Carl talked way too much sense.....loner no doubt....I read his book Cosmos in the seventies...also listened to cassette tapes of his lectures....the world was blessed with his insight and intellect...
Both Carl Sagan and Terry Wogan have since passed from the living, we who live are witnesses to the thoughts they shared on how humans have transformed their exploration of their home planet to that of the heavens. Including patiently listening for news from others like us.
Wogen is a social genius, he makes people laugh and works the room better than most. There are lots of ways to be clever and lots of ways to be an idiot. Everyone is an idiot when we look at what knowledge/skills they lack.
@@GlentoranMark "We were all children once, there are no dumb questions." Carl at 3:45 "We are an exploratory species. We wish to understand who we are,..." Carl doesn't. He believes creation happened without God. There is NO science for his belief. So it proves there are dumb people like Carl who don't ask the right questions.
@@2fast2block At least Carl asks the questions. My favourite Sagan quote “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
A million million dollars - because Carl knew a US Billion is different to a UK one :) Carl calls thing right as usual from his Star Wars points to his planets around most stars. RIP Carl, you gave me a love of Astronomy and Science.
Carl was a joke. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@nessieness5433 Here's what happens when you give an empty person common science they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are inept human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as shallow as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided: Drumroll, please.... their science....."are you one of those religious nuts?" Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that empty.
If viewers of this video are not from the UK and Ireland, they will not be familiar with host Terry Wogan, or the the style of this chat show. It was an early evening light entertainment show and that time slot dictated the style and content of this kind of interview. Wogan was an enormously popular radio host and TV presenter, with great charm and experience. However this format and time slot did not suit his style and his former Saturday night slot would have provided a longer and better interview with Sagan.
@@udaikumar1782 The English language is a wonderful thing but can be interpreted so differently. I think 65sparx remark is more a metaphor as Carl had differing (scientific) views on religions. Carl was a visionary and a realist, he went on facts not pseudo silence. 65sparx makes the point that his views are far more believable than any religious text.
Carl was just a joke. I don't care what that clueless misfit thought. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@2fast2block 11 months and no one has bothered to read your nonsensical attention-desperate Bullcrap. The world knows a bitter troll when they read its comments. Bye bye Troll.
The PhD throwing shade directly past the host who doesn't realize his line of questioning is being mocked with primary school answers. He could not have left that chair any faster!
Carl loved his empty clueless life. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
Great words of Carl. However the interviewer should have done his homework and then a little more knowledgeable so that you could ask more intelligent questions.
How do you know how many flowers are there in a field? You select a small patch, and count the flowers in it. You then either measure or calculate the area of the field, and you can then calculate the number of flowers. It's not an exact number, but it should be reasonably close.
The golden record on Voyager with our vital information is not the best idea!!! It's like me leaving my social security number, phone, address, and bank account information in this comment!!!
Those records on the two Voyager probes, and the plaques on Pioneer 10 and 11 are travelling at a tiny fraction of the speed of light. They would take tens of thousands of years to approach any other star systems, and none will intercept them. We do not yet know whether any of those stars has orbiting planets, nor do we know whether any has biological life on it. Nor any intelligent life, capable of developing technology. Nor yet do we know whether any other technological civilisation is capable of launching spacecraft, which might one day encounter one of our own. Or communicate with us. Your bank account is pretty safe for now.
Carl couldn't wait to get out of that interview. What a bafoon interviewer jeez! Carl Sagan was one of the greatest ambassadors to the Human Race and will always be.
Carl was clueless and so are you. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
It was evening television broadcast to an audience getting ready to watch Coronation Street, or The Bill. BBC2 had the more hard-hitting stuff, like Horizon (which broadcast fantastic documentaries on the Voyager missions).
PeowPeowPeowLasers Not sure sone people know this so thank you for pointing it out. Tv back then was so much better and more casual than people are used to today. I miss those days!
@MiguelA 'liar' is someone, who knows that he isn't telling the truth - Terry Wogan (being only an interviewer here) may just have asked stupid or uninformed questions on purpose. Given the fact, that Wogan was prone to entertain an audience at that venue, one might safely assume a certain script or schedule of interrogation to provide an outcome of Carl Sagan receiving topical lines for him to shine as the ironeous straight man besides the clown-wogan of mirth...
POLARBEARSRUS I guess he didn’t worship Reagan. And after hearing him present the evidence against the HUMONGOUS increase in defence spending in the 1980’s, how could anyone?
Carl was clueless, not smart. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@2fast2block Copy and paste. Repetition of a bad argument does not make it more valid. And name-calling detracts from your own. As to be human is to be fallible and capable of error, I know that from the limit of what I know (within which I may suppose that I am correct) to the limit of what I seek discover (in which I know that I will not always be right) lies an area of uncertainty. If it is possible for the universe to come about by natural means without an 'old man in the sky', Supreme Being or any other belief system then it is possible that divine intervention was absent because it was not there. The universal applicability of natural laws demonstrates this, for an omnipotent being capable of setting them aside for their own purposes would soon become visible from the result of its actions.
I wonder how Carl Sagan’s views would be if he was born in the soviet union and had a gun held to his head if he did not produce any technology that contributed to a communist regime!?
Andy Carriere, He understood farm more about humanity than to get stuck in the usual nonsense about religion and the "politics" of the Reds under the beds. He could imagine a world without war. If you think hydro dams and space rockets contribute to a communist regime was the Boulder Dam and NASA any different? The Nasa rockets were designed by Werner von Braun ex member of the Nazi party. No gun gun held to his head then. No just made an offer he could not refuse. Carl Sagan could see the shy. You can see your boots.
Sagan wasn’t converting units of measurement dumbass. He was, as he said, converting numbers, as a billion has a different numerical value in the US vs the UK. AND NO, the US is not the only country in the world that uses non-metric units (the UK uses miles, for example), and it’s also a lie to say that the US never uses metric units since they are used quite often among scientists and in other specialties.
3:45 "We are an exploratory species. We wish to understand who we are,..." Carl doesn't. He believes creation happened without God. There is NO science for his belief.
@@BenjaminGoose that's not it at all. It was kind of a hint when I wrote...There is NO science for his belief. Maybe read what I wrote next time rather than making things up.
@@johnheinrich1718 it's fun crushing jokes like you. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
I miss the days when people would conduct themselves with such elegance and grace on tv
Right mate. Conservative news outlets the worst. Not one would interview Carl. Or even Neil D. Tyson.
What a great guy... passed away far too soon... bless you sir.
It's both a message in haystack and a needle in a bottle. What a bloody legend he was and still is !
Excellent interview with a brilliant man. Wogan kept it simple. Excellent
Thanks for posting that. I just re-watched Cosmos recently coincidentally
Carl talked way too much sense.....loner no doubt....I read his book Cosmos in the seventies...also listened to cassette tapes of his lectures....the world was blessed with his insight and intellect...
Thanks for posting. Haven't seen this since it first aired.
I wish this interview could have been longer.
Both Carl Sagan and Terry Wogan have since passed from the living, we who live are witnesses to the thoughts they shared on how humans have transformed their exploration of their home planet to that of the heavens. Including patiently listening for news from others like us.
Carl Sagen,was and is a class act,very smart,we could use many more men like him.
One of the greatest men of the twentieth century. Where are men like him today?
Neil deGrasse Tyson is one who lives and tries to teach.
Sagan was good too.
here:
ua-cam.com/video/M8ryqjyLBL8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/H7Uyfqi_TE8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/9CK6dOQyK54/v-deo.html
Destroyed or relegated to the shadows by this crass corporate and terminally dumbed-down society I think
Thanks for posting. Two great guys! 😀
are you serious. completely
miss matched people. ones
an idiot vs a genius. fact !
Wogen is a social genius, he makes people laugh and works the room better than most. There are lots of ways to be clever and lots of ways to be an idiot. Everyone is an idiot when we look at what knowledge/skills they lack.
Carl must have had the patience of a saint to put up with this childish line of questioning.
We were all children once, there are no dumb questions.
Terry Wogan like the late great Carl Sagan was an atheist. Wogan was a great communicator and as a man of reason knew his audience.
@@GlentoranMark "We were all children once, there are no dumb questions."
Carl at 3:45 "We are an exploratory species. We wish to understand who we are,..."
Carl doesn't. He believes creation happened without God. There is NO science for his belief.
So it proves there are dumb people like Carl who don't ask the right questions.
@@2fast2block At least Carl asks the questions. My favourite Sagan quote “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
@@2fast2block "there's no science for his belief?" I'm gobsmacked by this statement?
For those not from the UK, the interviewer used to demand a fee for appearances at charity events - such as 'Children in Need'.
Sounds like a giant moron
@@Avryg00 Yes, yes. Helping poor and sick children is very moronic indeed
A million million dollars - because Carl knew a US Billion is different to a UK one :)
Carl calls thing right as usual from his Star Wars points to his planets around most stars.
RIP Carl, you gave me a love of Astronomy and Science.
I think Carl developed a phobia to saying the word billion too, as he got hounded (unfairly) for the way he pronounced it.
Might also be because it helps the average listener/viewer understand that 1 trillion is 1 million times 1 million dollars.
Actually Britain adopted the American billion ie one thousand million 50 years ago.
I miss both these guys. RIP
1985: We can broadcast the Encyclopedia Britannica in just a week with the existing technology
... just a week...
Not only a man of great intelligence, he is also very eloquent.
Yeah, I really like Terry Wogan. But is that a Yorkshire accent? He pronounces "think" like "tink".
Carl was a joke.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?--
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was.
Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is.
So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@2fast2block
are you one of those religious nuts?
@@nessieness5433 Here's what happens when you give an empty person common science they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are inept human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as shallow as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided:
Drumroll, please.... their science....."are you one of those religious nuts?"
Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that empty.
@@SelfReflective He was Irish but very posh english sounding.
If viewers of this video are not from the UK and Ireland, they will not be familiar with host Terry Wogan, or the the style of this chat show. It was an early evening light entertainment show and that time slot dictated the style and content of this kind of interview. Wogan was an enormously popular radio host and TV presenter, with great charm and experience. However this format and time slot did not suit his style and his former Saturday night slot would have provided a longer and better interview with Sagan.
Thanks for the info.
It still worked for me though.
Cosmos is gospel to me and Carl Sagan it's greatest Prophet. A Wonderful Human Being.
The true prophet! Peace be upon him!!
Hail Sagan, The Lord of Cosmos!
would not call him a Prophet. It's against the principles to which he has dearly taught us.
I've had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Science thanks to Carl.
A wonderful being indeed.
@@udaikumar1782 The English language is a wonderful thing but can be interpreted so differently.
I think 65sparx remark is more a metaphor as Carl had differing (scientific) views on religions. Carl was a visionary and a realist, he went on facts not pseudo silence. 65sparx makes the point that his views are far more believable than any religious text.
I'm glad Carl is not alive to see what the US has become today. He would be so saddened, but still hopeful that we can do better.
Carl was just a joke. I don't care what that clueless misfit thought.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?--
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was.
Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is.
So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@2fast2block 11 months and no one has bothered to read your nonsensical attention-desperate Bullcrap. The world knows a bitter troll when they read its comments. Bye bye Troll.
@@2fast2block the only god is Our Lord Satan
The PhD throwing shade directly past the host who doesn't realize his line of questioning is being mocked with primary school answers. He could not have left that chair any faster!
@@bansheewhiskey LOL. Name calling.
Just goes to show we don't really need bigger and better computers and AI etc. - we need intelligence, which Carl had in bucket loads
i loved him what a great man
Yeah, i love Terry Wogan.
We need rational and pragmatic scientists like Sagan to run the country
Justin W Humans had such potential before our “world leaders” decided to set this civilization on a terminal course to annihilation
if only.
Carl loved his empty clueless life.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?--
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was.
Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is.
So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
--- and he don't like Star Wars
@@2fast2block 🤣 all I can do is laugh
Sagan and Wogan
I miss the day when millions of dollars was a lot.
Super smashing great , awesome
Brilliant mind
Wogan was woeful
wonderful
Was he supposed to just get up and go?
I don't think he was. Guests are usually ushered offstage off camera while Terry is cueing up the next guest.
Ah yes, I see. Thanks
Was common then. Looks awkward now.
his pro-gender and pro-diversity comments he made where way ahead of its time
One and only 🚀🛰🛸!
great
Sagan was a great american.
awesome
Scientific genius in head-on collision with UK Saturday night light entertainment. It's like God agreeing to do panto in Blackpool.
brilliant
An IQ that could boil water
Have you tried DMT
Surprised Sagan wasted his time for this.
Great words of Carl. However the interviewer should have done his homework and then a little more knowledgeable so that you could ask more intelligent questions.
Fenimenal
How do scientists know how many suns (etc) there are? How do they make that calculation.. it’s mad
How do you know how many flowers are there in a field? You select a small patch, and count the flowers in it. You then either measure or calculate the area of the field, and you can then calculate the number of flowers. It's not an exact number, but it should be reasonably close.
When you just want to reach out and slap the anchor mouth shut ...such a kiddish relentless
I wonder how Sagan maintained his composure
The golden record on Voyager with our vital information is not the best idea!!! It's like me leaving my social security number, phone, address, and bank account information in this comment!!!
Those records on the two Voyager probes, and the plaques on Pioneer 10 and 11 are travelling at a tiny fraction of the speed of light. They would take tens of thousands of years to approach any other star systems, and none will intercept them. We do not yet know whether any of those stars has orbiting planets, nor do we know whether any has biological life on it. Nor any intelligent life, capable of developing technology. Nor yet do we know whether any other technological civilisation is capable of launching spacecraft, which might one day encounter one of our own. Or communicate with us. Your bank account is pretty safe for now.
@ilokivi very cute, one dementional thinking.
Carl couldn't wait to get out of that interview. What a bafoon interviewer jeez! Carl Sagan was one of the greatest ambassadors to the Human Race and will always be.
Carl was clueless and so are you.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?--
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was.
Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is.
So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@2fast2block what u talkin bout Willis
@@geemanbmw no doubt you are so slow by asking that.
@@2fast2block wat u talkin bout willis
@@2fast2block Hey, 'Einstein', piss off back to your toys and sandpit.
very considerate of Carl not to use Billion or Trillion
UK and US had different definitions of what constituted a billion, during the lifetime of many of the people in that audience.
Carl Sagan was sooooo hot
If only Sagan had been alive to warn against Brexit
What a prat Wogan
To bad this man did not get involved in Politics and did not live longer.
that host is a liar
if he had in fact read carl's books he wouldn't have asked those questions
such a waste of an interview
when it comes to deep meaningful
subjects. terry wogan was a total
fuckwit. what a waste of interview
time with a great mind, and a great
man.
Miguel Robledo Really? He's asking those questions so the audience can hear the answer... that's so obvious
It was evening television broadcast to an audience getting ready to watch Coronation Street, or The Bill. BBC2 had the more hard-hitting stuff, like Horizon (which broadcast fantastic documentaries on the Voyager missions).
PeowPeowPeowLasers Not sure sone people know this so thank you for pointing it out. Tv back then was so much better and more casual than people are used to today. I miss those days!
@MiguelA 'liar' is someone, who knows that he isn't telling the truth - Terry Wogan (being only an interviewer here) may just have asked stupid or uninformed questions on purpose.
Given the fact, that Wogan was prone to entertain an audience at that venue, one might safely assume a certain script or schedule of interrogation to provide an outcome of Carl Sagan receiving topical lines for him to shine as the ironeous straight man besides the clown-wogan of mirth...
As smart as Sagan was, he simply was not immune to being political himself.
What does that mean?
POLARBEARSRUS I guess he didn’t worship Reagan. And after hearing him present the evidence against the HUMONGOUS increase in defence spending in the 1980’s, how could anyone?
even self proclaimed politics haters have views that relate directly to politics.
Carl was clueless, not smart.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the dingbat Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?--
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was.
Now, Carl the F00L cannot get around these laws and what they lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is.
So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that F00L.
@@2fast2block Copy and paste. Repetition of a bad argument does not make it more valid. And name-calling detracts from your own. As to be human is to be fallible and capable of error, I know that from the limit of what I know (within which I may suppose that I am correct) to the limit of what I seek discover (in which I know that I will not always be right) lies an area of uncertainty. If it is possible for the universe to come about by natural means without an 'old man in the sky', Supreme Being or any other belief system then it is possible that divine intervention was absent because it was not there. The universal applicability of natural laws demonstrates this, for an omnipotent being capable of setting them aside for their own purposes would soon become visible from the result of its actions.
I wonder how Carl Sagan’s views would be if he was born in the soviet union and had a gun held to his head if he did not produce any technology that contributed to a communist regime!?
Andy Carriere, He understood farm more about humanity than to get stuck in the usual nonsense about religion and the "politics" of the Reds under the beds. He could imagine a world without war. If you think hydro dams and space rockets contribute to a communist regime was the Boulder Dam and NASA any different? The Nasa rockets were designed by Werner von Braun ex member of the Nazi party. No gun gun held to his head then. No just made an offer he could not refuse. Carl Sagan could see the shy. You can see your boots.
For To British numbers .. read Non-USAian numbers - the whole rest of the world uses Metric ...
Sagan wasn’t converting units of measurement dumbass. He was, as he said, converting numbers, as a billion has a different numerical value in the US vs the UK.
AND NO, the US is not the only country in the world that uses non-metric units (the UK uses miles, for example), and it’s also a lie to say that the US never uses metric units since they are used quite often among scientists and in other specialties.
3:45 "We are an exploratory species. We wish to understand who we are,..."
Carl doesn't. He believes creation happened without God. There is NO science for his belief.
It sounds like you are mad he doesn't believe something you believe.
@@BenjaminGoose that's not it at all. It was kind of a hint when I wrote...There is NO science for his belief.
Maybe read what I wrote next time rather than making things up.
Or yours
@@johnheinrich1718 it's fun crushing jokes like you.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"--
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was.
Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"
He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws...
"I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is.
So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
@@BenjaminGoose I wouldn’t read it all it’ll put you to sleep.
I enjoyed Sagan but he was wrong about Star wars . Reagan’s seriousness about it scared the Russians into bankruptcy
Brilliant mind.