|
Top Document: [sci.astro] General (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (2/9) Previous Document: B.06 Is there scientific evidence for/against astrology? Next Document: B.08 What kind of telescope should I buy? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
Astronomy is silent on the matter of God and the creation.
Astronomy is based on applying the laws of physics to the Universe.
These laws of physics attempt to describe the natural world and are
based on experiments here on Earth and our observations of the rest of
the Universe. The key words are "natural world." It is obvious that
the existence of a supernatural being(s) is outside the realm of the
natural laws.
It should be noted that people do use the results of astronomy to
attempt to deduce the existence of God (or gods). Unfortunately, one
can reach two, equally valid conclusions:
* Many atheists (including some astronomers) argue that the
regularity of the natural world, combined with our apparent lack
of distinction in it (the Earth is just one planet, around one
star, in one galaxy, etc.), are compelling reasons not to believe
in any god.
* Many theists (including ordained ministers and priests who are
also astronomers) find the study of the natural world another
means of understanding God. The beauty, order, and sheer scope of
the natural world are profound clues to the power and intelligence
which created it all.
Since sci.astro is devoted to science of astronomy (i.e., the natural
world), sci.astro is not the appropriate forum for such a religious
debate. If you would like to discuss such things, you should go to
talk.origins, talk.religion.*, or maybe soc.religion.*
User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] General (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (2/9) Previous Document: B.06 Is there scientific evidence for/against astrology? Next Document: B.08 What kind of telescope should I buy? Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP