Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
Atheism, Agnosticism, Belief.
260 Answers
Nine and a half minutes. Very interesting.
Presented by Dinesh D'Souza, featuring Neo de Grasses Tyson.
https:/
Presented by Dinesh D'Souza, featuring Neo de Grasses Tyson.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
\\ 21:04 :- of course He could!//
So why did the Bible, you know, the book that you live by, say he couldn't? He asked Adam where are you and he asked Cain where Abel was. From your answer it seems you don't believe everything in the Bible. You have, of course, stated that you hadn't read all of it but I would have thought you had at least read Genesis.
So why did the Bible, you know, the book that you live by, say he couldn't? He asked Adam where are you and he asked Cain where Abel was. From your answer it seems you don't believe everything in the Bible. You have, of course, stated that you hadn't read all of it but I would have thought you had at least read Genesis.
Khandro - sorry! If only that were true! Oh what fun we could have.
Sadly, I have to admit to not knowing everything!
I have to do the book work and work it all out by myself.
Mr Degrasse Tyson misses an important point. The central role of love.
Selfishness broke this world and caused it to fall from grace, as told in the anecdotal story of Adam end Eve.
It needed fixing and only the God of love is capable of fixing it, Himself, and us with it.
True love is refined through suffering, burning away the ego and selfishness, and leaving only the refined pure love for God and for each other.
It is a process we are going through, and many will be rejected in the dross of the refining.
Bereavement, sickness, loneliness, victimhood, injustice, penury, affliction, conflict and wars, these are our natural condition to be endured, and to help others endure.
DeGrasse Tyson, for all of his scientific accomplishments is no philosopher of theologian, and uses only part of the multi faceted tool of reason to probe the evidence for God.
He has trapped himself in a straightjacket of empiricism, something that is quite common here on answerbank.
Like the skins on an onion, peel one away, and there's always another to be probed. So many people miss this, yet chime on about reason, and for good measure, logic, but keep on coming to the same conclusions.
Progress is not made, nothing is learned, and we take another turn around the mulberry bush.
Sadly, I have to admit to not knowing everything!
I have to do the book work and work it all out by myself.
Mr Degrasse Tyson misses an important point. The central role of love.
Selfishness broke this world and caused it to fall from grace, as told in the anecdotal story of Adam end Eve.
It needed fixing and only the God of love is capable of fixing it, Himself, and us with it.
True love is refined through suffering, burning away the ego and selfishness, and leaving only the refined pure love for God and for each other.
It is a process we are going through, and many will be rejected in the dross of the refining.
Bereavement, sickness, loneliness, victimhood, injustice, penury, affliction, conflict and wars, these are our natural condition to be endured, and to help others endure.
DeGrasse Tyson, for all of his scientific accomplishments is no philosopher of theologian, and uses only part of the multi faceted tool of reason to probe the evidence for God.
He has trapped himself in a straightjacket of empiricism, something that is quite common here on answerbank.
Like the skins on an onion, peel one away, and there's always another to be probed. So many people miss this, yet chime on about reason, and for good measure, logic, but keep on coming to the same conclusions.
Progress is not made, nothing is learned, and we take another turn around the mulberry bush.
Dawkins wrong? His multiverse is truly pure conjecture.
He has appealed to scientists who are far beyond his paygrade to endorse him and was laughed at.
When he suggested to his audience, panspermia, there was a sharp intake of breath.
All he did was take the problem back one step. A step towards infinite regression.
Never mind, the royalties keep rolling in, indicating of course, mankind's strong desire for answers, but sadly, looking in the wrong place.
As a matter of interest, who have you read or listened to and then rejected, and why? A reasonable question ?
He has appealed to scientists who are far beyond his paygrade to endorse him and was laughed at.
When he suggested to his audience, panspermia, there was a sharp intake of breath.
All he did was take the problem back one step. A step towards infinite regression.
Never mind, the royalties keep rolling in, indicating of course, mankind's strong desire for answers, but sadly, looking in the wrong place.
As a matter of interest, who have you read or listened to and then rejected, and why? A reasonable question ?
