COSMOS: Possible Worlds in 2019

Dr. Righteous said:
I watched the original COSMOS with Carl Sagan on PBS in early early 80s and really enjoyed it.
But it is worth noting an assertion that Sagan makes. "It is Cosmos, not chaos". The word cosmos means a harmonious order.
It amazes me that noted physicists like Steven Hawkins will author books like "The Grand Design" and will not connect the dots that a design points to a designer.
It is not because it is incompatible with science or the evidence. It is because it does not fit their philosophical beliefs.
Click to expand...
Have you read (not watched) Contact?
 
Dayaks said:
I look forward to the show. I always liked the way Tyson presents.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think Tyson is smart and very engaging on the subject matter. But I also thing that his person beliefs cloud his judgment. I watched an interview with him on his hero Sir Issac Newton. Tyson gushed over Newton's brilliance and his scientific accomplishments at a young age. Then but then I watched another video of him calling Christians and those who believe in God as the supreme creator as superstitious fools. Mr. Tyson fails to realize that Newton was first a devout Christian and theologian, and second a scientist. It is clear from Newton's writing that the scientific investigation of things was a pursuit of God's design.
 
Nice said:
Have you read (not watched) Contact?
Click to expand...

I've not read it but Contact was a novel, not a scientific journal.
As interesting as SETI is; there has not been a single verified signal from an alien since it's inception. The single time they got excited about what seemed to be a intelligent signal from space it turned out to be the rhythmic radiation burst from a neutron star.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Yeah I think Tyson is smart and very engaging on the subject matter. But I also thing that his person beliefs cloud his judgment. I watched an interview with him on his hero Sir Issac Newton. Tyson gushed over Newton's brilliance and his scientific accomplishments at a young age. Then but then I watched another video of him calling Christians and those who believe in God as the supreme creator as superstitious fools. Mr. Tyson fails to realize that Newton was first a devout Christian and theologian, and second a scientist. It is clear from Newton's writing that the scientific investigation of things was a pursuit of God's design.
Click to expand...

Well back in those days if you questioned God at all you were burned at the stake. Who knows what they really thought.

Tyson also points out that a great many scientists who got stumped would say, “it must be god’s will!” rather than pushing forward to the truth. That’s his main beef with it.

Overall Christianity used to be a huge roadblock for scientists and people were murdered over it.
 
Last edited:
DigitalGriffin said:
The Earth's CO2 comp is nowhere near it's peak when life was plenty abundant on this Earth.
Click to expand...

Sure, you're absolutely correct. CO2 levels were at 1000+ ppm during the Cretaceous warm period and temperatures were significantly higher. 'Life' as a whole will *probably* be just fine unless we turn the planet into Venus.

CO2 levels normally change over thousands-to-millions of years with the positions of the continents, changes in ocean currents, and changes in vegetation coverage. The Human industrial revolution has rapidly dumped a huge and steadily increasing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere from sources that may have been sequestered even before those warm periods. CO2 levels have never changed this rapidly. It's already higher than its been in the last 800,000-10 million years. We don't know what the consequences will be, we barely understand where all the CO2 is going as it is. During the natural warm periods millions of years ago there were no ice caps, if that happened today most of our population centers would be underwater.

I get the skepticism, but I think we have enough information to say that this is a real issue.

Dr. Righteous said:
I watched the original COSMOS with Carl Sagan on PBS in early early 80s and really enjoyed it.
But it is worth noting an assertion that Sagan makes. "It is Cosmos, not chaos". The word cosmos means a harmonious order.
It amazes me that noted physicists like Steven Hawkins will author books like "The Grand Design" and will not connect the dots that a design points to a designer.
It is not because it is incompatible with science or the evidence. It is because it does not fit their philosophical beliefs.
Click to expand...

Sagan himself discussed this in the original Cosmos:

...If the general picture of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly, somehow, created? How did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the universe out of nothing, but if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from?

If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the Universe always existed?

These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face-to-face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dr. Righteous said:
I watched the original COSMOS with Carl Sagan on PBS in early early 80s and really enjoyed it.
But it is worth noting an assertion that Sagan makes. "It is Cosmos, not chaos". The word cosmos means a harmonious order.
It amazes me that noted physicists like Steven Hawkins will author books like "The Grand Design" and will not connect the dots that a design points to a designer.
It is not because it is incompatible with science or the evidence. It is because it does not fit their philosophical beliefs.
Click to expand...

It is incompatible with evidence though. Religion is about faith. Religion requires that you believe without evidence to back it up, just a feeling and "you know it in your heart". That is the antithesis of science. The scientific method is all about backing up statements with verifiable research. Well done science requires that the scientists follow the data and use that data to come to a conclusion that is not based on what they believe or what they want to be true but what the data shows them. The Bible and other religious texts do not provide scientific information or verifiable answers, they provide possible answers based on what people thousands of years ago believed.
 
Dayaks said:
Well back in those days if you questioned God at all you were burned at the stake. Who knows what they really thought.

Tyson also points out that a great many scientists who got stumped would say, “it must be god’s will!” rather than pushing forward to the truth. That’s his main beef with it.

Overall Christianity used to be a huge roadblock for scientists and people were murdered over it.
Click to expand...


Ummm.. no.. it was if you questioned or went against the Roman Catholic "Church".. which, if you do any research, was/is NOT Christian whatsoever.
 
Dayaks said:
Well back in those days if you questioned God at all you were burned at the stake. Who knows what they really thought.
Tyson also points out that a great many scientists who got stumped would say, “it must be god’s will!” rather than pushing forward to the truth.
Overall Christianity used to be a huge roadblock for scientists and people were murdered over it.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is illogical.
For those who were burned at the stake by the church; those were usually protestants, not scientists. Historically the hierarchy of sciences placed theology at the top as "the queen of the sciences". This was not something forced by the church; it was by the conscious of the scientists. If you point to say Galileo for example that was placed under house arrest by the church because of his discovery with a telescope; it was not because his observations were in conflict with biblical orthodoxy. It was it was contrary to the position held by the church at the time which was in error. That position DID NOT agree with scriptural account of God's order of the universe. It was the notion of Popes and council.
I would be amiss if I didn't broaden the perspective here. Yes, Theology was the queen of the sciences; but no more. That is not the belief of most now. The that can be attributed to what is known as the Kantian revolution. Emanuel Kant's book "The critique of pure reason" published in 1781 argued there is no way we can know anything about God from the only reliable methods we possess. You cannot explore the metaphysical with science. So you cannot know.
For a lot of people this dashed their believe that God had anything to do with creation or the world as we know it. It ushered in atheism and agnosticism as "reasonable". BUT, Kant did not make such assertions. Kant's conclusion that the evidence of God and his law was in the law of morality observed by mankind. The schism that has arisen is that religious belief and science is in conflict. Lacking a transcendent belief system science has become a quasi-religion for many. But science does not offer any answers to the questions that weighs heavy on the human heart.
Every person in every culture asks the same questions. "Why am I here?, What is my purpose? What is the meaning to all this?"
I find it amazing that these questions are answered not found in lofty academic literature but in the first question a catechism taught to children.

Question: What is the chief end of man?
Answer: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Westminster catechism
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Your assertion is illogical.
For those who were burned at the stake by the church; those were usually protestants, not scientists. Historically the hierarchy of sciences placed theology at the top as "the queen of the sciences". This was not something forced by the church; it was by the conscious of the scientists. If you point to say Galileo for example that was placed under house arrest by the church because of his discovery with a telescope; it was not because his observations were in conflict with biblical orthodoxy. It was it was contrary to the position held by the church at the time which was in error. That position DID NOT agree with scriptural account of God's order of the universe. It was the notion of Popes and council.
I would be amiss if I didn't broaden the perspective here. Yes, Theology was the queen of the sciences; but no more. That is not the belief of most now. The that can be attributed to what is known as the Kantian revolution. Emanuel Kant's book "The critique of pure reason" published in 1781 argued there is no way we can know anything about God from the only reliable methods we possess. You cannot explore the metaphysical with science. So you cannot know.
For a lot of people this dashed their believe that God had anything to do with creation or the world as we know it. It ushered in atheism and agnosticism as "reasonable". BUT, Kant did not make such assertions. Kant's conclusion that the evidence of God and his law was in the law of morality observed by mankind. The schism that has arisen is that religious belief and science is in conflict. Lacking a transcendent belief system science has become a quasi-religion for many. But science does not offer any answers to the questions that weighs heavy on the human heart.
Every person in every culture asks the same questions. "Why am I here?, What is my purpose? What is the meaning to all this?"
I find it amazing that these questions are answered not found in lofty academic literature but in the first question a catechism taught to children.

Question: What is the chief end of man?
Answer: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Westminster catechism
Click to expand...

I was talking about the church and not the bible. Honestly this is way off topic and useless to converse about. I am going to drop this convo like it’s a hot potato.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Your assertion is illogical.
For those who were burned at the stake by the church; those were usually protestants, not scientists. Historically the hierarchy of sciences placed theology at the top as "the queen of the sciences". This was not something forced by the church; it was by the conscious of the scientists. If you point to say Galileo for example that was placed under house arrest by the church because of his discovery with a telescope; it was not because his observations were in conflict with biblical orthodoxy. It was it was contrary to the position held by the church at the time which was in error. That position DID NOT agree with scriptural account of God's order of the universe. It was the notion of Popes and council.
I would be amiss if I didn't broaden the perspective here. Yes, Theology was the queen of the sciences; but no more. That is not the belief of most now. The that can be attributed to what is known as the Kantian revolution. Emanuel Kant's book "The critique of pure reason" published in 1781 argued there is no way we can know anything about God from the only reliable methods we possess. You cannot explore the metaphysical with science. So you cannot know.
For a lot of people this dashed their believe that God had anything to do with creation or the world as we know it. It ushered in atheism and agnosticism as "reasonable". BUT, Kant did not make such assertions. Kant's conclusion that the evidence of God and his law was in the law of morality observed by mankind. The schism that has arisen is that religious belief and science is in conflict. Lacking a transcendent belief system science has become a quasi-religion for many. But science does not offer any answers to the questions that weighs heavy on the human heart.
Every person in every culture asks the same questions. "Why am I here?, What is my purpose? What is the meaning to all this?"
I find it amazing that these questions are answered not found in lofty academic literature but in the first question a catechism taught to children.

Question: What is the chief end of man?
Answer: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Westminster catechism
Click to expand...

Why am I here?
Because of the big bang, evolution, and because social-political conditions created a situation that caused some of my ancestors to leave their home countries and come to the US and eventually meet and procreate. There is no grand design or special meaning to it. I exist because shit happened and caused me to exist.

What is my purpose?
Do I need one? I have goals and various temporary purposes but I don't need to believe in some crap like destiny or a grand design to live my life.

What is the meaning to all this?
There isn't one. This is one of the hardest things for the human mind to grasp. We want to believe that there is some grand meaning to life beyond the handful of years we get to exist on this planet. The only meaning that exists is what we give it. Life does not need to be part of some deity's grand design to have personal meaning.

What is the chief end of man?
To evolve and survive. That is the end goal of every species on the planet and has been since life first grew on this world.
 
Dayaks said:
Potato potatoe
Click to expand...

No.. not really. The people that were being burned at the stake were the ones who were actually following what the Bible said (they were the ones actually following God).

The Roman Catholic church couldn't have this as it meant that they would lose their power over people and thus their source of income so they murdered them.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
I watched the original COSMOS with Carl Sagan on PBS in early early 80s and really enjoyed it.
But it is worth noting an assertion that Sagan makes. "It is Cosmos, not chaos". The word cosmos means a harmonious order.
Click to expand...
Yet ironically entropy tends to get bigger, so things are moving more towards the chaotic, regardless of what Mr. Sagan believed.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Sagan himself discussed this in the original Cosmos:

...If the general picture of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly, somehow, created? How did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the universe out of nothing, but if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the Universe always existed?
These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face-to-face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.
Click to expand...

Sagan makes this point "it is Cosmos, not chaos" But then puts forward no answers but sidesteps the issue. This doesn't satisfy the inquiring mind of a 5 year old. The "eternal universe" theory has been abandoned by all serious minded scientists. It is obsolete because the cosmological evidence is there was a singular point of origin for the universe a very long time ago. (I'm sure you would agree). The universe cannot create itself. Something that does not exist cannot make itself exist regardless if you are talking in the span of 10 second of 10 billion years (ex-nihilo nihil fit). If we are to be intellectually honest we have to conclude there has to be something beyond the limits of our universe that was the first cause. Something that transcends space and time and something with the power to create this orderly universe. It is Cosmos and not Chaos because the creator placed it in it's order.

You don't have to join the "christian crowd" to knowledge the evidence shows a creative power behind everything. You don't have to believe the Bible. (we don't want you if your heart is not in it) To believe in something rather than nothing is intellectual solid ground. People are abandoning the atheistic view because it is a dead end with no answers. That is a lonely place to be.
 
WTF this thread got weird. What's wrong with general science education in 2018?
 
Shadowed said:
WTF this thread got weird. What's wrong with general science education in 2018?
Click to expand...

Have you seen the weird shit millennials watch on youtube? I noticed the internet got really weird along with the proliferation of smartphones.

Dr. Righteous said:
Sagan makes this point "it is Cosmos, not chaos" But then puts forward no answers but sidesteps the issue. This doesn't satisfy the inquiring mind of a 5 year old. The "eternal universe" theory has been abandoned by all serious minded scientists. It is obsolete because the cosmological evidence is there was a singular point of origin for the universe a very long time ago. (I'm sure you would agree). The universe cannot create itself.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing the big bang vs steady state debate with the sort of infinite cosmology we're talking about. Yes, the observable universe apparently had a beginning some ~13.8 billion years ago or whatever where it expanded out of an infinitely small point. That's the limit of what we can observe. That doesn't mean that there could not have been something else before then, that this universe is part of an infinite multiverse, or part of an infinite stack of computer simulations, whatever.

Something that does not exist cannot make itself exist regardless if you are talking in the span of 10 second of 10 billion years (ex-nihilo nihil fit). If we are to be intellectually honest we have to conclude there has to be something beyond the limits of our universe that was the first cause. Something that transcends space and time and something with the power to create this orderly universe. It is Cosmos and not Chaos because the creator placed it in it's order...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. If the universe and the various phenomena within it are too complex to simply come into being then how do you get a creator? How can you claim to have any knowledge about this creator? Why not creators?

To me it seems much more likely that you simply physically can't have 'nothing' and thus 'something' always exists. Physics hasn't quite gotten around to explaining it elegantly yet.
 
Awesome! Literally yesterday the topic of Cosmos came up and I was pondering if a second season would get produced.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top