Neil deGrasse Tyson on God

FortuneTeller · Mar 30, 2020

Yeah, what he says. IF the bearded man shows up, we are good to go! Listen to what he says in this video and tell me his thoughts are NOT coming from a logical, non-fear based mind!!! :-)

I realize those who NEED religion in their life will not for a second watch this video. They might be as scared as the lady in the video!!!

Overnight · Mar 30, 2020

FortuneTeller said:
Yeah, what he says. IF the bearded man shows up, we are good to go! Listen to what he says in this video and tell me his thoughts are NOT coming from a logical, non-fear based mind!!!

I realize those who NEED religion in their life will not for a second watch this video. They might be as scared as the lady in the video!!!

Tyson is da' man.

FortuneTeller · Mar 31, 2020

Yes, Tyson is smarter than all of the heads of all of the religions in the whole entire world!

CaptainObvious · Mar 31, 2020

And all he needs to do is bring indisputable undeniable evidence that his science based theory is correct. He can no more deliver that evidence than the creationists can deliver on their "faith" based theory. Absolute certainty on the subject is not possible.

FortuneTeller · Apr 1, 2020

CaptainObvious said:
And all he needs to do is bring indisputable undeniable evidence that his science based theory is correct. He can no more deliver that evidence than the creationists can deliver on their "faith" based theory. Absolute certainty on the subject is not possible.

"Faith" has no evidence at all. Science has a lot of evidence.

Frederick Foresight · Apr 2, 2020

CaptainObvious said:
Absolute certainty on the subject is not possible.

Which is the more credible of the two options? (Please don't choose the fairy sky father.)

stu · Apr 2, 2020

CaptainObvious said:
And all he needs to do is bring indisputable undeniable evidence that his science based theory is correct. He can no more deliver that evidence than the creationists can deliver on their "faith" based theory. Absolute certainty on the subject is not possible.

He doesn't need to bring indisputable undeniable evidence at all.

All Tyson needs to do, which he does as a scientist, is bring his evidence as proof. No conclusion is necessary. All creationists can do is bring their conclusion without providing any evidence.

CaptainObvious · Apr 2, 2020

stu said:
He doesn't need to bring indisputable undeniable evidence at all.

All Tyson needs to do, which he does as a scientist, is bring his evidence as proof. No conclusion is necessary. All creationists can do is bring their conclusion without providing any evidence.

To take a theory and make it scientific fact indisputable evidence is absolutely required.

CaptainObvious · Apr 2, 2020

Frederick Foresight said:
Which is the more credible of the two options? (Please don't choose the fairy sky father.)

Credibility isn't fact, it's just where one would put their personal beliefs at any given time. Tyson has more credibility than your typical evangelist. That doesn't make him absolutely correct. Until undeniable, indisputable scientific evidence is attained it's a theory. Frankly a better theory than the Church presents, but a theory none the less. The debate continues and that's a good thing. Good science demands it.

Frederick Foresight · Apr 2, 2020

CaptainObvious said:
Credibility isn't fact, it's just where one would put their personal beliefs at any given time. Tyson has more credibility than your typical evangelist. That doesn't make him absolutely correct. Until undeniable, indisputable scientific evidence is attained it's a theory. Frankly a better theory than the Church presents, but a theory none the less. The debate continues and that's a good thing. Good science demands it.

Scientific theory is not pie in the sky. Blind faith is exactly that.