First Asimov and Now Sagan

This vast number of worlds, the enormous scale of the universe... has not been taken into account, even superficially, in virtually no (sic) religion, and especially in no Western religions. - Carl Sagan

[Sagan SHOULD have written "in virtually any religion" but he did not. Simple grammar eluded this pompous agnostic.]


[“The heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmanents show his handiwork.”]


Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of Chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things. It conveys awe for the intricate and subtle way in which the universe is put together. - Carl Sagan



If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business, if there was any competition.

["Competition"? To God? Insane, but then again Sagan was agnostic and yet his memorial service was held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.]



“If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would he prefer his votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy? I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves.” Carl Sagan The Varieties of Scientific Experience 1985

[Again and again, Sagan displays a profound ignorance. "Sodden blockhead" or admirers of the real universe in all its intricacy"? It is not a simplistic "either/or" choice. Most Nobel Laureate scientists are Christians or Jews.

Above he calls the universe "sloppy." Now it's intricate. Which was it, Carl?
By the way, Carl is no longer atheist. He knows things today he did not previously. Sorry, too late for you, Carl. I tried to tell you by letter but all you could do was ask me to buy your newest book. I never bought one but I did sell your letter on E-Bay for $125!]
 
Last edited:
This vast number of worlds, the enormous scale of the universe... has not been taken into account, even superficially, in virtually no (sic) religion, and especially in no Western religions. - Carl Sagan

[Sagan SHOULD have written "in virtually any religion" but he did not. Simple grammar eluded this pompous agnostic.]


[“The heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmanents show his handiwork.”]


Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of Chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things. It conveys awe for the intricate and subtle way in which the universe is put together. - Carl Sagan



If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business, if there was any competition.

["Competition"? To God? Insane, but then again Sagan was agnostic and yet his memorial service was held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.]



“If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would he prefer his votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy? I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves.” Carl Sagan The Varieties of Scientific Experience 1985

[Again and again, Sagan displays a profound ignorance. "Sodden blockhead" or admirers of the real universe in all its intricacy"?

Above he calls the universe "sloppy." Now it's intricate. Which was it, Carl?
By the way, Carl is no longer atheist. He knows things today he did not previously. Sorry, too late for you, Carl. I tried to tell you by letter but all you could do was ask me to buy your newest book. I never bought one but I did sell your letter on E-Bay for $125!]
All the same debunked cutting and pasting you littered many threads with.
 
Twenty-five days later and Sagan's sheep have not bleated one BAHHHHH.
Wonderful. They see his ignorance and nonsense and have nothing to defend it with.
 
Twenty-five days later and Sagan's sheep have not bleated one BAHHHHH.
Wonderful. They see his ignorance and nonsense and have nothing to defend it with.
First Harun Yahya and now the fake engineer.

Twenty-f8ve days later and all the same edited, parsed and phony “quotes”.
 
Sagan came up with the baloney detection kit, but didn't use it on himself. What a hypocrite and liar!!!

His 8 min spiel on evolution.



I think it consists of the following:

"
  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result."


Yeah, he chucked the last of his credibility shilling for the Global Warming industry.
 
Carl was so sad when his pathetic "idea" to save the world from nasty old global warming was to add five cents in gas tax to every gallon of gas sold. This "tax" would discourage purchasing gasoline, brilliant Carl thought. Gas was under a dollar a gallon back then. Under stupified Biden, it has ranged from $4.50 to $6.50 per gallon with little indication of reduced usage, and OMG, the earth suffers so horribly. We weep.
 
Last edited:
I searched for thread titles with Carl Sagan and came up with this decade old beauty on Sagan's foolhardy arrogance:

(3) Where else was Carl Sagan 100% wrong? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Cosmos, by Carl Sagan


P 20: “Intellectual capacity is no guarantee against being dead wrong.” (We agree. There is, however, widespread hubris exhibited by “intellectuals”, which is virtually synonymous with leftists such as Carl Sagan.)

P 29: “Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start?
(First he claims each plant and animal is exquisitely made and then he challenges the "Designer"'s comptence.)

P 33: “What a marvelous cooperative arrangement - plants and animals each inhaling each other’s exhalations....”
(Should any Christian suggest "marvelous" design, the godless Left will mock and ridicule him for "the argument from incredulity." But when a fellow godless Leftist suggests marvelous design, well that's brilliant, n'est-ce pas?)

(More of Sagan's arguments from incredulity, which is to say in Lefty speak, ignorance.)

P 93: “Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still.”


P 121: (Voyager 2 showed that) “Mars was a place.” (For $265 million, you get such wisdom. And pictures of rocks too. Don’t forget those.)

P 125: “We can be fooled.” (NOOOOOOO ! Scientists? Fooled?)

P 193: We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.” (P 289: “The fastest object ever launched by the human species [Voyager] will take tens of thousands of years to go to the nearest star.”)

P 200: “Nothing in physics prevents you from traveling as close to the speed of light as you like.” (Nothing like taking off from the earth with a trillion tons of fuel and oxygen. Nothing like hitting a rock at one-half light speed. Nothing like bringing along LOTS of food. Unbridgeable chasms stand between the theoretical and the realizable.)

P 203: Today we have preliminary designs for ships to take people to the stars. (Project) Orion was designed to utilize explosions of hydrogen bombs against an internal plate . . .” (Made of what? YOU get inside and set off the H bomb.)

P 243: “Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish.” (Except for theologians, militarists, nationalists, and other “chauvinists”.)

Ibid: “If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?” (Pale Blue Dot, by Carl Sagan Page 32: “We can recognize here a shortcoming [that 70% of people surveyed think the sun is alive]”.)

These are just a few excerpts from one of Carl's many books. All are similarly fraught with errors and self-contradictions which would be mocked by Leftists/atheists had they been written by a Christian apologist. The double standard of the Left is deep and wide. It is a complete work of fiction, rather like Isaac Asimov was, another Leftist/atheist of insufferable arrogance.
I was never impressed by Sagan. He was just as confused as anybody else about the universe. Your quotes are examples of his confusion. I always though he was a pompous ass.

His equivalent nowadays is this Lawrence Krass jerkoff.
 

Forum List

Back
Top