|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:37:47 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position. And I find that position bizarre and untenable. It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable, since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly likely that they're interfering with us. Expecting such an extraterrestrial civilization to frequently visit the Earth would be like expecting the pope, Madonna, and other world celebrities to frequently visit the block where you live. |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: A lot of churches interpret scripture in different ways and as a result make up their own doctrine. That is indeed a problem inherent in any religion, or any ideology making absolute claims... This is true of MOST religions, but not all. The development of Christiani= ty had minimal ideology and grew "precept by precept; line upon line." At fir= st, it was only to "the house of Israel" then Peter had a vision concerning Cornelius. Then there was the matter of circumcision for the gentiles, etc= By the time of the Council of Nice in 325 AD there were two major divisions espousing different beliefs about the Godhead, both wrong. Thus it ceased to be the faith taught in the first century. This was predicted by Paul. 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 Catholics? They mostly fought against the Orthodoxes. For instance the crusades brought so moäunh damage to the city pf Constantinople, weakening the city so much that it later became much easier for the Muslims to conquer that city. I suppose you will agree with this; "God is an extraterrestrial civilization much more advanced than ours, and Erich von Däniken is his prophet." :-) Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position. Atheism is not disbelief in naturally occurring advanced civilizations. Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, e.g. disbelief in a creature creating an entire universe just by saying a few words, as described in Genesis. Of course, most believe that we will be "spirits" living in a "spiritual 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. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On 15/10/2018 05:03, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:37:47 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position. And I find that position bizarre and untenable. That's YOUR prejudiced position :-) They only have God like powers in comparison to our present technology. There are also potentially quite a lot of them too so you have at a stroke increased, N, the number of deities in the universe to a few billion or whatever their population grew to be as they colonised the galaxy (if interstellar travel is actually possible - which I doubt). Or do you also want to invoke some "Highlander" rule that means that there can only be one FXQueen's "Princes of the Universe" theme/FX. I thought you claimed to be a monotheist. It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable, since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly likely that they're interfering with us. John Savard That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are? I expect if they existed they would be supremely indifferent to us. In much the same was as we might look down on an amoeba. They would be more interested in their own peer group of civilisations that have full interstellar travel capabilities (if that is possible). -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 1:09:08 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: A lot of churches interpret scripture in different ways and as a result make up their own doctrine. That is indeed a problem inherent in any religion, or any ideology making absolute claims... This is true of MOST religions, but not all. The development of Christianity had minimal ideology and grew "precept by precept; line upon line." At first, it was only to "the house of Israel" then Peter had a vision concerning Cornelius. Then there was the matter of circumcision for the gentiles, etc. By the time of the Council of Nice in 325 AD there were two major divisions espousing different beliefs about the Godhead, both wrong. Thus it ceased to be the faith taught in the first century. This was predicted by Paul. 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 Catholics? They mostly fought against the Orthodoxes. For instance the crusades brought so moäunh damage to the city pf Constantinople, weakening the city so much that it later became much easier for the Muslims to conquer that city. 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. I suppose you will agree with this; "God is an extraterrestrial civilization much more advanced than ours, and Erich von Däniken is his prophet." :-) Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position. Atheism is not disbelief in naturally occurring advanced civilizations. Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, e.g. disbelief in a creature creating an entire universe just by saying a few words, as described in Genesis. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God or gods. There are several variations in beliefs about God. Some believe in God but deny He has a personal interest in humans. Some believe He created the universe and then cut out. Some believe He is outside the universe, others that He is part of it. Christians, Muslims and Jews believe He has a personal interest in humans. Agnostics are just uncertain about the whole issue. I don't believe all it took was a few words to create the universe but I'm not an atheist, so YOUR assertion is wrong. Of course, most believe that we will be "spirits" living in a "spiritual 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. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/10/2018 05:03, Gary Harnagel wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:37:47 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position. And I find that position bizarre and untenable. That's YOUR prejudiced position :-) They only have God like powers in comparison to our present technology. So why can't that be true of God, too? There are also potentially quite a lot of them too so you have at a stroke increased, N, the number of deities in the universe to a few billion or whatever their population grew to be as they colonised the galaxy (if interstellar travel is actually possible - which I doubt). Or do you also want to invoke some "Highlander" rule that means that there can only be one FXQueen's "Princes of the Universe" theme/FX. I thought you claimed to be a monotheist. I don't know why you should think that :-) It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable, since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly likely that they're interfering with us. John Savard That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are? I expect if they existed they would be supremely indifferent to us. In much the same was as we might look down on an amoeba. They would be more interested in their own peer group of civilisations that have full interstellar travel capabilities (if that is possible). -- Regards, Martin Brown That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would have a specific interest in our development. |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would have a specific interest in our development. You are arguing for that the universe has only one single civilization more advanced than us? That is as probable as if we humans were the only technological civilization on the universe. 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. And if they exist in larger numbers, and if we perceive them as gods, then the monotheistic Christian worldview fails. Then the pantheon of ancient Roman and Greek gods would be a somewhat less inaccurate worldview. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 7:05:13 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would have a specific interest in our development. 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. 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. 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. |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable, since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly likely that they're interfering with us. That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are? Rather than assuming anything, I just note that when I look out of the window, I don't see flying saucers bringing CARE packages. So either advanced aliens don't exist, or they're bound by the speed of light, and so they don't know we exist, or any number of other explanations. The premises of yours that I have difficulty with are not the existence of advanced aliens, or that they might be charitably inclined towards us. No, what I find difficult to believe is: - that advanced aliens would find setting up religious belief systems on Earth to be the best or most appropriate way to contribute to our development, and - that the Bible is a sufficiently impressive document that it demands an explanation - if not the one it offers, of a supernatural Deity, at least advanced aliens faking it - other than being a collection of myths, rumors, and legends packaged up by later priesthoods to make it a better tool for controlling and manipulating the masses. My rejection of these premises may be a prejudice on my part, but I find it rather more reasonable, and requiring less in the way of far-reaching assumptions, than the viewpoint you are appearing to advocate. John Savard |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On 15/10/2018 13:37, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote: On 15/10/2018 05:03, Gary Harnagel wrote: That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are? I expect if they existed they would be supremely indifferent to us. In much the same was as we might look down on an amoeba. They would be more interested in their own peer group of civilisations that have full interstellar travel capabilities (if that is possible). That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would have a specific interest in our development. I could just about accept that if they really were Gods and were able to truly play God then we are actually resident in a simulated universe of their making and that they prefer to watch the ones with interesting emergent behaviour. I see no evidence at all that they do any meddling. Multiverse theory permits an infinite universe to sample all parameters with only the interesting ones ever getting to more complex phases. ISTR a conjecture that iff it proves possible to build a non-trivial quantum computer in this universe it considerably shortens the odds that we are actually inside a simulation in someone else's hyper computer. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:48:25 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable, since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly likely that they're interfering with us. That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are? Rather than assuming anything, I just note that when I look out of the window, I don't see flying saucers bringing CARE packages. So either advanced aliens don't exist, or they're bound by the speed of light, and so they don't know we exist, False dichotomy. or any number of other explanations. Rather than assume some other explanations, why not assume that they don't want to destroy our civilization like Europeans destroyed civilizations in the New World? The premises of yours that I have difficulty with are not the existence of advanced aliens, or that they might be charitably inclined towards us. No, what I find difficult to believe is: - that advanced aliens would find setting up religious belief systems on Earth to be the best or most appropriate way to contribute to our development, and - that the Bible is a sufficiently impressive document that it demands an explanation - if not the one it offers, of a supernatural Deity, at least advanced aliens faking it - other than being a collection of myths, rumors, and legends packaged up by later priesthoods to make it a better tool for controlling and manipulating the masses. I don't think the Bible and religious experience can be explained so easily. My rejection of these premises may be a prejudice on my part, but I find it rather more reasonable, and requiring less in the way of far-reaching assumptions, than the viewpoint you are appearing to advocate. John Savard So many, many people have had religious experiences that haven't been promoted by "priesthoods." These range from the Fatima and Lourdes accounts to Akiane Kramarek, Colton Burpo and a host of near-death reports. Atheists would claim these are all hoaxes, misunderstandings or mental aberrations, but these were all apparently normal people. To cover all these bases they would need several different explanations (i.e., excuses), so why invent several when one answers them all (i.e., God really does exist and interacts with people). Occam's Razor, you know. This point applies whether or not He exists in a benevolent ET civilization. As I pointed out to Paul, Christianity requires that the latter exists because the goal is to become like Him and dwell with Him forever, although most so-called Christians would deny that it exists in a physical state. Many of them would also deny that the earth is 4.5 billion years old in a 14-billion-year-old universe. But if they accept the ages given by science, they MUST conclude that either WE are Johnny-come-lately or God was sitting around twiddling His thumbs for 9 billion years. |
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 |