John Clayton

[hshatfield]

Jan,

I'm very sorry hshatfield, but i don't think there is any point, as i would not describe him (Clayton) as a 'liar'

First of all, I just want to know how you could possibly think he is not a liar. If you are so sure that he is telling the truth, then what are you afraid of? He said he won't read my e-mails anymore, but I don't intend to let him get away with this.

nor am i particularly interested in what Carl Sagan believes, as it is on no real consequence in the big scheme of things.

I never said it was. My question is, why do you think Clayton (or anyone) should be able to misrepresent the position of someone without being challenged. I think what he is doing is disgusting.

If you wish to debate or discuss any of the points you mentioned, i would be happy to.

I already tried that. You are simply not worth my time, Jan. Talk to me after you have done some research.

 

[hshatfield]

Will anyone else send my objection to Clayton? I really want to see how he responds to this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
First of all, I just want to know how you could possibly think he is not a liar.

I don't know him so i cannot say whether or not he is a liar.

He said he won't read my e-mails anymore,

I'm not surprised. You appear to be un-healthily obsessed with something, which increases all the negative attributes of humans such as irrationality, arogance, ignorance and downright pig-headedness. You may of course be right in your assertions but the way you go about asserting yourself in most off-putting.

but I don't intend to let him get away with this.

You're begining to sound pathetic.

My question is, why do you think Clayton (or anyone) should be able to misrepresent the position of someone without being challenged. I think what he is doing is disgusting.

Unless you have direct, irrefutable evidence of what Sagan thought, then he is entitled to his opinion. You should find ways of disproving his understanding in a more reasonable and rational manner, even if only pretending.
One of the biggest insulters on this forum imho, is Cris, but he is clever enough to give them a superficial coating of rationality and reason, maybe you should learn from him.

I already tried that. You are simply not worth my time, Jan. Talk to me after you have done some research.

Some research into what?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

I don't know him so I cannot say whether or not he is a liar.

What I meant was, how can you look at that quote and think he is telling the truth when he says that?

I'm not surprised. You appear to be unhealthily obsessed with something, which increases all the negative attributes of humans such as irrationality, arrogance, ignorance and downright pigheadedness. You may of course be right in your assertions but the way you go about asserting yourself in most off-putting.

How am I obsessed? I only spend a few minutes writing these posts. I may be arrogant, but please show me where I have been irrational and ignorant. I think those are good ways to describe you, Jan.

You're beginning to sound pathetic.

I don't care.

Unless you have direct, irrefutable evidence of what Sagan thought, then he is entitled to his opinion.

http://admiralty.pacific.net.hk/~paulchui/cosmic.html

Here Carl Segan scales down the timeline of the universe. Clearly Sagan does not believe the universe had no beginning. All you had to do was type "Carl sagan" into a search engine and you would have seen that I am right. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

You should find ways of disproving his understanding in a more reasonable and rational manner, even if only pretending.

See above. I don't have to pretend, but you may need to if you try to continue defending Clayton.

One of the biggest insulters on this forum imho, is Cris, but he is clever enough to give them a superficial coating of rationality and reason, maybe you should learn from him.

Cris's posts are far more rational than yours ever are. I don't see him as being that insulting either. He just gives honest descriptions of people. For example, if someone is ignorant, he will probably describe them as ignorant.

Some research into what?

Do research on what ever is being discussed. It is clear that you simply rushed to defend Clayton without having any idea what you were talking about.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth” -- Genesis 1:1.
“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be” – Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

I think you have misinterpreted his intention, by putting these two statements together, it appears he is making a direct comparison, but actually he isn't;

(Clayton) "If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it.

He is only using the statement of Carl Sagan. If a lie has been told it could only be that Sagan did not say that, or that he openly admitted that he was not fond of saying it. Besides that, where is the lie?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

Did you even read my last post? Clayton says that Carl Sagan believes that the universe had no beginning. That is a lie. I know you are grasping at straws here, but at least make some attempt at addressing the points I make.

"The second statement indicates:

1. There was no beginning.
2. The cosmos is self-existing and thus uncaused.
3. The universe was not created and thus is the product of non-intelligence."

The second statement refers to Carl Sagan's quote. Carl Sagan does not believe that the universe had no beginning or is self-existing and uncaused. Clayton has either lied or has been extremely lazy and didn't even bother looking at the rest of Cosmos (where he got the quote from).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
What I meant was, how can you look at that quote and think he is telling the truth when he says that?

The way you put it is not exactly how it was presented, read my previous post.

How am I obsessed?

It seems that way.

I may be arrogant, but please show me where I have been irrational and ignorant.

Firstly, don't be arrogant, it doesn't help you or anyone else.

You're begining to sound pathetic

I don't care.

That takes care of why i think you are irrational and ignorant.

Clearly Sagan does not believe the universe had no beginning.

Quite frankly i can't tell what he believes from that excert!

See above. I don't have to pretend, but you may need to if you try to continue defending Clayton.

I'm not defending anything, i'm just having a chat.

Cris's posts are far more rational than yours ever are.

You could well be right, but my point wasn't whether he was more or less rational, but his insults are put across in a rational way, which to me, is a contradiction.

I don't see him as being that insulting either.

You wouldn't, because you are of similar mind-set.

He just gives honest descriptions of people.

How do you know?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

The way you put it is not exactly how it was presented, read my previous post.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. The quote I posted was not from the link in my original post. Look at lesson one of his intermediate evidence course. I didn't change a thing. I quoted him word for word. This should clear some things up.

I won't even bother responding to the rest of your pathetic whining.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

There is one more thing I should respond to.

Quite frankly i can't tell what he believes from that excert!

Read one of his books. Carl Sagan does not believe that the universe had no beginning, and there is no way any literate person could get that idea from any of his material.

 

[hshatfield]

Are things normally this slow paced here?

For some reason I can't get my avatar to appear on my posts even after I did everything that the help section instructed. Who do I talk to about this?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
I won't even bother responding to the rest of you pathetic whining.

Whimper whimper!!!!!!

Read one of his books. Carl Sagan does not believe that the universe had no beginning, and there is no way any literate person could get that idea from any of his material.

My dear sir, you may of course be correct, but you have to admit, the statement we....sorry you, are bashing people over the head with, does tend to sound like the universe had no begining. If Sagan does think as you say, then within that statement, he hasn't made himself clear.

Who do I talk to about this?

I would say Cris is the man to talk to.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

My dear sir, you may of course be correct, but you have to admit, the statement we....sorry you, are bashing people over the head with, does tend to sound like the universe had no begining. If Sagan does think as you say, then within that statement, he hasn't made himself clear.

I am correct, but don't take my word for it. If you don't want to read one of his books, type Carl Sagan into a search engine and you will soon find that I am right. I also don't see how the statement indicates a universe with no beginning at all. Could you please explain this to me? Even if it does that does not excuse what Clayton has done. I could easily do the same thing to Clayton. Clayton says, "You are either an atheist or a Christian;". Is it OK for me to say that Clayton's position is that no other religions besides Christianity exist? That is what the quote indicates.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield

I also don't see how the statement indicates a universe with no beginning at all. Could you please explain this to me?

"the cosmos is everything that ever was or is or ever will be,"

If that is the correct statement, then he believes the cosmos to be everything at all times, and as the cosmos springs from and resides in the universe, the universe must also be everything at all times. Where is the possiblility of a beginging?

Even if it does that does not excuse what Clayton has done.

Clayton has given his opinion, that's all.

I could easily do the same thing to Clayton. Clayton says, "You are either an atheist or a Christian;". Is it OK for me to say that Clayton's position is that no other religions besides Christianity exist? That is what the quote indicates.

That seems to be the ideaology of Christians. If that is what Clayton is implying, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was, then he has alot to learn. But it is still his opinion and he is entitled to it.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

If that is the correct statement, then he believes the cosmos to be everything at all times, and as the cosmos springs from and resides in the universe, the universe must also be everything at all times.

Wrong. He is simply saying that the cosmos is everything that exists, has existed, or will exist. The statement says nothing about a beginning or lack of. If there was a time when the universe did not exist, how would that go against his statement? The universe is also not necessarily the same thing as the cosmos, as I said before. He doesn't say that the cosmos has always existed either. Saying that the cosmos is everything that has ever existed and saying that the cosmos has always existed are two completely different statements.

Here is something to think about. Lets say that the universe came into existence five seconds ago and prior to that nothing had ever existed. In this case (I am not asking about reality, just the conditions that I have given) is the statement "The universe is all that has ever existed" true? This would be a situation where the universe had a beginning, but is all that has ever existed.

Where is the possiblility of a beginging?

See above. What I would like to know is where he says anything about how "the cosmos springs from and resides in the universe."

Clayton has given his opinion, that's all.

No, he has distorted someone's position.

That seems to be the ideaology of Christians. If that is what Clayton is implying, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was, then he has alot to learn.

You completely missed my point. If you read other articles in Clayton's site you will see that he does acknowledge the existence of other religions. I was just showing how you can take one quote and use it to completely misrepresent someone. The only difference is that his statement really does indicate that he thinks Christianity is the only religion, where Sagan's statement doesn't indicate anything that Clayton claims it does.

But it is still his opinion and he is entitled to it.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." I already showed you this, but I think you need to read it again. I know that the statement does not indicate what his true position, but it is a false statement. If he said that Christianity is the only good religion or Christianity is the only religion worth following, then that would be an opinion. However, the statement says that everyone is either an atheist or a Christian. Whether Clayton likes it or not, other religions do exist.

I think we have gone off track a little. Do you think I have shown that Clayton is wrong about Sagan's position? Why or why not?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
Wrong. He is simply saying that the cosmos is everything that exists, has existed, or will exist. The statement says nothing about a beginning or lack of.

Okay, the cosmos is 'everything.' What is 'everything?'
As he has not said, one can only assume 'everything' is that which he (we) percieves. Which must include consciousness.
So he must be saying that the cosmos is consciousness as he described it as 'everything.'

The cosmos, from his perspective must also be the cause of time, as from his description it is trancendental to time, i will explain.
The cosmos is everything that is, was and will be. If the cosmos is everything that will be, then the cosmos must be omniscient and consequently omnipotent. The cosmos therefore cannot be affected by the relentless onslaught of time which is the cause for change. If the cosmos is everything that is, was,and will be, it cannot be subject to change, it just is. Therefore it can have no begining or end.

If there was a time when the universe did not exist, how would that go against his statement?

Because it couldn't be everything that is, was, or will be, as it is still under the control of time, and thus couldn't be time.

Saying that the cosmos is everything that has ever existed and saying that the cosmos has always existed are two completely different statements.

You're right, but saying that the cosmos is everything that is, was and will be not only means that the cosmos is an intelligent being, but is beyond time/change.

Lets say that the universe came into existence five seconds ago and prior to that nothing had ever existed. In this case (I am not asking about reality, just the conditions that I have given) is the statement"The universe is all that has ever existed" true? This would be a situation where the universe had a beginning, but is all that has ever existed.

If there was no observer, then that statement, as it is worded, would have to be true. But what would it matter, and to whom?

What I would like to know is where he says anything about how "the cosmos springs from and resides in the universe."

He didn't, as far as i know. I said it.

No, he has distorted someone's position.

Then give me something of Carl Sagans philosophy which contradicts Claytons statement.

.....where Sagan's statement doesn't indicate anything that Clayton claims it does.

Show me.

However, the statement says that everyone is either an atheist or a Christian. Whether Clayton likes it or not, other religions do exist.

That is just an opinion from his perspective, you shouldn't let it or anything he says get you down. Truth and understanding can only come from the individual. There are many people saying many things, and you can take in as much information as you like. But eventually you have to use your intelligence (preferably human) to discriminate, if you don't, then your intelligence will remain basic (animalistic).

I think we have gone off track a little. Do you think I have shown that Clayton is wrong about Sagan's position? Why or why not?

So far you've given your opinions, which say he is wrong. The best way to refute Clayton, is to come up with a quote from Sagan where he says he is not sure whether or not the universe had a begining.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

I will not continue this any further until we get one thing straight.

The best way to refute Clayton, is to come up with a quote from Sagan where he says he is not sure whether or not the universe had a begining.

I have given you links and told you where you can look to find this. Why should I keep answering you if you will just ignore what I post?

This is the last time I will respond to this and I will not respond to any more of your posts if you ignore this.

http://visav.phys.uvic.ca/~babul/AstroCourses/P303/BB-slide.htm

Sagan said that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. If he thought that the universe had no beginning, then he would think that the universe is infinitely old.

I also encourage you to read any of his books. You will see that he does not believe the universe had no beginning from reading most of them.

Do not ever ask me to show you that Sagan does not believe the universe had no beginning again. I am already sick of giving you all this information just so you can ignore it and repeat your request for me to show you what Sagan's position was.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by hshatfield
http://visav.phys.uvic.ca/~babul/AstroCourses/P303/BB-slide.htm

This is awesome!

 

[hshatfield]

Medicine*Woman,

This is awesome!

I am glad you like it. I also found it very interesting.

 

[Jan Ardena]

hshatfield,

If Sagan believes the universe had a begining, then his statement "the universe is all there ever is, was and will be" has no meaning, unless it came out of nothing.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

You just ignored what I posted. That is fine. I already warned you and from now on I will ignore you.