how an eclipse works. That isn't 'hard core atheism' that is just plain honestly telling you you have got it wrong.

Originally posted by chaney3
My OP suggests Design.

So you keep saying. Oddly enough, you keep saying it even after it is demonstrated that the basic claim in the OP is patently false. Why do you keep saying it even when you know you are wrong?

If I could really prove a designer, or God, it would change the world. But obviously I cannot do that.
Why is it obvious that you cannot do that? It isn't obvious to me. Either you have a good argument for why something suggests design or you do not. Which is it?

At the same time though, you cannot prove 'No God", unless you think you can?
I can prove 'No God' for many well defined descriptions of God.I cannot prove it for any possible meaning of the word 'God' as that would not make sense.

The name 'God particle' interests me, as I said to humy. Do you know why they named it God particle?
I am sure a quick Google search will tell you who named it and why. I will make a guess right here and now that the person who named it did not believe in God.
But lets suppose it was named by a Christian scientist. What would that demonstrate? Nothing more than the fact that a Christian scientist thought it was funny to name that particle the 'God particle'. It doesn't demonstrate that he thought he had found God in a particle, nor does it demonstrate that God exists.

Originally posted by chaney3
I am not an enemy of science, and do try to listen.

That it a blatant lie. You have been flatly refusing to listen from the start of this thread until now. I see no sign whatsoever that you have given even a moments thought to how an eclipse actually works. You are so desperate to maintain that you see design that you will not for a moment consider that you may be wrong in your OP with regards to eclipses.
You came here thinking you were all clever and could prove design to those atheist sciency types and are a little disappointed that it didn't work. But you show no signs that you are willing to actually learn anything or listen to others.
I suggest you start by looking up on Wikipedia how eclipses work and what the moons orbit actually is. Even better, download a solar system simulator and study it and try adjusting the moons orbit and see what happens. Don't be scared, learning a bit of science won't turn you into an atheist. It will just stop you so easily making a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by chaney3

The difference between me and you is that while I respect science, as you do, I still leave room for God's involvement, despite my lack of proof.

NO, there is no room for YOUR anti-evolution God in science because of the proof of evolution.

And the difference between me and you is that I believe whatever the evidence says regardless of whether I want what it says (and what it says is often what I do NOT want to be true but I still accept it), while you believe whatever you want to believe, which happens to be your religion, regardless of what the evidence says.
That means I am against religion and for science while you are for religion and against science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Don't be scared, learning a bit of science won't turn you into an atheist.

It might.

😉