Why does neil degrasse tyson try to disprove God with weather?

Yeah, awful stuff happens. We somewhat understand why weather is at times terrible. Tornadoes and hurricanes are still a mystery.


To accept creation, is to accept what all that happens within creation.

God or not, weather is weather.

No god, weather is still #.

God is there, can you find Him in the chaos?


Who knows?

While I like neil, he's what most of us call an intelligent idiot.

He'll beat you over the head with all his accolades and once you are at the brink of succumbing to his brilliance, he'll say something stupid that you'd expect a 5 year old to say(usually in a TMZ clip).

I still like him though.

Didn't he also say computer code is embedded in physics, implying existence is a program.
Table of elements for mass/chemistry,
And DNA the computer coding system for life.
Where do photons and weatheremember fall into place though, entropy and enthalpy.? Athe sentienot level
free will whichave is prob random to him since he seems to exude carefree random whatever happens is just oneed universe in the infinite multivelse attitude

a reply to: EternalSolace

Hard to argue when NDT discusses science but when he is talking opinion and faith, well

Funny thing is the bible teaches life is chaos, the weather can be chaotic, not like NDT has anything valid to argue

Link?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Yeah, awful stuff happens. We somewhat understand why weather is at times terrible. Tornadoes and hurricanes are still a mystery.


To accept creation, is to accept what all that happens within creation.

God or not, weather is weather.

No god, weather is still #.

God is there, can you find Him in the chaos?


Who knows?

Actually the devil is in charge of the weather, Jesus rebuked the storm and Paul talked about the powers that control thing in this present age. We can pray for favor in the weather but in the end the enemy is in control.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Actually the devil is in charge of the weather,

1 more for the devil? It was in charge in Eden when man was tempted. Do churches still say its in charge of rock n rock or heavy metal?

Seems like the jehovah dude left this plane a lone time ago.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Scientists are all zealots of the church of philosophical materialism even though there's no proof to support their dogma.

Scientists are good at coming up with simple mathematics to represent nature's behaviors is a specific context. Scientist or science never answers any of the big questions.

tyson is a shill for the inter-nationalists.
his tv show was filled with pro-paganda, i only watched a few episodes before i had to quit.

guy is a sellout, obviously rich for doing so.

anything he says, has to be questioned, because he works for 'them'

so i just ignore his stupidity at this point, because once you lie once, anything he says from that point on has to be considered a possible lie as well.

a reply to: EternalSolace

How about bone cancer in babies?

Gods will...

Priests used to be like the weather man, only difference the weather man wouldn't lose his job or cause riots on the false premise that animal sacrifice would bring rain or stop it.

I believe Gods differ than a Creator source.

There are millions of Gods.

There can only be 1 creator.

If there were a creator, it would create something external to itself which it could not be apart of, as its very essence could possibly destroy its creation (the structure of the universe).

If we consider the universe in its entirety has a shape, like a container. An origin point within the container, as it expands from that point.

We can consider that the creator is outside of the container looking in.

Just as a scientist is outside of a petri dish, though bacteria cultures are within its container,.multiplying and expanding.
Though the scale here is miniature in comparison to the universal container so to speak.

Therefore whatever is inside the container will never detect that which is outside of it during it's small window called Life.

NDT is a joke imo. Blows more smoke put of his ass than a chimney.

Gods are idealistic things humans made up.

Creator made everything.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: EternalSolace

Hard to argue when NDT discusses science

Actually Tyson botches his shallow pop science pretty often. He's a source of bad math, bad science and bad history.

Look up the "Tower of Siloam." Jesus explicitly teaches that sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's just part of life.

originally posted by: HopDavid

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: EternalSolace

Hard to argue when NDT discusses science

Actually Tyson botches his shallow pop science pretty often. He's a source of bad math, bad science and bad history.

Reminds me of Bill Nye. Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering, which means that he is literally no more qualified than I am (degree in chemical engineering) to talk about stuff like climate change.

originally posted by: HopDavid

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: EternalSolace

Hard to argue when NDT discusses science

Actually Tyson botches his shallow pop science pretty often. He's a source of bad math, bad science and bad history.

I find he can be vague and rational not given to pop science and the “latest” theory
Not suggesting he is mr perfect, don’t think anyone is

a reply to: Raggedyman

He is pop science. Flunked out of his first attempt at a doctorate. Wrote a forgettable dissertation under Columbia's R. Michael Rich in the early 90s. And hasn't done research since. Most of his pop science is stuff people should have learned in high school. And he often botches even that.

Most of Tyson's misinformation is harmless. Like who cares if his listeners believe him when he says there are more transcendentals than irrationals? It's not as if Katie Perry, Joe Rogan or 99.9% of Tyson's fans will ever actually study Cantor's ideas on infinite sets.

Much worse is when he uses his poor memory and strong imagination to invent history. And then uses his bad history to push a narrative.

Not that I'm against criticizing Republicans or religion, mind you. If the criticism is fact based. But Tyson's cautionary tales are based on invented history.

I realize I'm about to gore many people's sacred cows, but I've got a problem with astrophysics and theoretical physics in general. Much of it is so esoteric, it is basically untestable, at least for the foreseeable future. Guys like Stephen Hawking
and Neil Tyson might well be wildly off-base with their theories, but it will likely be decades (or centuries) before we know it. There's really not a lot of difference between what they do and what sci-fi authors do.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Wow *smh*

Did you really just proclaim that hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones are a mystery?

Someone didn't pay attention in geography classes.

As for why NDT uses weather as an argument against God.

Because weather is chaotic, whereas God is supposed to be the creator of all things, so why would he create something so chaotic? *Rhetorical*

Like, why would he create evil, the devil, a vast universe unlivable for human beings. *Rhetorical*

On that note,

Why does anyone who is certain that God doesn't exist make a quest out of trying to disprove the existence of God to people, of whom only believers in God would be in disagreement with.

"I was a Christian until I saw Neil Degrasse Tyson's video, he really changed my mind." said no one ever.

Atheist vs Christian debates are.. pointless pursuits of a hobby. There's no unsure spectators being convinced here.

"I read the bible growing up and went to Church but.. I wasn't sure, I didn't know so I tuned in for the Neil Degrasse Tyson debate."

The same goes for left vs right debates. Oh how the contenders study and prepare for this. You'd think they were stepping into the intellectual octagon. The judges scorecard reads.. does not exist.

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

Well on that note, I was a Christian until I read the actual words written in the Bible.
I was a Christian until I actually connected the dots of our history as we know it, combined that with socialogical studies of human behaviour etc, and came to the obvious and logical conclusion that religion is but a crutch for those who don't like to admit that there is a plethora of unknown answers to our big questions.

Why do we atheists, agnostic atheists etc debate theists?
Because if we don't continue the debate, then theism will put it's dirty paws on government law making and reduce us to the level of a modern dark age (just take any theocratic nation that exists today as an example, predominantly the middle east).

Believe what you want to believe, nothing wrong with that, but keep it a private matter between yourself and your specific belief.

Admit that your belief is based on heresay alone, and acknowledge what that means In the grand scheme of credible knowledge and progress of thought.

And finally, planting the seed of doubt is more important than being sensitive of the feelings and beliefs of others.
Feelings can be mended, ingrained indoctrinated irrational ideas, not so easily.