Risking repeating myself…
In the summer of 2017, around the time of the total eclipse of the sun, I read where one secular astronomer called the fact that the disc of the moon in the sky so closely matches the disc of the sun “magic”.
The universe was designed to be discovered – from here, with our special moon. Huge amounts of knowledge about how stars and the universe work has been discovered – and more is still being discovered – during total solar eclipses. And that is not to mention all of the other details about why so much of the cosmos is visable, unobstructed, from here, and during mankind’s occupancy of the planet.
It’s funny, but the expression ‘fine-tuning’ comes to mind.
Not unrelated: A Small Big Universe
So all the stuff that isn’t visible is evidence against the universe being designed for discovery, right? Every cubic angstrom of space obscured by a particle of dust is now things that contradict your hypothesis.
That is hardly the only design criteria. I’m surprised that @Patrick, the engineer, ‘liked’ your post. In any design, there are trade-offs and multiple competing factors and optimums to be achieved, no one factor necessarily completely excluding all others. The same holds in artistic endeavors, as well.
The moon was created on creation week and in a perfect nature. This about 6000 years ago.
it did not migrate or break off the earth or any other thing in the universe. those are myths to deny obvious things. they just can’t say the moon evolved out of particles.
Ahh so when things are relatively “easy” to discover, you will take that as evidence that they were designed to be discoverable. And when things aren’t so easy to discover, you will rationalize it away as being due to some sort of trade-off or constraint.
It appears then, very ironically, that you have made it impossible for yourself to discover if you are in fact wrong about whether the discoverability of something is evidence that it was designed to be discovered.
Of course one has to wonder whether you even have any idea how easy it should be to discover something if it was designed to be able to be discovered. It seems to be concievable that there is a spectrum of “discoverability” ranging from instantly obvious, through taking hard work and lots of thinking and experimentation, to unknowable/impossible to discover.
What are the relative proportions of things “designed to be discoverable” must follow in order for us to be able to reliably infer that they were in fact made and arranged for that purpose? How many discoverable and how many undiscoverable things must there be for the proportions to be a problem? How easy must they be to discover?
Let’s not kid ourselves, you haven’t the slightest of clues. Nor does any apologist making these discoverability arguments. No matter how difficult or easy it is to discover something, you could argue that God made it that way, and you have zero idea what a God would actually do. It’s all just ad-hoc rationalization.
Maybe for beings with limited knowledge and power…
We don’t live in a Marvel comic that you guys are proposing. And you’re ignoring the little detail about the moon, not to mention hundreds more “anthropic coincidents”.
Which ‘little detail’?
How many millions of “anthropic noncoincidents” are you ignoring, Dale?
All the ones that do not apply to the earth, why?
No, the ones that do apply to the earth.
List them and I’ll tell you which ones I’m ignoring.
Nobody is ignoring anything. We’re saying you don’t have a model that actually predicts what the frequency of “discoverable” things should be, or the degree to which they should be discoverable. It isn’t clear that you can even quantify discoverability in any rigorous sense.
That means you don’t even have an argument, and you certainly can’t have evidence for a hypothesis without having an actual hypothesis. You have some vague, nebulous idea about “coincidences”, but nothing that predicts these coincidences should be the way they are, or how many of them there should be, or even what really counts as a coincidence or not.
You seem to be so desperate to advertise for your religion that you don’t even care whether the things you say make sense. And they don’t. We are asking you to do science and philosophy properly. What’s this “marvel comic” nonsense you’re talking about?
For how many planets in the universe is the local star matchingly obscured to the same degree of accuracy as the Sun-Moon, by the angular diameter of some other local celestial body? Do you even know?
Why would a secular astronomer call the fact that our moon so perfectly matches the disc of the sun, due to their respective diameters and proportional distances, “magic”?
…and have an intelligent species available to observe it?
Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? “Person X used this word”?
No amount of “secular astronomers” using the word “magic” to describe some relationship is going to rescue your argument here. In order to be able to claim that you have evidence that something was designed for “discoverability”, you’re going to need a model that describes and predicts what that something being “designed for discoverability” should be like, and what it should not be like. But all you have is ad-hoc and motivated reasoning. You don’t have a model and you have predicted nothing. You are just declaring particular pieces of data to have been designed for “discoverability” after they are found.
What difference would that make? The point you appear to be trying to make is that it would be very unlikely, if we picked a planet in the universe at random to put intelligent life on, that it would happen to have a moon or other local celestial body nearby that accurately obscures the local star. Right?