|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:05:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:35:30 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 3:54:45 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: We are here but that says nothing about how many more Earthlike planets there are in the rest of the universe. The number is not important. All that's needed is ONE in hundreds of trillions FEW BILLION YEARS AGO. Which makes the number important: you want it to be greater than zero. But if you drop the requirement of a few billion years ago, we already have one - that's us. Which is proof of principle. If a process can happen once, it can already have happened given billions of years. You claim to be an agnostic, but you are behaving like a dedicated atheist in agnostic's clothing :-) I'm not saying it cannot have happened. I'm merely objecting when you claim we can be certain it has happened. We can **not** be certain about that! There are just too many unknowns involved... I haven't said it's certain. I believe I used the term "virtually certain" once or twice, which isn't the same thing. And if you agree that it could have happened before then we are in agreement. That's enough to place a stumbling block in front of the dedicated atheist. Yep, if you think one single advanced civilization is enough, why not choose the single one we already know? Ummm, we're NOT that advanced. If you think we are, that's hubris. At the moment we aren't, that's true. But what about our descendants in a million years? IF we're given the time. Taking Chris's argument, maybe we'll destroy ourselves :-) I don't think we will, though, because we're being watched over. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:01:41 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I haven't said it's certain. I believe I used the term "virtually certain" once or twice, which isn't the same thing. And if you agree that it could have happened before then we are in agreement. That's enough to place a stumbling block in front of the dedicated atheist. As I've noted, even though Arthur C. Clarke took a view that might harmonize with yours: "They will not be like gods, because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers they will command." - Arthur C. Clarke, _Profiles of the Future_, in the chapter "The Long Twilight" - I'm dubious because advanced aliens, godlike though they may be in many ways, miss the theological definiton of "God" in several ways. They came into existence naturally, the same way we did. There is no reason to believe someone else in the sense of an advanced alien was our creator - life clearly developed on Earth by itself. The God of theology, Who is self-existent, on the other hand helps to answer the question "why is there anything instead of just nothing". They have not come to us and told us what they want of us. *That's* the main thing that makes acceptance of the notion that advanced aliens might exist... not at all troubling to an atheist. As long as they're not demanding belief, worship, and obedience... there's nothing to "get religion" about. John Savard |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:01:41 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I don't think we will, though, because we're being watched over. Events in Europe, particularly Germany and Poland, from about November 9, 1938 to May 8, 1945, appear to convincingly refute that hypothesis. John Savard |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:20 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:01:41 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: I haven't said it's certain. I believe I used the term "virtually certain" once or twice, which isn't the same thing. And if you agree that it could have happened before then we are in agreement. That's enough to place a stumbling block in front of the dedicated atheist. As I've noted, even though Arthur C. Clarke took a view that might harmonize with yours: "They will not be like gods, because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers they will command." - Arthur C. Clarke, _Profiles of the Future_, in the chapter "The Long Twilight" - I'm dubious because advanced aliens, godlike though they may be in many ways, miss the theological definiton of "God" in several ways. The problem with theologians (and philosophers, for that matter) is that their thoughts aren't anchored in authenticity. They came into existence naturally, the same way we did. There is no reason to believe someone else in the sense of an advanced alien was our creator - To a proclaimed atheist, that is a futile claim. life clearly developed on Earth by itself. Is it really? Suppose you were a long-lived being with a very long view, how would you terraform a world. Would you not start with simple lifeforms and introduce complexity eon by eon? Would you not choose lifeforms from your own world(s)? If you look at Genesis in that light, it follows that pattern (just replace "day" with "a billion years" or whatever). The God of theology, Who is self-existent, on the other hand helps to answer the question "why is there anything instead of just nothing". It doesn't answer the question of where He came from :-) They have not come to us and told us what they want of us. *That's* the main thing that makes acceptance of the notion that advanced aliens might exist... not at all troubling to an atheist. As long as they're not demanding belief, worship, and obedience... there's nothing to "get religion" about. John Savard Maybe they ARE religion. It's just their way of condescending to our level.. I don't think we will, though, because we're being watched over. Events in Europe, particularly Germany and Poland, from about November 9, 1938 to May 8, 1945, appear to convincingly refute that hypothesis. There's a contrary story about General Patton at the Battle of the Bulge. He asked the chaplain to write a prayer for him asking for good weather the next day for the coming battle. He got it and defeated the enemy. Your argument depends upon what YOU assume "their" goal is. What do you THINK would happen to a civilization (or an individual) if all their problems were taken care of for them? "Any man who thinks he can be happy andÂ*prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian." -- Anon. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 10:44:01 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Towards the end, Sagan, formerly a productive astrophysicist from Cornell and publicizer of astronomy became a bit of a pariah, wandering around, screeching at anyone who would listen about the impending doom of "nuclear winter." Seems like Tyson might be going the same way, or, he could just be trying to promote another book. "Publish or perish?" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/neil-de...essory-to-war/ Tyson's contributions. Here's a paper he's cited on as a part-author. Notice something about it? Almost all of the people who helped write it are in the reference section pertaining to material they created previously that contributed to the paper. Tyson is not there. So what did he do? https://www.haydenplanetarium.org/ty...pJ-672,198.pdf |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:29:38 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: Which frequency range is that? And is thar radio waves or infrared? Terahertz radiation. Those naked airport scanners. Higher frequency radio waves than microwaves. John Savard Csn''t you narrow it down more than that? Terahertz radiation includes IR, visible light, and some UV. |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 4:45:45 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Your argument depends upon what YOU assume "their" goal is. What do you THINK would happen to a civilization (or an individual) if all their problems were taken care of for them? "Any man who thinks he can be happy andÂ*prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian." -- Anon. This may be a good point, but I'm not making assumptions about their _goal_.. Rather, since individual human beings have rights, and no natural creature is fundamentally superior to a human being in the way that human beings are superior to beasts by virtue of having a bit more technology or being a bit smarter, the ordinary obligations of being a witness to an emergency where one has the power to intervene without risk to oneself apply. For little things, non-interference to permit a culture to develop normally may be reasonable. The Holocaust was not a little thing. In general, though, although I am in disagreement with you, I have not been inclined to argue the point. It seems to me that for some reason, you want the Universe to be so organized as to demand a certain kind of thinking from people - and you have just seized on advanced aliens, instead of the traditional God of the Christian religion, as a means to the same goal. Thus, your position appears to me to be based on so many, and such profound, false assumptions that meaningful discussion is almost impossible. John Savard |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: They have not come to us and told us what they want of us. *That's* the main thing that makes acceptance of the notion that advanced aliens might exist... not at all troubling to an atheist. As long as they're not demanding belief, worship, and obedience... there's nothing to "get religion" about. You can look at it from "the other side" too: suppose you were standing by an anthill looking at the ants. You didn't like how some of the ants acted. Would you then set up a sign with ten commandments for the ants near the anthill, and then kill those ants who didn't follow these commandments? We assume that you, in your infinite wisdom, wrote the commandments in a language the ants could understand. |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:05:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:35:30 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 3:54:45 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: We are here but that says nothing about how many more Earthlike planets there are in the rest of the universe. The number is not important. All that's needed is ONE in hundreds of trillions FEW BILLION YEARS AGO. Which makes the number important: you want it to be greater than zero. But if you drop the requirement of a few billion years ago, we already have one - that's us. Which is proof of principle. If a process can happen once, it can already have happened given billions of years. You claim to be an agnostic, but you are behaving like a dedicated atheist in agnostic's clothing :-) I'm not saying it cannot have happened. I'm merely objecting when you claim we can be certain it has happened. We can **not** be certain about that! There are just too many unknowns involved... I haven't said it's certain. I believe I used the term "virtually certain" once or twice, which isn't the same thing A minor difference. You admit that in principle it might not have happened but you believe the probability for that is negligibly low. And if you agree that it could have happened before then we are in agreement. That's enough to place a stumbling block in front of the dedicated atheist. Advanced civilizations and supernatural gods are two very different things. An advanced civilization has reached farther, perhaps immensely farther, than we but still came into existence through natural processes and must obey natural laws. A supernatural God, as proclaimed in the monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, created the entire universe and also created the natural laws within it. Quite a big difference. An atheist merely does not believe in that supernatural God but has no problem with the existence of advanced civilizations. Yep, if you think one single advanced civilization is enough, why not choose the single one we already know? Ummm, we're NOT that advanced. If you think we are, that's hubris. At the moment we aren't, that's true. But what about our descendants in a million years? IF we're given the time. Taking Chris's argument, maybe we'll destroy ourselves :-) I don't think we will, though, because we're being watched over. Then why did WWI and WWII happen? Why did the holocaust happen? Why did the Armenian genocide happen? And why were atomic bombs dropped over Japan in August 1945? Did those watching over us turn away when those things happened, or what? |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
No harm is pointing out a spiritual truth by a mathematician -
“The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart." - Blaise Pascal Astronomy is like love, it is both delicate and robust so with these blind mathematicians today stomping around crushing perspectives, they can't deal with insights in general or in detail, something common to both science and spirituality. "Thus the blessed Bartholomew asserts that the divine science is both vast and minute, and that the Gospel is great and broad, yet concise and short; signifying by this, that the beneficent Cause of all is most eloquent, yet utters few words, or rather is altogether silent, as having neither (human) speech nor (human) understanding, because it is super-essentially exalted above created things, and reveals itself in Its naked Truth to those alone who pass beyond all that is pure or impure.." Dionysius "There are then two kinds of intellect: the one able to penetrate acutely and deeply into the conclusions of given premises, and this is the precise intellect; the other able to comprehend a great number of premises without confusing them, and this is the mathematical intellect. The one has force and exactness, the other comprehension. Now the one quality can exist without the other; the intellect can be strong and narrow, and can also be comprehensive and weak. Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight, and are not used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who are accustomed to reason from principles, do not at all understand matters of feeling, seeking principles, and being unable to see at a glance." Pascal The ability to condense long term observations into more manageable insights which all human are capable of appreciating is certainly from the astronomical mind and nowadays most of that is now done with time lapse and sequential imaging. The spark of recognition is inspirational much like hearing music so the heart does inform reason or at least the resonance found in the heart affirms what is processed in the head. The kingdom of heaven is inside you all but so also is the hard shell of hell/convictions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 24th 17 06:58 PM |
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 6th 15 12:14 PM |
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan | RichA[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | April 17th 15 09:38 AM |
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 14th 14 04:32 PM |
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) | M Dombek | UK Astronomy | 1 | December 29th 05 12:01 AM |