Pharyngula

Posted by: DrivenB4U | July 8, 2010 1:55 PM

Boom! Carl speaks The Word. the word of reason that is. He really had a gift for getting a point across easily.

Posted by: Holbach | July 8, 2010 2:10 PM

A voice of reason expounding in the wilderness of unreason. Carl would be so outspoken and deplore the rampant insanity deadening so many brains today. It seems that almost without exception the rational brains have passed into memory through the written and video format. Carl, Jacques Monod, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, and countless others were a bulwark against the insane dreck of their time and which still persists. Will we engender to keep their ideals and rationalism alive for these times when the insane hordes seem to be forever with us?

Posted by: tradewinds | July 8, 2010 2:20 PM

A marvelous presentation. I'm watching Cosmos for the third time, always relaxing.

Posted by: k-dub | July 8, 2010 2:28 PM

I used to dismiss Sagan as merely a popularizer of high-concept cosmology, but like one of the other commenters, I've come to respect him to a much greater degree. I didn't think much of Contact as a novel, but I recently read The Varieties of Scientific Experience, all the while thinking "how can anyone argue with this?".

Well, here was a partial answer: humans have a talent for deceiving ourselves. And because it's pointless to blame the universe for being what it is, those who don't like the knowledge blame the means by which the knowledge is acquired.

Posted by: ladyh42 | July 8, 2010 2:32 PM

This nearly had me in tears. Carl was such an artist, able to convey such evidential truths in a way both poetic and visual.

Posted by: Volant Proboscidian | July 8, 2010 2:40 PM

Dismay that the universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish. You might think that grown-ups would be ashamed to put such disappointments into print.

Couldn't have had a better image for that line than a book by Dembski.

It always amuses me when people say atheists are arrogant; after all, we're the ones saying, "Wait a minute, maybe the universe doesn't revolve around us, wasn't made especially for our benefit."

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 8, 2010 2:47 PM

@ladyh42:

Me too. I need to hear more of his stuff..

Posted by: GMoney | July 8, 2010 2:48 PM

I'm super jacked-up about the fact that I came across the entire Cosmos collection on Netflix the other day - in the "watch instantly" section, no less - so I'll be settling in for a long few nights of sublime entertainment this weekend.

Posted by: Ken | July 8, 2010 3:00 PM

Damn.

That Carl guy was smart.

Posted by: rmonyb | July 8, 2010 3:13 PM

Nice.

Posted by: GODis10-7 | July 8, 2010 3:19 PM

Sagan = Awesome...

Thanks a lot GMoney, now I'll never get any studying done now that I can watch Cosmos on Netflix at work.

Posted by: Penman61 | July 8, 2010 3:50 PM

Does anyone know where the nighttime water scene with boat at approximately 2:32 comes from?

It's gorgeous.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 8, 2010 4:13 PM

ZOMG DOGMA

Posted by: Galahad Threepwood | July 8, 2010 4:31 PM

Great stuff. When I was religious, I used to worry from time to time that the wonderful stories I was told were false, that there was no loving god in the sky looking out for me, and no reunion with my loved ones awaiting me after I died. But strangely enough, since I came to the (reluctant) conclusion that my worries were well-founded and my religion was false, and chose to accept reality for what it is, I've had a real sense of peace and contentment--more than I ever felt when I was a believer. There's a real sense of freedom that comes from letting go of comforting delusions. I wish everyone could discover it.

Posted by: Charlie | July 8, 2010 4:35 PM

Carl Sagan really did have a gift for expressing the value of the universe as it is, not as people want it to be. This speech really embodies that, and it's a shame that the movement for reason lost such a brilliant orator so early.

Posted by: palefury | July 8, 2010 4:46 PM

@ Birger Johansson #22

Hey, lets build a Total Perspective Vortex. Some people could really do with the perspective.

Does anybody have a spare fairy cake?

Posted by: SteveM | July 8, 2010 5:02 PM

re 31:

Hey, lets build a Total Perspective Vortex. Some people could really do with the perspective.

But remember how it "backfired" on Zaphod: "Hey, I must be the most important person in the universe, 'cause this machine points me out alone of all the other people in the universe!" I have the feeling that is how most creationists would react as well.

Posted by: buggirl4ever | July 8, 2010 5:26 PM

I absolutely love this! Really sums up a lot of my feelings about the world and our place in it. That we are not the center of all life/the universe is a concept many people seem to have a hard time grasping, though.

It leaves them whining "but then life is meaningless!" to which I say "Yes... isn't that wonderful? So we can create our own meaning." Most often the next response is a raised eyebrow and a bit of sputtering.

Posted by: lamanga2004 | July 8, 2010 5:36 PM

Fan-bloody-tastic.

Posted by: palefury | July 8, 2010 5:46 PM

@ #33 SteveM
Well,Zaphod is just this guy, you know. But Zaphod did go out the window and entered the vortex in a virtual universe. We just have to make sure that they only enter our Total Perspective Vortex in the actual universe. Mind you, most of these people don't seem to experience the actual universe as it is, so maybe there is a flaw in my cunning plan.
Also Sunday Afternoon ate our piece fairy cake.

Posted by: palefury | July 8, 2010 5:49 PM

darn it "piece of fairy cake"
My imperfect brain strikes again

Posted by: cowbellhero | July 8, 2010 6:07 PM

I agree completely. What if the universe wasn't made just for us? Admittedly, the universe is amazingly supportive for human life. I mean, the extreme details it takes just for us to breathe is mind-blowing. I do have some questions. Even if the universe wasn't completely made for our benefit, does that really remove all chance for human purpose? I mean, the definition of our existence basically comes down to what we decide to choose. That includes whether we choose to be subjective about everything and create stories to please our consciousness or, like Carl Sagan suggested, stay objective to the facts. Just because the universe doesn't revolve around us doesn't mean we lose all purpose. Actually i see it differently. The universe doesn't seem to be relevant to human purpose at all. Our choices that we make concerning the order of the universe does. I believe that's what our purpose is, and if you disagree then that only proves your purpose of choosing to disagree. I have a question about the part with the Garden of Eden too. If a God or anyone or anything really intended to trap humans in ignorance, then why wasn't Eve stopped? Why was Satan even allowed there? If the God of the Christian Bible just wanted us to be ignorant then where did we get our ability to make a choice about what is right and what is wrong? I mean we obviously have no control over how the universe runs, but we have an ability to choose so to me that doesn't seem to imprison us in ignorance but only allow the choice to remain in ignorance. If there are such means to create order in chaos then where is the means to create something from nothing? I mean NOTHING. If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

Posted by: dnbarabash | July 8, 2010 6:30 PM

#44

Well . . . . this infinitesimal speck of rock isn't such a bad place,

Posted by: Rixaeton | July 8, 2010 6:40 PM

Thank you for that PZ. I have to admit that I really miss Carl. It always makes me sad to think that he is no longer here.

The post by Gregory Greenwood #42 got me to thinking; "Science is bringing enlightenment to more and more people, and innovations like the internet make silencing the rational voices all but impossible." Things like the acceptance of the science of evolution and climate-change are the indicators of the maturity of a society; these are truths that are for all to see that care to look. The spread of science to all parts of the globe may lead to the rise of Asian countries in economic power in this century with a built-in acceptance of science. It is the US and parts of Europe that will lag. One of the benefits of this will mean, hopefully, a diminishing of the power of the churches, mosques, temples and other places of non-thought due to the diminshed power of the states that support them.

Posted by: dnbarabash | July 8, 2010 6:51 PM

#43

If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

If what you're thinking is that "there has to be a First Cause," and you're drawing a line and making an assumption as to what that First Cause would be (God), but can find no other convincing logical or scientific evidence for what you assume it to be, why not just stop one cause shorter at the universe? After all, we know that the universe exists, what much of it is made of, and the hows and whys of many of its workings.

Contrast this to the god hypothesis, which many millenia have gone into discovering information about, yet no consensus at all has been arrived at, even on trivial matters. If there are gods, we have nothing even resembling conclusive answers about their numbers, methods, motives, personalities, origins, or anything else, up to and including their existence.

As for how there can be something instead of nothing, even with no gods, Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe From Nothing" should be able to provide a general understanding of what we know so far.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 8, 2010 6:55 PM

Al B Quirky (how original)

What's with trolls like him and the Gaia worshipping crap? I think he's confusing atheist with newage.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 8, 2010 7:03 PM

'science' doesn't 'tell' us anything, it is not a being or a god; its just a word that means 'knowledge'

No, it's Latin root means 'knowledge'. The English word means something like "a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories"

See? Not a being or god, indeed, but a 'systematic enterprise'. That tells us stuff.

it wasn't the 'tree of knowledge', it was the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' ie. discernment, and that word don't equate with 'science'.

or not

And what's your purpose, Quirky?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 8, 2010 7:06 PM

What's with trolls like him and the Gaia worshipping crap? I think he's confusing atheist with newage.

I've never met a concept Al B. Quirky couldn't get wrong.

Posted by: mikelatiolais | July 8, 2010 7:23 PM

If your god doesn't require a cause, then you are incorrect in stating that the universe must have one.

Posted by: Rixaeton | July 8, 2010 7:27 PM

But since there IS something, there must be a god.

Huh? That is a good example of a non-sequiter, isn't it? I have never understood why having a universe that starts itself is abhorrent to the religious, but having a god that does not start itself is not. Needing to have a first cause is a hang over from our time-linear brains always encountering a first cause, but just because humans need to have causes and effects to understand things, does not mean the universe has to behave that way at certain times/spaces. Quantum mechanics does not behave in a way that makes sense to us, but why should it since our experience is typically at a macro level, and not on the quantum level? More proof that we are not the purpose of the universe.

Anyway, breakfast time!

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 8, 2010 7:28 PM

A THING THAT DOES NOT EXIST CANNOT CAUSE ITSELF TO EXIST.

scream as loud as you like, it won't make it any more correct or relevant.

fact is, we've suspected for a long time, as predicted by quantum mechanics, that matter should be able to come from "nothing".

did you read the article I linked, or does it hurt your brain too much?

If so, I understand. Go back to sleep, you'll feel better.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 8, 2010 7:32 PM

Things exist.

A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.

Therefore god exists.

Or:

God is a thing.

A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.

Therefore god does not exist.

Posted by: consciousness razor | July 8, 2010 7:39 PM

whoops, sorry for the semi-double post. My computer's acting strangely, but part of it was user error.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 8, 2010 7:42 PM

BTW, 'science' doesn't 'tell' us anything, it is not a being or a god;

That's shorthand for "the results of applying the method of science tell us", which in turn is short for "from those results we must conclude".

And you know that full well.

its just a word that means 'knowledge'

It's a word that meant "knowledge" four hundred years ago. That has changed. The argument from etymology is a logical fallacy.

And you know that full well.

Probably you even know that atheists, by fucking definition, don't worship Gaia or any other supposed goddess. <sigh>

Posted by: atheistclimber | July 8, 2010 7:48 PM

After watching this video, I am inspired to stop writing at my blog. He say everything I've been trying to say in my writings, and I don;t think I can really add to it... Makes me happy to see it, and kind of melancholy as I can never hope to actually be this good.

well huh... :-/

Posted by: Peter H | July 8, 2010 7:55 PM

"Things exist.
A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.
Therefore god exists."

If that's the way you think, do NOT take up law as a profession. You might consider politics . . . .

Posted by: Rixaeton | July 8, 2010 7:58 PM

than my diminutive wife standing on the periphery of my vision?

Erm... I would have to say your wife would be, given she is standing on your eye? I think you mean "at", not "on" :)

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 8, 2010 8:06 PM

show us the cigar.

Is that asking too much?

where have you clowns been hiding that cigar all these eons?

wait... now that I think about it, maybe I don't really want to know.

*ewwww*

Posted by: Betelgeuse | July 8, 2010 8:11 PM

Goosebumps. He says things so clearly.

Also, can somebody tell me about that picture/painting at 0:31- is that a particular 'form' of art? Does it have a name?

Posted by: Peter H | July 8, 2010 8:27 PM

This latest logical fallacy is known as redirection. More commonly, evading the issue.

Posted by: jack21222 | July 8, 2010 8:31 PM

#80:

That's an incredibly old argument.

"The universe couldn't just exist, therefore God."
"God just exists."

You cannot simultaneously hold both positions. Either something can just exist, or it can't. You cannot put different standards on different things. If God is allowed to have "just existed," then so could the universe.

Posted by: consciousness razor | July 8, 2010 8:43 PM

Right. So you would agree that the mere physical unimportance of Earth's size and location does not invalidate the anthropocentric privileging of humanity as the most important thing in the universe?

I agree, but the point is that you don't seem to understand what Sagan was talking about. People used to believe we were literally at the center of everything; with everything revolving around us, all the planets and stars affecting us in magical ways; all the animals, plants (let's not forget women and various shades of brown people) and minerals being created for us to do as we please. Everything was all about humans, all the time.

Does the fact of our relative unimportance in the universe (and its utter indifference to our welfare) change anything? Sure it does. It invalidates a lot of hateful ignorance based on superstitions people have believed for millenia, and the kind of pseudo-logic you've been peddling on this very thread.

Posted by: Betelgeuse | July 8, 2010 8:58 PM

#89
No predisposition towards much woo really.
Sometimes you just have to like the art as is it.

Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | July 8, 2010 9:10 PM

I was lucky enough to see Carl Sagan lecture to undergraduates several times. He taught Astro 102 (Astronomy for Poets, basically). I was actually taking Astro 112, but I would still try to make time between classes and listen to him lecture. In fact, I found a copy of the Cornell brochure they used to mail out to prospective frosh - there was a double-page spread of Sagan lecturing and my roommate and I can be spotted in the fifth or sixth row.

I always admired him because he wanted to teach undergrads who were not going to major in the field. Not everyone is going to be an astrophysicist, but everyone should be aware of the wonders of space.

Posted by: skmarshall | July 8, 2010 9:24 PM

to atheistclimber@74
you don't have to be that good... just keep standing up and being counted so reason will have one more voice.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 8, 2010 9:26 PM

Googlemess #96

No, because the universe is merely the sum of contingent things, therefore it must be contingent as a whole, therefore it must depend upon a non-contingent being, which we call god.

And who invented, created, made god? Or is it turtles all the way down?

ex nihilo nihil fit - nothing from nothing.

Carthago delenda est - Carthage must be destroyed. See, I can throw Latin non sequiturs around too.

Senator Marcus Porcius Cato (234 BCE - 149 BCE), aka Cato the Elder, used to end his speeches with some variation of this expression even if he had not been discussing Carthage in the speech.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 8, 2010 9:29 PM

Aww, I miss Carl. Reading Cosmos confirmed that I was indeed not alone.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 8, 2010 9:34 PM

Aww, I miss Carl. Reading Cosmos confirmed that I was indeed not alone. Still have that battered old paperback, after all this time.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 8, 2010 9:42 PM

Al B Moron says, "BTW, 'science' doesn't 'tell' us anything, it is not a being or a god; its just a word that means 'knowledge',..."

Well, Al, buddy, I'm willing to agree that neither science not knowledge have told or taught you anything. However, for those of us who choose to study them, they tell us quite a bit. They tell us to side with the evidence. They tell us that the truth eventually wins out. They tell us that the harshest reality is better than the sweetest delusion.

I would suggest you try it, Al, but first your learning curve would have to get a positive slope.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | July 8, 2010 9:55 PM

I don't understand all this "the universe is contingent" stuff. What is it contingent on?

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | July 8, 2010 10:03 PM

#111 "Why can't people understand and accept this concept?"

Because most humans are arrogant, hubris-filled, asses who can't accept that they aren't their god's little gift to reality.

Posted by: moochava | July 8, 2010 10:12 PM

I don't understand all this "the universe is contingent" stuff. What is it contingent on?

The Time Lords, I think. Did they ever settle that, in the episode where the really crummy James Bond tried to end time with his lightning glove?

A serious answer: theologians want to say the Universe is contingent upon God. This assumes that 1) the universe is contingent upon something else; that is, it is not eternal or self-created, 2) things that exist must be caused by another thing, rather than just "happening", 3) the thing upon which the universe is contingent is a "person" of some sort (which is usually necessary for us to call something a "god," rather than a thing, a phenomenon, or an earlier state of being).

These are all questionable. (1), at least, is likely; the Universe does seem to have begun, but (2) is increasingly dubious, since weird "something from nothing" phenomena happen all the time, and (3) is almost certainly nonsense; getting from "the thing, phenomenon, or event that caused our universe" to "Jesus Christ, who is the Lamb, whose blood washeth away our sin, that we might dwell in glory on high with Him forever and ever, amen," is...a bit of a jump.

Posted by: raven | July 8, 2010 10:18 PM

dumb troll:

No, because the universe is merely the sum of contingent things, therefore it must be contingent as a whole, therefore it must depend upon a non-contingent being, which we call god.

Quite a few fallacies here.

The Fallacy of Bafflegab. Stringing some meaningless words together and pretending they prove something. They don't.

The Fallacy of Assertion without Proof. Stating something doesn't make it true.

The Fallacy of Lying. Xians alway, always, invariably end up lying.

If god existed, he wouldn't need homical maniacs enforcing belief as followers and they wouldn't have to lie all the time. God would have his own blog, Youtube channel, and TV show. A being who could poof a 13.7 billion year old universe into existence could handle that much easily.

Posted by: raven | July 8, 2010 10:27 PM

I don't understand all this "the universe is contingent" stuff. What is it contingent on?

It is contingent on you not looking at that man behind the curtain.

It's bafflegab.

Posted by: Peter H | July 8, 2010 10:36 PM

"Supernatural" is a null term.

Posted by: albatros183 | July 8, 2010 11:00 PM

If god existed there would be a manual

RTFM

rummage, rummage

crap we are a returned stock universe...

Posted by: hankroberts | July 9, 2010 12:26 AM

PZ, you need the SOFTWARE!

http://www.godblock.com/
"... When installed properly, GodBlock will test each page that your child visits before it is loaded, looking for passages from holy texts, names of religious figures, and other signs of religious propaganda. If none are found, then your child is allowed to browse freely...."

Hat tip to MetaFilter

Posted by: Andyo | July 9, 2010 1:09 AM

Seabass, what is an "agnostic" in your mind?

a) One who thinks the that it is "unknowable" if the Christian (or any other) religion is true.

b) One who thinks that all religions are false, but thinks that it's ultimately unknowable if there was a creator that does not meddle with the universe after he created it?

c) Something else?

Cause, he certainly wasn't a, and that's the only "agnostic" position that would make a statement such as yours have any validity. If he was b, he was functionally no different than any other atheist, it's just dumb semantics.

Posted by: fernaldo | July 9, 2010 1:53 AM

If Carl Sagan's monologues were paintings, they'll sell in the millions.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 9, 2010 3:11 AM

Hmm. I'm trying to translate this argument into equivalent logic -- it's fruitless of course, but here's a first shot:

1) Integers are finite things.
2) Every integer in the set of integers is a finite thing.
3) Therefore, the set of integers is a finite thing.

Hmm. Too mathy?

1) I have a bag of apples.
2) The apples are red.
3) Therefore, the bag is red.

Too fruity? Or should we argue about whether or not the apples are, in fact, red? Perhaps that affects the validity?

Another try:

1) My mind is limited.
2) There are things bigger than me.
3) Therefore, God.

Aha! There we go.

Posted by: consciousness razor | July 9, 2010 3:27 AM

Sorry, I missed something while editing:

that it doesn't need to interfere with the universe and cannot be observed in principle, etc. ad nauseum.

And I repeat: ad nauseum. As far as I can tell, the stupid goes all the way down.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2010 3:35 AM

Things exist.
A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist.
Therefore god exists.

The conclusion is a silly non sequitur. The valid conclusion is that either a thing can come into existence without being caused to, or there have always been things. This allows the possibility of god, which could either have been caused to exist by something (or things) other than itself, come into existence without being caused to, or always existed -- but its existence is not necessary. The notion of god as an existing uncaused "First Cause" that is not a thing is utterly incoherent and marks its proponent as a gibbering idiot godbot. And even if such a "First Cause" were logically necessary, there would be no reason to think that it has any of the attributes or behaviors given it by various religions and religious believers -- especially if it isn't a "thing" (which is necessary for the above silly syllogism).

Posted by: Ryan | July 9, 2010 3:42 AM

People often forget how in addition to being a great scientist Carl was a superb writer. That sets him apart from most of his peers. He could really communicate complex ideas to layman in a simple and yet elegant manner. I'm a fan of plenty modern scientists but very few, if any have his talent for the written word.

Posted by: Usagichan | July 9, 2010 3:43 AM

Ok Googlemess, you first assume that everything must have a cause. You then posit the existence of something which does not have a cause - which you conveniently label 'God'. Logically, if everything must have a cause, God must have a cause (and the whole argument is simply shifted back a stage). If God does not require a cause, then if God exists, everything does not require a cause.

As you seem to take the second position, what is the logical reason for assuming the existence of an external entity that requires no cause over an internal property that requires no cause? Of course your argument is based on semantics, and simply by labeling a causeless event 'God' you could (and no doubt will) declare victory, but it seems to me all you have really done is prove the necessity for an undefined non-contingent event - the labeling (God, Quantum fluctuations or the Great Arkleseizure) adds nothing to the argument.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2010 3:50 AM

Therefore it must have a cause, a reason for being.

Non sequitur. Again, the universe could either have come into existence without being caused to, or could have always existed. And if you deny those possibilities then your god must also have had a cause; asserting that, no, god's existence is logically necessary (and isn't a "thing") and thus god is exempt is simply begging the question. You may think otherwise, but you will never convince any intelligent person not suffering from your viral infection.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2010 4:16 AM

Hold it, hold it, hold it. Since when does something being contingent mean that it needs a cause? You're loading a whole pile of stuff into the definition of contingent which isn't stated at the outset.

Right; the godbot's assertion that things (or non-things, even though the godbot calls god "he" and a "being" - such is the intellectual dishonesty of all godbots) that are logically necessary need not be caused and things that are not logically necessary need to be caused is completely baseless -- the two concepts are orthogonal.

Posted by: No One | July 9, 2010 4:23 AM

everyone has their own belief. some are just stupid, but each belief is flawed. some more then others. Everyone want to know what the purpose of life is, but so few get the idea that our purpose is to maybe exist? just to live our life the way we want? nah, thats to easy.

there are questions posed against both sides that have no real answers. such as

"Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang."

there are theories. maybe a powerful being did jump start it. maybe it never happened. but what about

"Ask religion where god came from."

i have asked. they simply say "he has always been" and i find myself unable to understand that. mainly because I stopped following blindly long long ago. I am a firm believer that everything in existence, idea, opinion, fact has a beginning and an end.

i liked this. its a classic of something to come from religion. it was said earlier.

(1) If there was no God, there was no beginning to time.

(2) If there was no beginning to time, all things that could happen would have happened by now and the universe would have ended.

if there was no god, there was no beginning of time. how ever, if there was no beginning of time, there would be no belief of a god to believe in.

religion is kind of annoying at times. i dont mind the religion so much as the people that follow. a couple of things i have noticed.

1. follow with out question. things are the way they are for a reason.
2. here are these rules. trust me when i tell you they are for your own good. and dont wonder why.
3. some religions even teach you to fear god. and in these religions many people follow out of fear even though they wont admit to that being the reason.

you know... throughout human history we have had rulers that lead their people like that. their followers were to follow blindly, never question and obey no matter what or else they would be severely punished... here in the real world we called them tyrants, dictators. if god was a ruler of a country today, leading his people the way many follow him in religion. he would be a tyrannical dictator and be removed from power.

how ever, religion does serve a purpose. many people in the world dont want to think for themselves. they would rather think everything that happens is a plan of a divine creator. these are the people who in a hospital, them or a close friend just got saved by a group of doctors and they thank their "god" first. they pay no attention to the PEOPLE who worked, or the medicine made by MAN that helped save the people they care about. instead they thank their "god", it was all because of him. "god" is the reason im still here. (actually it was the doctors and other people who made it possible for you or your loved one to get treatment).

for those of you who believe so deeply in religion. think about this little tidbit.

with out knowledge, those of you who beat cancer because you went to a doctor or treatment center, or you are still alive because of something a doctor or surgeon did to you that stopped you from dying, or stopped a loved one of yours from dying. that was all possible because of knowledge that science had researched. what we have learned over many years of study.. and think, your "god" wanted to keep knowledge from us. wanted us to remain ignorant of how our surroundings worked, of how to care, and save ourselves from what is now easily cured sicknesses, or illnesses.

maybe every religion may have a few truths. but most of what people believe isnt right. if there is a divine creator, i believe its a being that can take any shape it so desires. appearing to different people to look different ways maybe. it would explain why some religions have different gods. and why many religions are very similar. and if there is a divine creator, i dont think it really gives a shit how we live our lives. if its actually a being that has been around since time started... well who knows. our little universe could take as much time as an instant to this creator. it makes a motion our universe flares up into existence, lasts to us for billions and billions of years, then dies. and to this creature it was nothing more then an experiment to pass the eons away.

or. there could be no divine creator.

either way. why shelter yourself from life? go out and live it. whats the point in worrying about an after life that may not exist? if you want go ahead and sit in your home waiting for the end. while many others go out and live their lives. enjoying the time they have. im told that Jesus brings happiness? well from my experience the only actual happy people i know are the ones who dont believe, who dont worry about what some "god" said they could, or couldnt do.

what will you do if you get to the after life. and your standing infront of a being to be judged and it looks down at you and says "you have lived your life pressuring others to follow your beliefs, instead of fulfilling the life that was given to you. you spent your time sheltered afraid to go out and do what you wanted out of fear of what may happen later" and because of this, you were denied from interring paradise. Then you see some surfer dude come up and easily get in because he lived the life he wanted, and died happy.

Believe in what you wish, but don't push it on others. Don't read this feeling as if I'm trying to pressure anyone, but instead just think about what has been said. For those that were bored enough to read all the comments, think about some of the things you read.

oh, btw. great video. Carl really had a great way with words.

Posted by: Andyo | July 9, 2010 4:29 AM

This crap about "nothing comes out of nothing" has to DIE ALREADY.

Matter comes out of NOTHING and back to NOTHING all the fucking time. Quantum fluctuations/jitters.

Besides, nobody knows if the fucking universe has been fucking here all the fucking time. It may have.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2010 4:48 AM

I am a firm believer that everything in existence, idea, opinion, fact has a beginning and an end.

Try being a firm reasoner instead.

If there was no God, there was no beginning to time

Non sequitur.

If there was no beginning to time, all things that could happen would have happened by now and the universe would have ended.

This is just fucking stupid. First, there could be infinitely many things that could happen, just as there are infinitely many integers. Second, even if everything that could happen had happened, they could be repeating. Really, you have to be a moron or incredibly intellectually lazy to write the kind of drivel you do.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 5:14 AM

truth machine,
I do not see the basis for saying the Universe is contingent. I don't see how you can of necessity say that it is not a logical necessity. We can presume it is possible for it not to exist, but we do not know what logical consequences that would entail.

What we know: The Universe exists. Probability=1.

Posted by: Andrew G. | July 9, 2010 5:22 AM

Note that time doesn't need to have a "beginning" in order to be finite.

(Consider the intervals (0,1) and [0,1] - these are the same finite length, but one of them has a "first" (and a "last") point and the other has neither.)

It's only in the last century or so with the development of set theory and topology that we've had the mathematical tools to talk about situations like these, so it should be no surprise that it turns out that the philosophers who were debating the issue for the previous 2000 years or so were all talking through their hats.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 6:10 AM

Truth Machine,
Care to 'splain? We have a single fact: The Universe exists. We have precisely one universe upon which to base our "logic" of universal existence. Now I don't know about you, but doing statistics with a sample size of one makes me a little nervous. What is more, it makes no sense to talk of "time" before the Universe existed, since time and space came into existence with the Big Bang.

Since the Universe exists, and I, by virtue of the fact that I exist only in the Universe, cannot have knowledge of what it would entail if the Universe did not exist, I see no basis for concluding that the Universe is contingent.

Contingency implies being contingent upon something, and that is beginning to sound dangerously close to theistic to me.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 6:14 AM

David, What is your reference for mass=gravitational potentional energy in the Universe? I don't think that is clear just yet. we don't even know with 100% certainty whether the Universe is open or closed.

Posted by: Andyo | July 9, 2010 6:29 AM

Also, what made Hawking famous: so-called virtual particles from particle-antiparticle pairs become real when one of them falls into a black hole. Those make up the Hawking radiation.

Posted by: Snoof | July 9, 2010 6:46 AM

What I never get about the "why is there something rather than nothing" arguments is that obviously there has to be something, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 9, 2010 7:01 AM

oh, and that just made me realize how beautifully the Argument from First Cause, with its dependence on the definition of "contingent" clashes with the Strong Anthropic Principle: since according to the SAP the universe must be the way it is, to allow humans, it's no longer contingent, and therefore doesn't require a first cause in the same way that the First Cause itself doesn't because it's defined as not contingent :-p

It only works if you presuppose the first cause and work from there, which is not how logical argumentation is supposed to work.

Posted by: Andyo | July 9, 2010 7:21 AM

The most insulting thing for any thinking person has to be that even though the "nothing from nothing" "argument" that is vomited constantly by theologians is not only stupid and shallow, but demonstrably false (by science!), these theologians then want to make them believe that therefore, their God.

Posted by: Anri | July 9, 2010 7:41 AM

In any case, isn't googlemess' argument simply a version of the argument from incredulity?

Along these lines: 'I cannot conceive as to how something can arise from nothing, therefore, God.'

Or even 'I cannot conceive of a universe that does not follow my tidy logical rules, therefore, God.'

If we could sit around and successfully logic our way through the mysteries of the world around us, we wouldn't have ever had to invent science. It's The Cave all over again.

Really, if I'm missing something, please correct.

Posted by: Usagichan | July 9, 2010 7:57 AM

Anri @ 169

In any case, isn't googlemess' argument simply a version of the argument from incredulity?

Indeed, or even 'That Thomas Aquinas was a very clever man and I can't conceive how his argument might be wrong' (so you get from Authority and Incredulity - 2 for 1 special offer)!

Posted by: KG | July 9, 2010 8:15 AM

David, What is your reference for mass=gravitational potentional energy in the Universe? I don't think that is clear just yet. - a_ray

The current Scientific American has an article claiming that "the total energy of the universe" is not a well-defined quantity; I have only skimmed it so far, so can't set out the argument.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 9, 2010 8:37 AM

David, What is your reference for mass=gravitational potentional energy in the Universe?

Just google it.

I don't think that is clear just yet. we don't even know with 100% certainty whether the Universe is open or closed.

Indeed not; that's why I used such slippery words.

well, aren't photons and particles "something"?

It could be argued that "virtual particles" are, in the end, "nothing" because they can't exist for long. They can be turned into "real particles", but that requires energy* – the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, is still not violated.

Of course, I then immediately went ahead and said that, by this criterion, perhaps the entire universe is "nothing". If its total energy is 0, that's significant because the lifetime of a quantum fluctuation is inversely proportional to the amount of energy it has to borrow from the first law of thermodynamics; the more it is, the more quickly it is repaid. A quantum fluctuation that borrows 0 should be eternal – with a beginning, but without an end.

* Even if that energy comes from the mass of a black hole. When one part of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair falls into a black hole, the other becomes real, and the energy necessary for this is taken from the black hole. This, the discovery that black holes can shrink, is what made Hawking famous.

Those make up the Hawking radiation.

That's only one part of it. The other part is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation: if a particle inside but close to the event horizon has its range of velocities restricted by interaction with other particles, its location can become uncertain enough that it can suddenly find itself outside the event horizon.

oh, and that just made me realize how beautifully the Argument from First Cause, with its dependence on the definition of "contingent" clashes with the Strong Anthropic Principle: since according to the SAP the universe must be the way it is, to allow humans, it's no longer contingent, and therefore doesn't require a first cause in the same way that the First Cause itself doesn't because it's defined as not contingent :-p

:-)

Beautiful.

If we could sit around and successfully logic our way through the mysteries of the world around us, we wouldn't have ever had to invent science. It's The Cave all over again.

To repeat myself: "Cannot be said often enough."

Posted by: raven | July 9, 2010 9:32 AM

raven:

BTW, your claim that humans are the most important thing in the universe is a positive claim. You provide the data. The default is HA HA HA, your kidding. And dumb.

googlemess the lying xian troll:

What you're saying amounts to no more than big=important, small=unimportant, which is uncomfortably close to might=right.

Well the googlemss xian troll is lying. They always do that.

I asked it the provide some facts or proof for its assertion that humans are the most important thing in the universe.

It didn't even try to back up its assertion without proof. It just accused me of being a Fascist. This is evasion and changing the subject abruptly.

BTW, claiming something is "important" is meaningless without adding another term or two. Important to whom? And why? As far as my cat is concerned, the most important thing in the universe is herself and anything beyond the yard is of no interest.

You are simply being dishonest. The standard xian proof of god. We lie a lot, therefore god exists. It's not convincing but lies are all they have.

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 10:02 AM

"OK, so what about religion that is demonstrably absurd...?"

Pretty much all of it.

Posted by: DLC | July 9, 2010 11:09 AM

Good to hear Sagan's brilliant words again.

Posted by: kaessa.com | July 9, 2010 2:36 PM

I can listen to Carl Sagan talk all day long. This is the man who captured my imagination with science. He is the one who made me think about who we are, and why we are.

Carl, how we miss you.

Posted by: Richard S. Russell | July 9, 2010 3:09 PM

Carl Sagan deserves praise for "Cosmos", no doubt. But not ALL the praise. While it was his vision and his voice, let's hear it for the production team that did all those wonderful images, and never forget the marvelous music from Vangelis.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 9, 2010 4:23 PM

"never forget the marvelous music from Vangelis."

So that's why the theme sounds like Chariots of Fire.

Posted by: Pyre | July 9, 2010 4:58 PM

A slightly less "Weak-Anthropic-Principle" answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?":

Sheer chance, on one level. But a fixed bet (100% odds), on another.

In all those cases -- "experimental universes"? -- that ended up empty, this conversation is not taking place, because there's nobody to ask the question.

Likewise, in all those other cases where universes got "something" -- some sort of matter and energy -- but no form of intelligent life ever evolved, again this conversation is not taking place.

Only in those universes with "something" and intelligent life will this conversation take place. So the fact that you're around to ask the question is the guarantee that there's "something" here.

Not exactly the sense of "Why" in which the question was asked, I know.

But really, it's a sensible answer.

The disaster survivor's anguished question comes to mind as similar in nature and in answer.

Catastrophe happens, thousands are killed, a few crawl from the wreckage and look upon the ruin, and ask, "Why were *we* the ones to survive?"

But if *they* hadn't been the ones, and others had, those others would have been the ones to ask that question instead.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 9, 2010 7:12 PM

David, What is your reference for mass=gravitational potentional energy in the Universe? I don't think that is clear just yet. we don't even know with 100% certainty whether the Universe is open or closed.

I'm not in a position to judge the claim. I'm breaking my brain on QFT (when I should be practising HS maths) and I haven't even bought a book on GR yet.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 7:37 PM

Seriously, if you believe "a thing can come into existence without being caused to" you're in no position to hold forth on the subject of gibbering idiocy.

If so, it can't be god.

But I don't assume that everything must have a cause.

The contingency of the fucking universe

Please tell me you're not serious.

I do believe that, as it happens, but I didn't assert it.

Well obviously humans are the most important things

It created us.

Beginning to get the picture of your intellectual shortcomings?...

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 9, 2010 7:43 PM

It created us. Isn't that enough reason to be grateful? : )

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 7:48 PM

Seriously, if you believe "a thing can come into existence without being caused to" you're in no position to hold forth on the subject of gibbering idiocy.

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Virtual_particles_in_vacua

It's experimentally verified that things come into existence without cause.

As I said earlier, First Cause arguments aren't intended to demonstrate the truth of a particular religion, merely the existence of god.

It doesn't even accomplish that.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 7:58 PM

I made no assertion that human beings are the most important things in the universe. I do believe that, as it happens, but I didn't assert it.

What's your evidence for this belief?

I was questioning folks' (implied) assertion that the Earth's obscure location and insignificant size meant human beings are not the most important things in the universe.

It does raise the important question of waste so much time and space. Human beings have only been around for about the last 100,000 years, while the universe is ~13.75 billion years old.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 8:05 PM

OK. Am I to understand that "vacuum energy" is what Jadehawk calls "a literal nothing"?

I assume that's what Jadehawk meant. You can also check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Anyway, when studying something as counter-intuitive as physics and cosmology you can't rely on your gut. While "nothing comes from nothing" may make sense for every day situations it doesn't do so in situations where people are not accustomed to.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 8:12 PM

How can the laws of physics bring themselves into existence according to themselves? That's just nuts.

It's arrogant to assume that the cosmos must bend to your preconceptions.

Posted by: consciousness razor | July 9, 2010 8:16 PM

no.

Aww, come on, Becca. You're supposed to play along with the troll and accept all of his nonsense.

After all, we're The Most Important Things In The Universe™. Obviously. If there isn't a god®, then we're still the most important things.... according to "us" (apparently, all of us -- yes, even you). If there is a god®, and since god® is nothing in the universe, then we're still The Most Important Things™. How wonderful. How very precious.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 9:00 PM

Googlemess, where is your physical evidence for your imaginary deity? I see nothing, as you have presented nothing. An eternally burning bush is a good start...

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 9:21 PM

Sounds nothing like nothing!

Way to quote mine. Here's the entire thing:

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

What it's saying is that it's not static void. At one point there can be nothing, but then later particles "pop into and out of existence".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 9:22 PM

It feels a little unfair. He puts all that effort into pounding on his little keyboard, and the registration system lets me click once to select everything he's written, and then click a second time to flush it all away.

Posted by: Pyre | July 10, 2010 3:28 AM

"Most important" TO WHOM?

To you? To me? To this cat? To that bird in the tree (being watched by said cat)?

"Importance" is not exactly an objective, absolute measure.

Yet on this we're supposed to base arguments about the existence of the universe?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 6:02 PM

Do you know for a fact you will not run into a flying unicorn in the next 30 seconds?

If you claim agnosticism on that anything more than rhetorically, do you plan to prepare for your immediate unicorn visit?

I'd be not.

which makes you a dishonest git.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 7:02 PM

we don't know for a fact if there are gods.

...do you honestly think that atheists are making the elementary mistake of thinking in black and white? No! It's an issue of burden of proof, there are an infinite number of things we can't know for a fact whether they exist or not. That's why the burden of proof is on those making positive claims about the universe. Claims about gods are like claims about intergalactic aliens with a taste for sleeping humans. They could theoretically exist, though we have no reason to believe they do, and we certainly don't live life as if they do.

Posted by: Puddock | July 11, 2010 1:38 PM

Nice. Thanks, PZ, for posting this. So intelligent, so beautifully spoken, so calm. I am pinching this for The Pond right now!

Posted by: Ivan Stoikov - Allan Bard | July 11, 2010 2:57 PM

Thanks for sharing this video! Watching such stuff, I breathe freely again that many of my books will be accepted well ;)... Many of my characters don't believe in any Gods, though these books of mine (Tale Of the Rock Pieces, The Opposite Of Magic, etc.) are fantasy and the action takes place in antiquity. They know it's better to take care of nature and rely on their abilties and skills than to pray all day long and do nothing else...
I know that modern science doesn't explain everything but on the other hand all the religions explain nothing, hope even the most religious people would agree with that? The religions just "order" us rules and prayers to be followed, don't you agree? Best wishes to all thinking, open-minded people! Let the wonderful noise of the sea always sounds in your ears! (a greeting of the water dragons' hunters - my 1st book). http://allanbard.hpage.com