Are solar eclipses proof of God?

a reply to: chr0naut

these flat earthers are out of touch with what the Bible really says.

a reply to: Noinden

I remember one poster already showed the mathematics are there even from sources who are not Christian.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

It is however not proof of anything. Mathematics is not a religion. It is how one applies it. So if I took some thermodynamics equations, and showed using first principals that my Polytheism is valid ... does that make it so? No. Because it is not proof of anything. The mathematics that the author used, is not based on scientific method, its taking some numbers, and pretending it shows that Jehovah is in the decimal places

So I reiterate the article is utter BS. IT shows no such thing as "god" in it.

originally posted by: okrian
In 4 billion years the Milky Way is going to collide with Andromeda and everything will be destroyed (if we don't do it before that). Is poor universe design also proof of god?

This is not correct.There will be no collision and destruction.The distance between all the celestial bodies are immense and will never come in contact with each other .The galaxies will simply merge over millions of years.

a reply to: Rex282

Yeah that is correct. Though it is still a "collision" in the stellar sense, and the Black holes at the center of each galaxy are likely to merge too (in time).

More importantly, the earth as we know it, will not be habitable at that stage anyway, so unless we (as a species) find a new place (or places to live), we're not seeing this happen

a reply to: Noinden

I agree the article shows no god.

I think the point of the author is that the placement i.e. distance, and size of the moon and sun which are seen from the earth, which involves mathematics, seem to hint at an intelligent design. The math shows that the extreme odds that they are set in a perfect position as to cause many times a total eclipse of the sun by the moon as seen from the earth.

There is a link someone put earlier shows the math he talks about being used are correct. Though the article may not prove there being any god, it does show that this may not have happened by accident, therefore there could be the chance that there was a designer who put these things in place so we could see them the way we do.

Basically the author is trying to say that there must be an intelligence behind creation of what we observe.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The calculations are flawed.

He shows no margins of error. Thus when he calculates a meaningless ration (what is the ratio of sun to earth, and moon to earth supposed to demonstrate again?) he gets 400.452 (thus he is quoting to 6 significant figures) for the Sun and Earth, and 389.121 for the earth and moon. They are not that close. Certainly not remotely perfect. He ignores the fact that orbits are elliptical not circular as well.

SO through the use of meaningless calculations he is trying show that this "perfect" (except its not, by his own calculations) world, shows that Jehovah is real.

It is called a non-sequitur. No such conclusions can be made.

So while the "mathematics" is "correct". The mathematics is not a proof of anything. It is just the proof that if you divide two numbers you get a number. IT is a non rigorous calculation. I could claim looking at those numbers that it is "proof that the uncertainty of the mathematics shows that my Polytheistic belief is proven over monotheistic". I'd be full of fecal matter, but I could claim that

We are talking about a gnosis, a spiritual knowledge, which is based on a non verifiable belief. Yet the author is trying to (badly) use eídein (intellectual knowledge) to verify the un-verifiable.

So basically the author can not prove his supposition. Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: HappyFisherman

originally posted by: Illumimasontruth

originally posted by: HappyFisherman

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The moon is getting further and further away also. Eventually a total eclipse will no longer be possible.

Is this even true? Source?

Yes, it is true. A quick Google search would confirm, and you could prove it yourself.

If I recall correctly the 1st Apollo landing allowed for a laser experiment which proved this as fact.

Then we are truly living in our own time frame. Does it not strike you as odd that the sun and moon are the same size to our own visible perception, and they both eclipse to our Earth born observational realty?

Do you ignorant rejects ever tire of your nonsense?

Or is forced perspective a foreign concept?

Oh my gherd!!! My hand blocks the sun therefore my hand is bigger than the sun!!!! Science!!!

I don't think so, but I am fairly certain that daylight saving time is proof of a god. When we set the clocks back an hour in autumn or an hour forward in spring, how else would the sun know that it is supposed to adjust accordingly by rising later in the autumn/winter and rising earlier in the spring/summer?

a reply to: Noinden

that light difference is why we still see a ring of sun during a full solar eclipse.

It is his opinion that it MAY prove The LORD God Almighty, Jesus Christ is real.

You did notice that his article title is a Question which means it is questionable if it proves God or not.

So your arguments are moot seeing I nor him made any claim that They prove God.

So verify this what is the time measurement of "from everlasting to everlasting"?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

There is no such thing as ever lasting. Eventually the stars will die out. Black holes will lose their energy. Planets will die. Species will go extinct. No matter the time frame. No matter the multiverse... all energy and life will cease.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oy .....

The problem with this argument you are pressing is that the author of that article you posted, is pushing a "Unverifiable Personal (or probably Shared) Gnosis. The first word is the important part. Unverifiable... for all the pretense that meaningless, undirected "mathematics" will "prove" something. It is not proof of anything, because it can not be proven.

I could add my own take on Jesus, the (so called) supremacy of Jehovah etc. Again that would be a UPG/USG and the first letter is the imprtant part.

Don't quote Psalms at me. Because I will return the favour from my own path

neimh go domhan
domhan fo neimh
neart i gcách
án forlán
lán do mil
míd go sáith
sam i ngram
gae for sciath
sciath for dúnadh
dúnadh lonngharg
fód di uí
ros forbiur beanna
abú airbí imeachta
meas for chrannaibh
craobh do scís
scís do ás
saith do mhac
mac formhúin
muinréal tairbh
tarbh di arcain
odhbh do crann
crann do thine
tine a n-áil
ail a n-úir
uích a mbuaibh
Boinn a mbrú
brú le feabh faid
ásghlas iar earccah
foghamar forasit eacha
iall do tír
tír go trácht le feabh ráidh
bíodh rúad rossaibh síoraibh ríochmhór
sídh go neimh
bíodh síornoí.

a reply to: EternalSolace

science hypothesizes that planets die and black holes lose their energy but none has ever been observed as doing such.

You wouldn't live long enough to see anything you and science claim to be true. It is all called theory or hypothesis (best guess).

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Your Jehovah has not been observed either. Yet you and your boy in the OP article expect us to take the word of believers its out there

a reply to: Noinden

hem, Better go back and read his article and my replies you are in error.

I never said nor did he ever say that Eclipses are ABSOLUTE PROOF that God exists.

What is stated is that the mathematics behind the distances, the sizes, and the timing of such are all to accurate to be coincidental, Leading only to a conclusion that there MAY BE an intelligent design behind this.

a reply to: EternalSolace

there is such a thing as everlasting the problem is in your short period of time on this planet you are unable to observe it. But don't worry because when you die then and only then will you observe and know that everlasting is true.

Here is the real problem. but let's first eliminate any misconceptions. For example star trek and other fantasies use a time system that does not exist in any form except in the fantasy. Star date 4590.5 are nothing more than fantasy.

But what we do have, that we can hold in our hands, is that in Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 God the Holy Ghost comes upon darkness and is above the waters found on and through a certain amount of what we call space, essentially we have no idea how large this puddle of water is or how vast this darkness is, from the old and new testament text we know it is on and around the earth, but from so called scientific observation we know that this darkness is expanding. Here are links some I do not trust or like to use but it does proves that Majority of scientist believe the universes is expanding and for some reason away from the earth not away from some other point. en.wikipedia.org... www.nasa.gov... skyserver.sdss.org...

Now God is looking down from space upon and in this darkness and wetness and calls for there to be light. Seeing the sun, moon and stars are established later, this light cannot be any physical light but a spiritual light (this type of light is unknown to physical man therefore many dismiss it, except in near death stories of light at the end of the tunnel.) This light Christians know as Christ as it is said he is the light of man and the world and nothing was created without that light John 1:1-3. It is at this time God establishes that there is a difference between darkness and light. He call the light Day and the darkness Night. And that is the establishment of the First day. We now observe this day and night on a regular basis and in this chapter and into chapter 2 we know there are seven days. We currently call these seven days a week consisting of seven individual days of approximate 24 hours each (This period of time is about 4 minutes less than 24 hours in reality science says it is 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds and there are about 366.242 2 stellar days in one mean tropical year one stellar day more than the number of solar days). Of course this fluctuates because in the year 2k was actually 365.24219 being off by more than one whole day in a mean tropical year.

So as not to bore you anymore with science and the Preserved Bible I move on to the ultimate quest to all of this. God understands and knows what a 24/7/365 plus days are but we do not know what "from everlasting to everlasting" which is a period of time only know to God. God shares with us by establishing a approximate 24 hour tropical day (from what we can establish that the Garden which was east in Eden, a name God gave to the earth before Gen1:2, and Israel is in the tropical zone). BY establishing an scientific understanding of a day, month, a season, and a year we have only a base understanding of the time quantum known as "from everlasting to everlasting" something that is only attributed to the LORD God Almighty, who is Jesus Christ the Light that was used to establish our time quantum we call a 24 hour day.

Now Science true purpose would and should be to establish and know what the time quantum of "from everlasting to everlasting". To make it easier to know the true time quantum of eternity. Our greatest computers make models of all sorts of weather patterns, war scenarios, AI, and mathematical equations to 100 with ten thousand thousands of zeros after it to approximate an impossibility but not one is used to calculate what time quantum is "from everlasting to everlasting" of Eternity. If man were to understand that one time quantum he would see that all other 24 hour measurements would be inaccurate when establishing age of the earth and of this expanding universe it is in, and why our current system of dating is totally in error.

Oh, the universe, as we know it, is like a giant basket ball being filled with air continually, the air is the darkness, the basketball is known as the firmament, it was a container to hold in the darkness and to keep it from corrupting the true Light that surrounds it. But we can talk more on that at some later time.

So yes there is an "from everlasting to everlasting" we would be wise in understanding that. Once done truly we would be humbled b y its understanding.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Try again, they are not even the slightest bit of proof, as (and yes I am belaboring this) he is taking a gnosis, which is unprovable, and trying to prove it.

He was in no way, shape or form, able to actually correlate what his numbers were showing. to begin with, the numbers were not identical, which would thus imply (if one accepted his premise, which I don't) Jehovah is a shoddy workman. OR more likely, coincidence. I go for coincidence. Especially given the "mathematics" (a simple ratio) is not demonstrating a damned thing.

Again, he (and you) can not conclude from TWO numbers that there is an Intelligent designer involved. There is no QED ever able to be applied to UPG/USG.

a reply to: Noinden

Oy Vey!

I have learned that when people cant solve a rubic's cube they tend to go circular. That is where you are at.

When it comes to quantum's you have a lot to learn.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nice use of New Ageisms there Chester John

I've told you, I'm a deeply religious individual. My religion (preChrisitan Irish spirituality) is not like yours. I'm a mystic, I'm an occultist, and yes I am a scientist. It is why I know that the BS explanation from the OP article is BS. ITs sloppy, and contains no trian of thought that can let you write "therefore God". It is the scribbling of a Child to be honest. Something to stick on a fridge to placate the ego of said child.

A great many philosophers have written at length on how they see the divine in the world around them. Your author, no he's not one. He appears to be a typical modern non denominational Christian who expects the masses to agree, because he tries to be smart. Next you will list Kirk Cameron's Banana argument as "proof" over creationism

a reply to: Noinden

The earth was created long before God made it habitable for man in Genesis 1:2-31. I believe there is a gap between verse one and verse two in Genesis Chapter one. Proverbs 8:22-24 supports my assumption.

I don't give much credence to men, but the math is correct. But it is not proof of God but is was not an accidental occurrence.