Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Perimeter of Ignorance

[Athrun000]

As of the date - 24th February 2012, this video has 0 dislikes.

[iiiears]

Limits of his knowledge and within arms reach of religious zealots. let's placate them.

[cobrasaboteur1]

"aborted feces"

[Callirgos1]

The Dawk at 33:15

[yoransom]

I fall asleep to Neil speaking. Not because he makes me sleepy, but because he allows me to dream.

[NOC137]

@yoransom Was just about to go lay down after putting this on.. o_o

[routaran]

the way that Tyson holds his head when he says that al-ghazali, its like he's feelling and watching the disaster unfolding before his eyes and is powerless to do anything about it. a real tradegy.

[RealSoyZombie]

Reminds me of the bible quote "The lord knows the words of the wise are futile." Had that used in an argument against me made me laugh....

[jcravens42]

This was best at minute 23 to minute 27 - that is FANTASTIC, about the Arabic influence on math and science, and the flourishing of these under Islam, unlike Christianity, until one Iman in the 15th century took Islam in a totally different direction.

[volound]

@jcravens42 i would argue that without islam constricting beliefs and experimentation and manpower, science would have flourished more.

think of how many qur'anic scholars there were that wasted their talents and intelligence on studying scripture instead of contributing to science?

[andrewxc1335]

The problem with having separate holes for eating & breathing is that the breathing hole gets clogged when infected by viruses. Land mammals' trachea & esophagus merged, allowing the animal to breathe even while infected, conferring a HUGE benefit to reproduction, and voilà, it became the evolutionary norm.

[whitefire1997]

@andrewxc1335 True, but that further demonstrates the chaos and lack of intelligent design. The point being made was that we could have separate holes for eating and breathing, along with a heightened immune system, much like apes, and an unknown and yet better way to keep infections from clogging. I am sure if we were to build a supreme being it wouldn't be hard to look at other creatures on earth and cherry pick what benefits you want.

[andrewxc1335]

@whitefire1997 No argument, here. Life, as a whole, is lazy and opportunistic, rather than planned.

[1tabligh]

@whitefire1997 The Manifestations of God in Nature!

Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?

[whitefire1997]

@1tabligh No creator needed for that. It is natural selection and just a really long time for things to form under conditions. I believe that there could be considered a "godliness" in a quality sense. Just as Siddhartha meditated and became enlightened. He attained "godliness" as a quality. Those things you say prove a creator do not prove any god, but maybe should be admired for their "godliness". Try OSHO, you might be enlightened as well.

[1tabligh]

@whitefire1997 Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform to the

[1tabligh]

@whitefire1997 ignorance of nature itself.

The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.

[whitefire1997]

@1tabligh I applaud your attention to persusive writing. You seem rather intelligent for someone who still has an imaginary friend.

[whitefire1997]

@1tabligh "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

— Albert Einstein, 1954, Albert Einstein: The Human Side

[whitefire1997]

@1tabligh "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

— Albert Einstein, letter to Eric Gutkind, 1/3/1954

[1tabligh]

@whitefire1997 Albert Einstein, 1954, Albert Einstein....

____

In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).

With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in

[1tabligh]

reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.

In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer

[1tabligh]

strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.

Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[whitefire1997]

@1tabligh "Examine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world, and you will scarcely be persuaded that they are anything but sick men's dreams."

— David Hume, In The Natural History of Religion

[1tabligh]

What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent

All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe

[whitefire1997]

@1tabligh Okay. I don't believe in Allah either, but okay.

[1tabligh]

@whitefire1997 The atheist Delusion!

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[eragonsaphira777]

@1tabligh

That is very true. It is arrogant of people to assume we know a lot when really, we know nothing at all. We don't even know how everything about our own bodies, let alone the entire universe.

Then again, it is even more stupid to make up a magic mass-murdering tyrant called God who made the universe to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

[1tabligh]

@eragonsaphira777 ...we know nothing at all. We don't even know ...

___

Then what you think, you got the brain for?

The gnostics understand what is unintelligible to such deniers. It so happens sometimes that the creatures know not the wisdom thereof, though it is within the knowledge of the Creator.

[eragonsaphira777]

@1tabligh

What I personally believe is that we don't know enough to decide anything for certain. Especially if the knowledge relies on external stimuli to gain, as our sense are unreliable.

We know so little about the universe that we should admit we know next to nothing. We don't even know all the animals on Earth, new species are found each week, so to assume we know how everything begun is foolish in the extreme.

As a very wise man once said, "All I know, is that I know nothing."

[1tabligh]

@eragonsaphira777 If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?

Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?

[karan764]

@1tabligh relating the chaos and randomness of the universe to a man-made machinery with purpose and design, falls apart quiet quickly for the basis of an argument.

[1tabligh]

@karan764 ...with purpose and design, .....

Absurdity of Atheism!

If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.

[1tabligh]

@karan764 Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.

[1tabligh]

@eragonsaphira777 It so happens sometimes that someone among them is aware of a thing but in his ignorance of its reality, purpose and need, begins at once to find fault with it saying, "it is untenably wrong."

There are similar other advantages which the atheists fail to grasp and if they could have grasped them, they would not have denied the existence of such benefits therein.

[1tabligh]

When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on

[karan764]

@1tabligh You fall back on your comfortable circular logic. If *God* can simply "be", then so can the universe without the need for him. Our brains or not designed to understand the true nature of infinity and timelessness. God is nice to fall back on when this thought is troubling.

[1tabligh]

scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

[karan764]

@1tabligh Considerable? No. Watch again and listen to the statistics this time. Also, please point out ANY deduction or logic that points to a creator. Please, enlighten me with the logic being a creator that does not come out of a three and a half thousand year old book. Lets use the scientific method, and start at the basis that we know nothing.

[1tabligh]

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?

No?

Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[karan764]

@1tabligh I don't know. I might ask you how God should first produce him/her/it's self and finally decree the laws which regulate the lives of even the non-believers. Just because we do not understand YET, does not mean we should fill in the gaps with *God*. That was kind of the whole point of his talk, yah know.

[MrItchyTasty]

Can't wait to see him hosting "Cosmos".

[MrBrittish]

@MrItchyTasty What's this about Tyson doing cosmos, Is he doing a new modern version of Carl Sagan's Cosmos or is it just a series with the same name? Tyson is certainly the man to do a new version of Cosmos.

[MrItchyTasty]

@MrBrittish They are doing a sequel, Seth MacFarlane is producing it (hopefully it will not be edited for rednecks) and it will air on Fox. They want it to air on Fox due to it's viewer base being the ones that require science education the most, heh.

[bronsonbaker]

@MrBrittish I think it's a continuation.

[VeryMacabre]

@MrBrittish Tyson is hosting the new, updated version of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Seth MacFarlane of "Family Guy" fame is producing it, along with Sagan's widow Ann Druyan. It should start airing on Fox and the Natural Geographic Channel in 2013.

[ThePolishSausage87]

Tyson rules!

[zabukazar]

Love that guy. Always entertaining.