search results matching tag: cosmos

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (234)     Sift Talk (7)     Blogs (12)     Comments (317)   

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

shinyblurry says...

The mainstream theory these days is that something came from nothing. That to me seems to be the idea which could not have any justification. The idea that the God of the bible is the Creator of our Universe is something that touches history, in the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead then His claims about the order of the cosmos, and our relation to it, warrant an investigation; if not, then they should be discarded.

shveddy said:

Short version: Cosmology, particle physics, theoretical physics, etc... are elucidating fantastically complex aspects of our universe's beginning that we don't and probably won't ever fully understand. Some interpretations may indicate that there is some eternal process giving rise to the complexity we can observe. Therefore it's the Jewish war-diety from 3000 years ago that did it, definitely not Allah or Vishnu - that would just be crazy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Do You Believe in God?"

shinyblurry says...

Scientism:

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

The idea that science has all the answers is a particular faith of some atheists and agnostics, with no evidence actually supporting the claim. The problem of induction alone throws that idea out of the window. I love science and I amazed by what we are able to do, technologically. I've studied astronomy quite a bit in my lifetime. Just because I love science does not mean that I must bow before any theory because it is accepted by the mainstream scientific community as being the current idea of what is true and real.

If you look through history you will see many of these ideas held to be truth by the scientific community turned out to be half-baked ideas based on pure speculation. Somehow, people think we have it so nailed down now that the major ideas we have about the cosmos have to be true. It's pure hubris; our knowledge about how the Universe actually works or how it got here is infinitesimal compared to what there actually is to know.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper and say that represents all of the knowledge it is possible to know. What percentage of it could you claim that you knew? If you're honest, it isn't much. Do you think that knowledge of God and the supernatural could be in that 99 percent of things you don't know? If you really think about this you will see that to rule these things out based on limited and potentially faulty information is prideful and it blinds you to true understanding.

Bill Nye: The Earth is Really, Really Not 6,000 Years Old

shinyblurry says...

Hi Poolcleaner,

I think you're arguing from a false premise, that a belief in Creation science does not contribute to what you call true science. Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists. Here is a list of a few of them:

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

Their belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws (which is the reason we call them laws) highly influenced and inspired their exploration of the cosmos. Here are a couple of quotes:

When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!

-Robert Boyle, Chemistry

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

-Louis Pasteur, Medicine

Creation science is a collection of data which supports the idea that the Earth is young. Some of the theories within creation science are testable and predictive, but as a whole you cannot put it in a lab and perform a measurement any more than you could do so for macroevolution, because they both concern what happened in the past. You cannot observe macroevolution happening anywhere nor can you subject it to empirical testing. You can make observations and inferences based on a theory, but that is subject to interpretation.

poolcleaner said:

I wouldn't keep beating this horse bloody if yours hadn't died HUNDREDS of years prior.

Lilithia (Member Profile)

Exploring the Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson... stoned

Cosmos On Weed with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Exploring the Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson... stoned

Evolution's shortcoming is Intelligent Design's Downfall

leebowman says...

• From a science and engineering perspective, 'faith', or a desire that something be true [oversight], does not enter the picture. Only the data, and my interpretations, subject to revision.

• Magic man in the sky? Get serious ... ;~)

• My current view of 'design' is in regard to biological evolution only, not Cosmic formations, and not from a Biblical perspective. Nor do I consider the 'atom level up' to be explanatory. Yes, the Cosmos has progressed, likely on its own, but I view intelligence to be the instrumental cause of biologic progressions, however lengthy. And not just 'one' inteligentsia, but likely many.

cosmovitelli said:

• If you are inclined to believe in some over-watching intelligence that is creating and playing us as a hobby (and I understand and sympathize with that emotional need so long as you don't start burning unbelievers) then why bother with complicated half-science based justifications?

• If there's a big magic man in the sky why not just ignore science completely as those who perpetrated the dark ages did, instead of a neoliberal 95% concession to logic while still retaining the right to believe in magic?

• I'm not trying to insult - just interested in how a clearly smart mind squares the circle: either the world is explicable (atomic level up anyway) or its the arbitrary caprice of a being that renders our thoughts redundant .. no?

Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn't Want to Lose to Duck Dynasty

Bilderberg Member "Double-Speaks" to Protestors

Trancecoach says...

A TV show is not science (regardless of what Neil deGrasse Tyson would have you believe).

"Cosmos" is not a scientific study or proof of anything (nor is The Daily Show). Now, Tyson or Stewart can, if they care to, write papers on climate change and show their proofs of whatever claims they want, but their papers would be subjected to peer review if they're to have any scientific validity whatsoever.

Alas, television is strictly entertainment for the serfs. (Next, you're going to tell me that Michael Moore has "proven" how great the Cuban health care system is... Oh, that happened already. Issue settled.)

dannym3141 said:

The only climate change "debate" going on is between those who are not capable of understanding the science.

People have come to respect television and talking heads way too much. If you want a scientific opinion, why don't people ask a scientist? If you asked one at random you're 99.5% sure to get a "yup, the evidence says it's true." -- that's the approximate ratio of scientific opinion.

Bilderberg Member "Double-Speaks" to Protestors

Yogi says...

Cosmos last night says this isn't true either. I trust NDT over anyone.

newtboy said:

"but the ice caps have been increasing in size actually"....true, if you only count late fall and early winter in your calculations.

Neil deGrasse Tyson schooling ignorant climate fools

coolhund says...

Its really sad to see that so many people have been indoctrinated so well. But thats nothing new in human history. It just hurts that it still happens in such a time (the age of information) and in the name of science. Climate saving is first and foremost about money, which makes it a political and economical agenda. Else everyone would simply be planting trees, instead of actually hacking them down to make space for "climate saving technology" AKA bio-fuel.

Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories, but your "facts" generate a LOT of money and security for many different people who didnt have that much money and security before and who see themselves in a very dangerous situation, because more and more indoctrinated people want their jobs too, to be a world-saving hero. So they need even more money and more panic.

Also very interesting to see how people like you see climate saving as a religion, without even noticing the similarities with religion. "Ohhh nooooo the world will end if... well... you dont give us your money!"
Sound familiar? No, I know it doesnt for you, but it does for intelligent people, who dont just follow "science" blindly.

I am glad that there are still scientists who stay objective and dont swim with the stream just because everyone else does. People like them were very often in history the people who were right at the end, because they could stay objective since they didnt feel the need to be part of a corrupt group that told them what is right and what is wrong and what they should do and shouldnt do. The funny thing is, exactly that deGrasse preached many times in his Cosmos show, and here it suddenly needs to be completely different.
Another hypocrite exposed.

newtboy said:

...and reasonable people that have more 'faith' in facts and science than they do in some political pundit's propaganda.

Neil deGrasse Tyson schooling ignorant climate fools

Xaielao says...

Tyson is so good at easily and simply explaining science in a way even those without an interest in it can understand. I think it's the primary reason for Cosmos' success. How many minds have been changed on things like Climate Change and Evolution because he clearly and simply explained them. More than a few I'd wager.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains How Rich Bill Gates Is

SquidCap says...

The video is from 2011, he didn't have Cosmos money back then. I'm pretty sure he has doubled or tripled his income since. Also, i'll bet a lot what he does doesn't pay him anything.

charliem said:

Hes a professor, with tenure, and the director of the hayden planetarium....and he has his own tv show, and his own podcast...he is his own brand.

Im surprised he doesn't earn more to be honest.

Flatuscents



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon