Skip to main content

Get a sense of perspective....

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
That's brilliant, Stephen.

I saw something similar in the Munich Science Museum in 2000, only it started with a couple sitting on a metre square rug in Central Park, NY, and then zoomed out at powers of 10 with an English voiceover.

However this one is even more spectacular.

We live on a grain of sand on a beach surrounded by oceans, really.

Regards, Paul.
September 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM
The Atheist Missionary said…
Awesome. Thanks for posting this.
September 7, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Tony Lloyd said…
Ah! I see. The "safety" software where I was doesn't just stop videos, it removes any clue as to their existence. All I saw earlier was a blank post.

The video is pretty good. A bit like a YouTube version of the Total Perspective Vortex:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnJl7B_TVs
September 7, 2010 at 6:40 PM
hemiola said…
Wonderful. The version of the couple in Central Park that I saw also zoomed in at powers of ten down to the cellular, molecular, and subatomic level (maybe even strings) - made an excellent point about the continuum of matter.
September 9, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Anonymous said…
This one takes you to from the everyday, to the very big, then to the very small. And is narrated by Morgan Freeman (as if it weren't dramatic enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FARX1daD5uo&feature=PlayList&p=24784686D9F530EE&index=0&playnext=1
September 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more