@MurkrazOfficial I'm with you. I wish I'd learned about him before he died. Unfortunately, I was an evangelical Christian when that happened, and we would not have gotten along.
@RevolutionaryWordsTV circular reasoning requires only reasoning leading to no evidence, in other words, none of those examples are circular reasoning. think of circular reasoning as reasoning leading back to reasoning and doing so in a cycle, in all of those examples, there is reasoning, but it leads back to evidence, so it's not circular reasoning.
He talks about computers and "ancestor recreation virtual reality", since chances are we are in one of the billion possible computer simulated worlds.
@atheyx4 2 Kings 2:23-25 "And from there he went up to Bethel, and when he came upon the mountain the youths called upon him "Go on up you baldhead!" They shouted "Go on up you baldhead!" And when he turned and saw them he cursed them in the name of the Lord. The Lord then sent two she-bears from the forest and tore up forty two of youths number."
I'm a just leave this wonderful nugget of wisdom here...
Sagan one of the greatest minds ever? I'm sorry but you're overexagerating. When you say greatest minds, you're putting him in the ranks of Einstein, Newton, Faradau, or Planck. A guy who popularized science to the public is a great mind how? Any guy who is articulate and knows science can do that, it takes personality and some knowledge, not a great mind or intelligence.
I know you idiots need something to worship, but Sagan? Come on be real now...
Carl Sagan was one of Nasa's top advisors for many years. He also did countless research projects and experiments. Many of which, lead to a vastly better understanding of current scientific theories. Stephen Hawking also made it his mission to make public the understanding of highly complex theories. Is he also unworthy of being paired with Einstein?
Yes he is also unworthy, hawkings only ranks in the 50s in influence in scientific history, Einstein ranks 2. Yes, they still don't even come close to Einstein.
I never even saw Sagan in the top 100 influence in science.
Also, I don;t base whether or not someone is a great intellectual on how high they rank in influence on science. Their achievements alone will define them as such with no subjective judgement.
These fiures are based on the historical influence on Science these people have done. But if you want to talk about achievements, Sagan wasn't anywhere near Einstein, happy now?
Sure, he did not accomplish as much as Einstein. So what? That does not make him no a great mind. And my original question meant, how do you assign numerical ranking to the contributions of people, by vote? In that case I should say that Darwin is on par with Einstein in so far as he radically changed the field he was in. As did Einstein. There are many many great minds throughout history and I'm sorry if they don't fall into your top 10. Carl Sagan did much to advance the sciences.
I'm not saying he wasn't intelligent, he's just not one of the greatest, and his contributions to science are as great as your average scientist, he wasn't that great.
We're talking about science in general, and Darwin takes 4th place behind Bohr, Einstein and Newton. These "subjective judgements" are based off professionals in the history of science analyizing the influence of scientists on Science.
You're right, I'm a fanatical Sagan worshiper. All hail Carl. Please.....
Btw, Einstein was a calculator, and not much else. He allowed emotions into his thought process which greatly clouded his view. It's the reason he rejected his own math that predicted black holes. Also the model of "fabric space-time" for gravity has long since been abandoned. The analogy of a ball on a sheet, has been regarded as a very poor describer of gravitational theory. Especially in the face of M-Theory.
Einstein was the greatest Scientist who ever lived, only Newton probaly having more influence than Einstein. Einstein's fabric of space-time is rejected? Really, by who? No one has proven Einstein wrong, his equations are accurate and have never been proven wrong.
M-theory? Are you fucking kidding me? That load of theorticial bullcrap that doesn't have one iota of evidence backing it up? Yeah, you're as delusional as I thought. GTFO.
You bring up a theory which has no evidence, therefore Einstein is wrong, I'm a troll, and you're right? Really cogent reasoning there... Yeah, get a brain.
btw this: The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.
Is the arbitrary opinion of one author.
I don't care about opinions accept my own, and in my own opinion, Carl Sagan did much to advance science in the 20th century.
Arbitrary opinion from one author? The author provided multiple sources from different scientific historians and historical analysts. Carl Sagan didn't do shit, he isn't remembered, he is only in the minds of idiots like you, and people like me trying to make you idiots look worser than you.
You just lied and everyone saw, you didn't do any research on the book. Furthermore, you haven't given any examples of Sagan helping science, or any evidence for M-theory? I'm just stupid right? LOL
I counter your argument via text evidence. In Tom Head's "Conversations with Carl", 2006, Head questions Carl Sagan's religious beliefs. Sagan answers, "I'm agnostic". Ann Druyan, his widow, also credits him as an agnostic as well as a freethinker. A quick word of advice, one should support his/her argument before making ill-informed accusations as to avoid ignorance.
He is not an atheist, he's an agnostic. He's said personally, "it is difficult to both prove there is no God as it is difficult to prove there is a God." An absolute goes against the idea of imperfection, thus, both sides (Christian and Atheist) are at a futile conflict. Keep searching.
You really misunderstood Carl Sagan. He was the best atheist ever! He was actually able to articulate his point of view so everyone, believer and non-believer, could understand.
I have always believed this is the case. Religious zealots just can't accept reality, that's why they cling to their idiotic bibles and other religious dogma. There is no god, it was created by man to try and explain the inexplicable. There are hundreds of religions, and they can't all be right, but, they can all be wrong.
Exactly,my friend.I forgot who said:"Even if god doesn't exist,the idea of god would be necessary for mankind" or something to that effect,I may have butchered the quote a little
We accept a universe w/o God, but fail to ask about the ordering principles in the universe.
One such principle is time (sequential ordering of events) but we don't ask what made time...it is simply assumed.
What if as Hawkings points out time didn't exist...do our notions of cause and effect have relevance in timeless eternity?
We may be genetically disposed to a temporal "addiction", precluding an understanding of pre-bang timelessness apart from the intervention of an "Holy Other" (God).
And if God did it (in timeless eternity) Ex Nihilio (out of nothing) then why limit the causation to a Big Bang...Why not six literal day? What then would be the limiting factor? Only one...the assumption of the non- existence of a omnidimensional quantum being called God.
Therefore the assumption precludes the possibility of evidence.
But if God did it...in timeless eternity why assume that in time such a being could not do it in six literal days.
And knowing the problematic nature of our seperation from his more tangible presence, how might such a being communicate with the largest possible percentage of humanity toward a solution.
Ah, yes the written word is a technology that can exist in every time of human acitivity...but how to authenticate that book as coming from God, rather than a human counterfeiter?
think. think. Ah, yes, prophecy functions within the technological medium to demonstrate the point of origin as being outside the time domain, because it speaks of events not yet occured in complex chains of events precluding hostile jamming because the message is spread accross the available bandwidth.But if a Bible, if a God, then preservation of the message for generations not yet born.
The message was the quantum being himself "God will provide himself a lamb" Therefore Jesus Christ.
Who accepts the Universe w/o God, yourself? Well, how can you claim that your opinion is fact and the default position? You msut first demonstrate that it is w/o God.
The order in the Universe is no dictated by time, in fact time is dicatted by order. Time di dnot exist until the four fundamental forces split during the split-second of the Big Bang.
Finally time does exist, check up on modern science, special relativity demonstartaes that time does exist...
No, I do not agree. Most church fathers believed that God ordered the Universe, not created it from nothing. I also re-read what you said on time, it is sequencing events, so what? We don't question what time is? YEah, Newton, Kant, Einstein, Leibniz and countless others disagree.
The ones who cling to religion are scared of something, I'm not. I cling to me, my fitness, my intelligence, my skills, my abilities and my family. The rest follows, naturally, without interference from silly superstition. Take it easy Buddy.
That's true. I have a deep fascination with sci-fi and fantasy fiction. I can't stop reading or thinking about it most of the time. It is my life line when I am down, an escape.
The important difference however, is that I realize they are what they are; fiction. The religious fail to do this... with terrible consequences.
No, man didn't make himself, he made god, since god couldn't have made itself. The idea of god is silly. That's my opinion. Science has not proved any connection to a single point either, and recently, Dr. Stephen Hawking postulated that everything was already here, nothing made it. Are you as bright as Hawking? Read his books. He's also an atheist.
Humans can make nothing that they weren't not given first.
To look at the universe and say is there is no creator is like looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and saying the magnificent artwork appeared on the ceiling without Michelangelo
I would do anything to have a chat with this man!
MurkrazOfficial 2 months ago
@MurkrazOfficial I'm with you. I wish I'd learned about him before he died. Unfortunately, I was an evangelical Christian when that happened, and we would not have gotten along.
TheDataMonkey 1 month ago
Comment removed
MurkrazOfficial 2 months ago
How do they date fossils? 1. Geologic Column
How do they date time periods in the Geologic Column? 1. Index Fossils
Yes, "scientists" date the layer of ground with a fossil and date the fossil by what layer they come in.
This is called "Circular Reasoning".
How did all the elements from the Periodic Table of Elements come in being?
Where are all the fossils that prove apes evolved into humans and reptiles evolved into birds?
Evolution requires blind faith too!!
God lives.
RevolutionaryWordsTV 3 months ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV circular reasoning requires only reasoning leading to no evidence, in other words, none of those examples are circular reasoning. think of circular reasoning as reasoning leading back to reasoning and doing so in a cycle, in all of those examples, there is reasoning, but it leads back to evidence, so it's not circular reasoning.
quzishen 1 month ago
He talks about computers and "ancestor recreation virtual reality", since chances are we are in one of the billion possible computer simulated worlds.
Ramiromasters 9 months ago
we miss you Carl Segan!
javonne 1 year ago
That's so true. Religion was created because of the question we have about life. How we got here, how was the universe made, and so on.
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."
atheyx4 1 year ago
@atheyx4 Can you stop posting that one excerpt everywhere?
aabbccddee11a 1 year ago
@atheyx4 2 Kings 2:23-25 "And from there he went up to Bethel, and when he came upon the mountain the youths called upon him "Go on up you baldhead!" They shouted "Go on up you baldhead!" And when he turned and saw them he cursed them in the name of the Lord. The Lord then sent two she-bears from the forest and tore up forty two of youths number."
I'm a just leave this wonderful nugget of wisdom here...
palerider8 1 year ago
@atheyx4 Only a fool would post such nonsense!
Einsteinian99 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheyx4 >Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
Says the guy who believes a book full of magical bullshit.
TheDataMonkey 1 month ago
Why not just a skip a step?
Why not just stop being ignorant imbeciles who still believe in wizards living up in the sky who create our world out of magic?
Druffmaul 1 year ago
Comment removed
Druffmaul 1 year ago
And certainly one of the greatest minds to lecture extensively on TV.
AspiringPotato 1 year ago
no matter what you say, an invisible guy, who lives in the sky will always be a big fucking joke
XtraordinaryMT 1 year ago 6
You two must lots of friends and very busy schedules.
Rojhelio 2 years ago
Sagan one of the greatest minds ever? I'm sorry but you're overexagerating. When you say greatest minds, you're putting him in the ranks of Einstein, Newton, Faradau, or Planck. A guy who popularized science to the public is a great mind how? Any guy who is articulate and knows science can do that, it takes personality and some knowledge, not a great mind or intelligence.
I know you idiots need something to worship, but Sagan? Come on be real now...
ogirv101 2 years ago
Carl Sagan was one of Nasa's top advisors for many years. He also did countless research projects and experiments. Many of which, lead to a vastly better understanding of current scientific theories. Stephen Hawking also made it his mission to make public the understanding of highly complex theories. Is he also unworthy of being paired with Einstein?
usbiker133t 2 years ago
@usbiker133t:
Yes he is also unworthy, hawkings only ranks in the 50s in influence in scientific history, Einstein ranks 2. Yes, they still don't even come close to Einstein.
I never even saw Sagan in the top 100 influence in science.
ogirv101 2 years ago
And just what are those figures based on?
usbiker133t 2 years ago
Also, I don;t base whether or not someone is a great intellectual on how high they rank in influence on science. Their achievements alone will define them as such with no subjective judgement.
usbiker133t 2 years ago
@usbiker133t:
These fiures are based on the historical influence on Science these people have done. But if you want to talk about achievements, Sagan wasn't anywhere near Einstein, happy now?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Sure, he did not accomplish as much as Einstein. So what? That does not make him no a great mind. And my original question meant, how do you assign numerical ranking to the contributions of people, by vote? In that case I should say that Darwin is on par with Einstein in so far as he radically changed the field he was in. As did Einstein. There are many many great minds throughout history and I'm sorry if they don't fall into your top 10. Carl Sagan did much to advance the sciences.
usbiker133t 2 years ago
not*
usbiker133t 2 years ago
I'm not saying he wasn't intelligent, he's just not one of the greatest, and his contributions to science are as great as your average scientist, he wasn't that great.
We're talking about science in general, and Darwin takes 4th place behind Bohr, Einstein and Newton. These "subjective judgements" are based off professionals in the history of science analyizing the influence of scientists on Science.
ogirv101 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When you say great mind, you refer to someone extremely special. He was a bright guy, not a great mind, stop worshipping him you fanatic.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You're right, I'm a fanatical Sagan worshiper. All hail Carl. Please.....
Btw, Einstein was a calculator, and not much else. He allowed emotions into his thought process which greatly clouded his view. It's the reason he rejected his own math that predicted black holes. Also the model of "fabric space-time" for gravity has long since been abandoned. The analogy of a ball on a sheet, has been regarded as a very poor describer of gravitational theory. Especially in the face of M-Theory.
usbiker133t 2 years ago
Einstein was the greatest Scientist who ever lived, only Newton probaly having more influence than Einstein. Einstein's fabric of space-time is rejected? Really, by who? No one has proven Einstein wrong, his equations are accurate and have never been proven wrong.
M-theory? Are you fucking kidding me? That load of theorticial bullcrap that doesn't have one iota of evidence backing it up? Yeah, you're as delusional as I thought. GTFO.
ogirv101 2 years ago
and you are a troll as I thought. Good day.
usbiker133t 2 years ago
You bring up a theory which has no evidence, therefore Einstein is wrong, I'm a troll, and you're right? Really cogent reasoning there... Yeah, get a brain.
ogirv101 2 years ago
If you knew how dumb you sound, you wouldn't be talking. Good day, say all you want in further comments but you won't get a response from me.
usbiker133t 2 years ago
btw this: The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.
Is the arbitrary opinion of one author.
I don't care about opinions accept my own, and in my own opinion, Carl Sagan did much to advance science in the 20th century.
usbiker133t 2 years ago
Arbitrary opinion from one author? The author provided multiple sources from different scientific historians and historical analysts. Carl Sagan didn't do shit, he isn't remembered, he is only in the minds of idiots like you, and people like me trying to make you idiots look worser than you.
You just lied and everyone saw, you didn't do any research on the book. Furthermore, you haven't given any examples of Sagan helping science, or any evidence for M-theory? I'm just stupid right? LOL
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101 It sure does seem that way. You being stupid I mean.
TheScyy 1 year ago
It depends on your definition of agnostic and atheist: strict construction vs. common parlance.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
I counter your argument via text evidence. In Tom Head's "Conversations with Carl", 2006, Head questions Carl Sagan's religious beliefs. Sagan answers, "I'm agnostic". Ann Druyan, his widow, also credits him as an agnostic as well as a freethinker. A quick word of advice, one should support his/her argument before making ill-informed accusations as to avoid ignorance.
CaptainRetarded 2 years ago
Who are you talking to?
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
He is not an atheist, he's an agnostic. He's said personally, "it is difficult to both prove there is no God as it is difficult to prove there is a God." An absolute goes against the idea of imperfection, thus, both sides (Christian and Atheist) are at a futile conflict. Keep searching.
CaptainRetarded 2 years ago
You really misunderstood Carl Sagan. He was the best atheist ever! He was actually able to articulate his point of view so everyone, believer and non-believer, could understand.
R.I.P Carl Sagan
GiaAndScott 2 years ago
A most excellent Christmas video. ;-)
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 years ago 17
I have always believed this is the case. Religious zealots just can't accept reality, that's why they cling to their idiotic bibles and other religious dogma. There is no god, it was created by man to try and explain the inexplicable. There are hundreds of religions, and they can't all be right, but, they can all be wrong.
opshadow1 3 years ago 26
Exactly,my friend.I forgot who said:"Even if god doesn't exist,the idea of god would be necessary for mankind" or something to that effect,I may have butchered the quote a little
Skeptic423 3 years ago
"if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire
SDRE1005 2 years ago 16
Yes,thank you.
Skeptic423 2 years ago
@SDRE1005
Because the cosmos cannot be explained in any other way.
Even Einstein believed in God.
He didn't believe in hell/heaven but he did believe in the existence of God
RevolutionaryWordsTV 1 week ago
We accept a universe w/o God, but fail to ask about the ordering principles in the universe.
One such principle is time (sequential ordering of events) but we don't ask what made time...it is simply assumed.
What if as Hawkings points out time didn't exist...do our notions of cause and effect have relevance in timeless eternity?
We may be genetically disposed to a temporal "addiction", precluding an understanding of pre-bang timelessness apart from the intervention of an "Holy Other" (God).
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
And if God did it (in timeless eternity) Ex Nihilio (out of nothing) then why limit the causation to a Big Bang...Why not six literal day? What then would be the limiting factor? Only one...the assumption of the non- existence of a omnidimensional quantum being called God.
Therefore the assumption precludes the possibility of evidence.
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
But if God did it...in timeless eternity why assume that in time such a being could not do it in six literal days.
And knowing the problematic nature of our seperation from his more tangible presence, how might such a being communicate with the largest possible percentage of humanity toward a solution.
Ah, yes the written word is a technology that can exist in every time of human acitivity...but how to authenticate that book as coming from God, rather than a human counterfeiter?
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
think. think. Ah, yes, prophecy functions within the technological medium to demonstrate the point of origin as being outside the time domain, because it speaks of events not yet occured in complex chains of events precluding hostile jamming because the message is spread accross the available bandwidth.But if a Bible, if a God, then preservation of the message for generations not yet born.
The message was the quantum being himself "God will provide himself a lamb" Therefore Jesus Christ.
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
@KnightlySirJames1:
Who accepts the Universe w/o God, yourself? Well, how can you claim that your opinion is fact and the default position? You msut first demonstrate that it is w/o God.
The order in the Universe is no dictated by time, in fact time is dicatted by order. Time di dnot exist until the four fundamental forces split during the split-second of the Big Bang.
Finally time does exist, check up on modern science, special relativity demonstartaes that time does exist...
ogirv101 2 years ago
You may need to reread my comments, as you've mistaken my argument in the hypothetical...I suspect we actually agree, on God,order, and time...
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
@KnightlySirJames1:
No, I do not agree. Most church fathers believed that God ordered the Universe, not created it from nothing. I also re-read what you said on time, it is sequencing events, so what? We don't question what time is? YEah, Newton, Kant, Einstein, Leibniz and countless others disagree.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@opshadow1 everybody clings to something. its inescapable human nature.
bomber101581 1 year ago
@bomber101581
The ones who cling to religion are scared of something, I'm not. I cling to me, my fitness, my intelligence, my skills, my abilities and my family. The rest follows, naturally, without interference from silly superstition. Take it easy Buddy.
opshadow1 1 year ago
@bomber101581
That's true. I have a deep fascination with sci-fi and fantasy fiction. I can't stop reading or thinking about it most of the time. It is my life line when I am down, an escape.
The important difference however, is that I realize they are what they are; fiction. The religious fail to do this... with terrible consequences.
Vire70 1 year ago
@opshadow1 lol...so man made himself? are you an expression of the universe, or is the universe an expression of you?
I think science has already proved that we are all connected to a signal point that transcended time and space.... sounds like a god to me.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27
No, man didn't make himself, he made god, since god couldn't have made itself. The idea of god is silly. That's my opinion. Science has not proved any connection to a single point either, and recently, Dr. Stephen Hawking postulated that everything was already here, nothing made it. Are you as bright as Hawking? Read his books. He's also an atheist.
opshadow1 1 year ago 2
@opshadow1
God makes universes at His will.
Humans can make nothing that they weren't not given first.
To look at the universe and say is there is no creator is like looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and saying the magnificent artwork appeared on the ceiling without Michelangelo
Every building has an architect
Every engine has an engineers
Every painting has an artist
Every sculpture has a sculptor
Every piece of music has a composer
Your life has a Creator.
RevolutionaryWordsTV 1 week ago
yeee Carl!!
spongertillidie 3 years ago 5