7/7/20 - "The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars" Modern science touts itself to be an end-all source of information, providing answers to all the mysteries of the universe with explanations based in physics and mathematics. It often likes to point and laugh at religious documents, such as the Bible's creation myth, which stated things like, "God made two great lights in the sky." While a scientist may be technically accurate in stating that the moon is not a independent light source, in a philosophical sense, we can still find that there are two lights in our sky. I think that the writers of the creation myth were aware that the secondary light, the moon, was not of the same caliber as our primary source, the sun - Regardless, it can be said to be a light source, providing just enough light at night so that our eyes (or the eyes of hunting animals) can react. I am a scientist as well as a philosopher (from which science was originally born), and I have to honestly, objectively evaluate the question, utilizing both arts. The more common scientist, over-proud of their social status as such, wants to mock anything that might conflict with his ideology, dismissing it on a trivial basis. It's not quite that easy. In fact, given the philosophical validity of that statement made in the creation myth, it would be impossible to announce it as fraudulent, on that basis. For whatever reason, science needs to destroy creationism with bad "insights", and many people are ready to fall head-over-heels for these "proofs". Let me pose a myth provided by modern science, on the other hand, that philosophy might easily debunk: The sun is composed of combusting gas, and has been burning as such for, at least, hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. According to science, the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen, a simple gas, reacting with other elements and causing a grand fire. But, how does science explain its longevity? A fire that burns, for all intents and purposes, eternally? Now, big, bad "science" will want to step in and start laughing at my doubt. It will want to intimidate me out of questioning it. A common scientist is totally certain that they are unquestionably correct, but they will not be able to provide an adequate explanation. I won't dismiss that the sun is composed of basic elements, I would only suggest that there is more to its life than that. Everyone knows that if they build a fire, it will only burn as long as it has fuel. As far as I know, once a gas has combusted, its efficacy is spent. You might say that there's so much of it, that it doesn't matter, but wouldn't the sun, at least, be changing size? What about the material that the hydrogen is burning up - Being that there is a ton of gas to fuel the fire (that part is believable enough), most of the sun would only be fuel - But, what is it burning for that length of time? Wouldn't the material have been spent by now? It seems a supernatural dynamic, to me. The trap that I have the common scientist in, is that they must provide their answer on an entirely physical basis. It may be that their physics can partially explain the reaction, but I would challenge them to entirely remove God from the situation, explaining it through and through. The theory would be full of holes, I'm afraid. It was taught to me in college that science continually revises its concepts, remodelling things such as the structure of an "atom", for example. A responsible scientist will take into account the possibility that ideas might suddenly change, when we see that the model was radically revised in very recent history. Who's to say that there won't be an entirely new concept of the universe, in the future? That brings me to another question of the unquestionable entity known as "science", under its official representation. What are the stars, and why are there so goddamn many of them?!? We know that the purpose of our "star", the sun, was to provide warmth to our cherished and deeply respected home, planet earth. If other "suns" are all over the place, why wouldn't they be serving a similar purpose? Science tells you that the universe is random and chaotic, but here on earth, it is clearly evident that life was orchestrated and intended. For life to have flourished here required a perfect set of conditions, and the complexity that emerged from that simple dynamic (position of earth to sun) is unbelievable as "random". In fact, God seems to have done it all here on earth, and having other planets in other solar systems doing the same thing would be redundant, anyway. Not only that, getting from planet to planet would be impossible, and we'd never know anything about "the aliens". So, seeing that other suns would not need hold the same purpose, in an orchestrated concept of the universe, I would suggest that that's not what they are. What, then? The eye sees lights in the darkened sky. That's all we really know. Like, the common scientist's declaration that the moon was not another source of light, the stars might not be, either. It's impossible to definitively say what could create such an effect, but I would not rule out the possibility of an optical illusion. The millions of "suns" that we see might only be a fractured image of their original source, and the darkened sky might hide a grand mirror (of some sort), creating the illusion. Whatever the case, it needn't concern you, because the only relevant "sun" would be your own, anyway. Scientific theory provided a form of wonder to those who believed in a universe full of possibility, generating vast literature about what's happening elsewhere - But it destroys true inquisition into the nature of the universe, leaving you only with immature fantasies. It might be time to move on, and stop assuming that we know it all, and truly get down to investigating all possibilities, before determining that our ideas were fact. |