A coincidence that bothers me - Page 4

FoldALot. · #1 11-13-2007, 11:32 AM

Also, about the Proto-Moon/Earth collision being a "very lucky shot":

Sure, if it happened differently we would not be living on this this planet right now.
But, the fact that we ARE living on this planet right now means the collision had to happen exactly as it was. Else there would be no one here able to notice the "lucky shot" and discuss about it.
Therefore, we know nothing about how random the event actually was. Collisions will have occured millions and millions of times in the universe, but if this configuration is the only one that can lead to intelligent life then it will be the only one that gets noticed and analysed.

JammyDodga · #2 11-13-2007, 01:40 PM

I'll bite, where does god come from then? Surely the chance of an all powerful creator springing fully formed from nothing with the power to create the universe is much more improbably than the moon just covering the sun during an eclipse?

Or do we need to explain the universe and questions in science, but you don't have to explain god... That's hardly an even playing field

kurto · #3 11-13-2007, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, about the Proto-Moon/Earth collision being a "very lucky shot":

Sure, if it happened differently we would not be living on this this planet right now.
But, the fact that we ARE living on this planet right now means the collision had to happen exactly as it was. Else there would be no one here able to notice the "lucky shot" and discuss about it.
Therefore, we know nothing about how random the event actually was. Collisions will have occured millions and millions of times in the universe, but if this configuration is the only one that can lead to intelligent life then it will be the only one that gets noticed and analysed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true... of the billions upon billions of people on the Earth, what are the odds that I would have married my wife? There are so many things that had to happen precisely at the right time for me to have met her and everything that led to our marriage. Yet, it did happen and it only seems unlikely if you look at it that way. Every day very unlikely things are happening. Its quite probable that they will.

None of which require an omnipotent creature manipulating things.

Stu Pidasso · #4 11-13-2007, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
WELL THEN EXPLAIN THIS PICTURE TO ME

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi FoldAlot,

The picture you posted is of an annular solar eclipse, not a total solar eclipse.

Stu

vhawk01 · #5 11-13-2007, 03:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WELL THEN EXPLAIN THIS PICTURE TO ME

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi FoldAlot,

The picture you posted is of an annular solar eclipse, not a total solar eclipse.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

So a total solar eclipse is total?

tame_deuces · #6 11-14-2007, 10:48 AM

I seriously thought mankind was getting past those solar worship thingies ("zomg, it hangs in the sky - it must be a sign, and sometimes...it goes almost dark when it usually doesn't").

Reflecting on it I guess if we should worship anything at all, then the sun makes more sense than a designer. Its powerful, all life on this planet depends on it directly or indirectly, it continously transmits necessary energy to our planet...all in all it definitely seems to have a very distinct and measurable effect that beats any idea of a god-thing.

Solar worship ftw!

hitch1978 · #7 11-14-2007, 02:08 PM

Ok, so here are my thoughts. They are mostly on terminology, but I think they are pertinent as you are saying that NASA's use of certain words are relevant.

First of all, their use of the word improbable. I would think that anything with a probability of >50% was improbable. It is improbable that I will call in sick tomorrow. It surprises me that the use of this word by NASA has any significance to you, or your arguement.

Stellar - well that's allready been covered a bit, but wouldn't any co-incedence lerating to the solar system be stellar?

And exact/exactly. Well as has been established, the relation of the moon to the sun, as seen from Earth, varies from smaller than the sun, to larger than the sun. In this regard, I see it as similar to the following co-incedence.

A man works at a circle plant. He makes circles all day, every day. He lives 3.4 miles from work. Shortly after leaving his house in the morning he notices that he is exactly 3.1415927 miles from work! (He's an inteligent guy) OMG, he works in a CIRCLE plant! CIRCLES! Every day he is exactly 3.1415927 miles from a CIRCLE plant! TWICE! After he finishes work that day he comes to my house for a beer, and tells me about his improbable co-incidence. I say, 'Whatever man, that's not impressive you live like 4 miles from the plant, beers in the fridge.' He is shocked by my underwhelment.

slickpoppa · #8 11-15-2007, 01:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that when something looks to be a "fantastic" or "stellar" coincidence theres probably a correct explanation, not dependent on chance.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” - Richard Feynman

Stu Pidasso · #9 11-16-2007, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” - Richard Feynman

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Feynman is an idiot if he believes that is some amazing coincidence. He would be an idiot of somewhat lesser magnitude if he saw a white 2008 Corolla with the license plate ARW 357 and another white 2008 Corolla with the license plate ARW 358 in the parking lot and insisted that had to be an amazing coincidence as well. A smart person would conclude that its more likely they are just fleet cars.

Stu

stinkypete · #10 11-16-2007, 03:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” - Richard Feynman

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Feynman is an idiot if he believes that is some amazing coincidence. He would be an idiot of somewhat lesser magnitude if he saw a white 2008 Corolla with the license plate ARW 357 and another white 2008 Corolla with the license plate ARW 358 in the parking lot and insisted that had to be an amazing coincidence as well. A smart person would conclude that its more likely they are just fleet cars.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

would he also be an idiot if he saw two cars that happen to be almost the same colour parked beside one another, and concluded that it's a coincidence that those two cars that happen to be almost the same colour ended up parked beside one another?

or should he conclude that the driver of one of the cars decided to mess around with everyone that observes the colours of cars in the parking lot by parking beside another car of nearly the same colour?