Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
This is typical for any religion which grows big: first there is
unity, but later it will split into several mutually competing
and
perhaps even fighting fractions. Remember the crusades fought by
the

It's typical of any organization that doesn't have coherent
leadership.
Corporations have CEOs that provide that and still are able to grow
and
develop in a coherent manner. The Apostles provided that for the
Christian
Church, but they were killed, leaving one, John, in banishment.

And that happened well before Christianity became the state religion
of the Roman empire. But what happened some centuries later?


Atheism ASSERTS there is no God or gods.

Not all atheists would agree with you on that. Most would disagree.
Also, an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than ours is not
a God, they didn't create the universe. They are subject to the same
natural laws as we are.


I don't believe all it took was a few words to create the universe

That implies that you don't fully believe what the Bible says...


heaven" but they conveniently forget that Jesus had a PHYSICAL
body when
he appeared after his resurrection, and so will we if we will
be "like
Him"

If so, that physical body didn't obey the law of gravity, or else
Jesus would have been unable to ascend up to the sky as described
in
the Bible.

Airplanes and rockets don't obey "the law of gravity" in your
limited
definition either, have physical attribute, and are able to "ascend
up to
the sky. We understand the principles involved so it's not
"supernatural."
Appealing to anything we don't understand as supernatural is a poor
argument.

Are you saying that it is a normal capability of the human body to be
able to fly around by itself without any help from modern technology?
Like the birds can do? We know it isn't so. Which means that either
Jesus didn't fly, or else his body was an extraordinary body with
extraordinary capabilities if he did what the Bible says he did. But
perhaps the Bible was wrong here? Just like it was wrong when telling
the story that a word or two was enough to create a new universe...

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
You are arguing for that the universe has only one single
civilization more advanced than us?

I said "suppose" -- it's a possibility.

That is as probable as if we humans were the only technological
civilization
on the universe.

Some here have advocated that.

But you didn't, and you used probability as your argument. Therefore
you are inconsistent when you argue for another equally improbable.
If you want to use probability as an argument, you must do so
consistently, not just when it suits your opinion...


If there are more advanced civilizations than us, it is very
likely that
they exist in much larger numbers than just one single such
civilization.

I'm talking about BILLION-year-older. We're not that advanced.

Doesn't matter, if such old civilizations exist there are very likely
a large number of them and not just a single one. The "law of big
numbers" you know...


And if they exist in larger numbers, and if we perceive them as
gods,
then the monotheistic Christian worldview fails.

Neither Christianity nor Judaism is monotheistic in the sense
you're using.

Then the pantheon of ancient Roman and Greek gods would be a
somewhat less
inaccurate worldview.

Not at all. Those gods were often at odds with each other whereas
Christianity
has complete agreement among them.

Bull****! Satan is in strong disagreement with God, isn't he? And
Jesus prayed and asked to have the crusification avoided, but
surrendered. In the monotheistic religions, God is the supreme
dictator sending anyone who objects to him to hell until the end of
time.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:32:36 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a
given
idea for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds
its truths
to be eternal and immutable." - H. L. Mencken

This wasn't true of primitive Christianity. It is generally true of
so-called Christianity today because Constantine put the last nail
in the
coffin of the original religion.

And if Constantine hadn't done that, Christianity would today be an
extinct sect, much like gnostiscism...

So there you have it' after the initial idealistic phase a religion
either becomes extinct or else it becomes powerful and corrupt.
Because with power comes corruption, it is hard to avoid that.

The collections of books of the Bible comes from dozens of different traditions so that even after the life of Christ, the traditions often say opposite things.

"Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour." Johannine tradition


Some people struggle with these opposing views while others exploit them yet those with a growing appreciation generally find themselves comfortable with the different traditions while giving more importance to one tradition over another without being dismissive. People appreciate spiritual things at their own level and will be drawn to particular perspectives while others outgrow the less relevant traditions.

The same applies to astronomy as the traditions are many with some more relevant than others including the pre-Sun centered astronomies. The framework for timekeeping is a different system than the Greek system but each can be appreciated for their own strengths and weaknesses with the more relevant being the older framework. The dull don't recognise anything before the Greeks for the sake of their own limited agenda so no wonder they don't get spiritual works nor the astronomical works with special attention given to new insights today.

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 5:57:59 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

Shame that you were bullied into silence like so many others as you did bring up a video comment from students or journalists on the direct/retrograde of the faster moving planets that doesn't work.

You all look like under-developed adults who lack the feel for astronomy and spirituality/inspiration on which the greater life of a person depends.

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:36:43 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

And if Constantine hadn't done that, Christianity would today be an
extinct sect, much like gnostiscism...

So there you have it' after the initial idealistic phase a religion
either becomes extinct or else it becomes powerful and corrupt.
Because with power comes corruption, it is hard to avoid that.

But that's an argument for not following any of the powerful and corrupt
religions. It isn't an argument against the existence of God.

So people could be Deists, or spend time looking for an authentic revelation
somewhere.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:10:54 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 11:33:30 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

Of course it's disgusting, it's about scumbag televangalists!

Who are scumbags because they make a lot of money huckstering according to
you. So what about those who claim some divine revelation but make no
money and, in fact, are persecuted for it and die ignominiously broke?
Should you not embrace their claims?

Well, you are the guy who has promoted the word 'huckster', and it could not
be more appropriate. As per Webster...

: HAWKER, PEDDLER
especially : one who sells or advertises something in an aggressive,
dishonest, or annoying way

Do you really think that a religious huckster could be considered anything
but a scumbag? I don't either... and regarding those who claim divine
revelation without compensation? I suppose they just don't have the proper
huckster chops.

So they're not hucksters, and you didn't answer the question :-)

Not all of it did, but this family is beyond rich these days...

https://www.idolnetworth.com/todd-bu...t-worth-189111

... I would say that $42 million is certainly a nice return for a fantasy
yarn. As always, Gary... "Follow the Money"! By the way, here is a well-
thought-out expose about Burpo that you should read...

https://nathandickey.wordpress.com/2...n-is-for-real/

It's obvious that Dickey doesn't have an open mind. All of his "objections"
amount to speculation and parochial thinking. When you fold in the Akiane
story it gets MUCH more difficult to explain.

Much like Burpo's story is just speculation and parochial thinking. Not much
substance there, in my view... and I doubt that I am alone in this thinking.
It seems to me that you very much *want* to believe this stuff, while I, on
the other hand, demand evidence as defined by the scientific method, that is,
repeatable experiments and/or observations. Do you happen to have any of thse?

People experience lots of things in this world that cannot be explained.
Denial of their existence limits one's viewpoint and is not logical.

Follow the money, Gary, and all will become clear.

That hucksters exist is not proof that everyone is a huckster. In fact,
each of us know lots more people that aren't hucksters than are.

... you might even modify your thinking about all of this.

Actually, I've modified my thinking about YOU. Since you have previously
claimed to be an agnostic, it's refreshing to see that you have come out
of THAT closet.

There is a fine line between an atheist and an agnostic.

I don't agree. An agnostic is honest and humble but an atheist is arrogant
and may also be dishonest or a sycophant.

If the concept of a god could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like
all good scientists, I would change my evil ways... but the odds are very
long that this will ever happen.

"I believe God himself will someday debate with and answer every objection
arrogant men can come up with against him" -- Criss Jami

Each of us has had experiences that aren't scientific (because they aren't
repeatable) but color our viewpoints. Demanding scientific evidence (i.e.,
repeatable under laboratory conditions) of these things is not logical.

For example, telepathy is not scientifically confirmed but I know that
it exists because I have experienced it -- once. Not repeatable but I
cannot deny my own experience.

Well, here I disagree completely. I think your #1 is self-explanatory,
and it is pretty dang straightforward, to me.

I understand that your mileage may vary.

You've tried desperately to deny all the evidence about early
civilizations, so it's pretty dang clear that you fall close to this
category:

Uh, just which early civilizations am I supposed to have desperately
denied? I don't recall ever doing such a thing... please refresh my
memory.

An early civilization that is statistically probable.

“we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradigm
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?� ― Robert Buettner

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the
earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up
into the heavens and say there is no God.� – Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln was no scientist, so he can be forgiven for saying what he said.

He WAS a human being, and a vary smart one, too. Being a "scientist"
isn't necessarily a virtue.

Just because *he* couldn't conceive of such a thing does not mean that
others cannot. Lincoln did say... "if I were two-faced, would I be
wearing this one?", and that I can believe!

:-)

BTW, I read Ruppelt's "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" in
the fifties and came away allowing that there might well be some
substance to UFOs. A few years ago, I read a 2nd edition of it which
had two extra chapters, the last one pointing out that all instances
where photos of radarscopes were taken, the "unknowns" were explained.
That caused me to being a "nonbeliever." Then THIS happened:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...f&action=click

So that refutes Ruppelt's claim. Maybe they ARE here after all :-)

However, maybe some flyboys thought they would stir the pot, just for
laughs. It is definitely within the realm of possibility and has been
done before umpteen times. Who knows? I sure don't, and neither do you.

So now you have become a conspiracy theorist :-)

I am too much of a skeptic to fall for a single claimed incident.
If the 'observation' is singular and has never been repeated, I say
'beware', and so should you!

Beware is good, denial is not.

The current thinking

Yeah, the current thinking of a civilization just emerging from the
Dark Ages.

is that the distances are just too far to be considered realistic

By a civilization just emerging from the Dark Ages.

and that no other beings could have possibly ever been here, and this
is what a vast majority of scientists say today, and that is good enough
for me, at this point in time.

Remember these guys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_and_Betty_Hill

A whole lot of folks still believe this is god's truth. How about you?

I don't really know. There have been a lot of "Taken" experiences, but
they are all hostile to my world view. I'm with you on this.

Isn't it interesting that we decide what is real based upon our world
view? Perhaps we should pay more attention to Bayesian statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:13:12 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I don't believe all it took was a few words to create the universe

That implies that you don't fully believe what the Bible says...

I don't believe YOUR interpretation of what the Bible says.

Airplanes and rockets don't obey "the law of gravity" in your
limited definition either, have physical attribute, and are able
to "ascend up to the sky. We understand the principles involved
so it's not "supernatural." Appealing to anything we don't
understand as supernatural is a poor argument.

Are you saying that it is a normal capability of the human body to be
able to fly around by itself without any help from modern technology?

What is the definition of "modern"? I'd say He did it with ancient
technology :-)

Like the birds can do? We know it isn't so. Which means that either
Jesus didn't fly, or else his body was an extraordinary body with
extraordinary capabilities if he did what the Bible says he did.

Of COURSE it was an extraordinary body: He was a resurrected being.

But perhaps the Bible was wrong here? Just like it was wrong when
telling the story that a word or two was enough to create a new
universe...

Donald Trump didn't build the Trump Tower. He spoke a few words and
it happened.

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:13:12 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
....
Also, an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than ours is not
a God, they didn't create the universe.

Unsubstantiated assertion which may well be dead wrong.

They are subject to the same natural laws as we are.

Sure, but they would know more "natural laws" than we do. We may be just
peeking into some of those. As I said before, I'm partial to the Ekpyrotic
universe theory wherein something similar to the Big Bang was the result
of our brane colliding with an adjacent brane. It gets around two
difficulties that the standard theory has: it doesn't require that the
universe start from a point and it doesn't need inflation to explain
the uniformity of the early universe.

It also allows that a VERY ancient civilization (from a previous genesis)
could have encouraged the event to have happened so, in fact, they could
have indeed created this universe.

On 18/10/2018 13:54, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Isn't it interesting that we decide what is real based upon our world
view? Perhaps we should pay more attention to Bayesian statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics


To use Bayesian statistics on these questions is scientific but you are
then stuck with the problem of dealing with maximally uninformative
"improper" prior probability distributions that are not normalisable.

P(N, the number of deities in the universe) = 1/N

(the same prior applies to any scale factor)

P(x, does God exist 0=no, 1=yes) = 1/(x(1-x))

(the same prior applies to any binary question)

These are the maximally uninformative prior probability distributions in
the absence of any evidence - before you have any data. It is like
reality too. Very few people have been burned at the stake for believing
that P(God exists) = 1/2 but many people are sat at the two extremes.

Laplace first used the method to weight Saturn although he gave it the
inauspicious title of principle of insufficient reason (in French).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown