Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[SteveII]

Your problem is with word definitions.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. They are NOT synonyms. 

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. 

So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

 But none of it is testable, supportive evidence for your god or the veracity of the bible.[1]  The NT may be evidence of people writing a book,[2]   but is not testable, supporting evidence that what is says is fact [3].  It's the same for every other piece of "evidence" that has been claimed by believers. [4]  And why is evidence so important to you anyway?  I thought faith was enough. [5]

1. Testable? Since when is analysis of historical evidence ever been testable? That is something made up by atheists just for this particular topic and its called special pleading. 
2. Regarding your comment "writing a book" -- are you not aware we are talking about 27 different documents--plus the additional evidence that comes to light from the books/letters themselves (that I outlined a couple of posts back)? 
3. The evidence I presented are facts (or tell me which one's you don't think are true) --that's what makes them evidence. 
4. The evidence is overwhelming that contemporaneous people believed the events cataloged and discussed at length in the NT. What other category of evidence could there be? 
5. That glib comment just illustrates that you don't know much about what it is you criticize.  

Of course, your position might be that everything about the NT was made up as part of a conspiracy so none of it is evidence of anything. Is that your position? If so, can you lay out your arguments for that conclusion?

---

You don't seem to be very good at discerning what people really mean, Steve. Maybe you should refrain from telling them what they mean and ask for clarification instead.

The claim is that the miraculous events described in the NT really happened. An example of evidence of that claim would be if the pagan Romans noted the sky darkening from noon to three the day they crucified that Jewish rabble-rouser, or resurrected Jews wandering around Jerusalem appearing to many people. It wouldn't be great evidence, but it would be actual evidence.

If I misunderstand him, he should use more words to convey his meaning. However, I don't think I have. He said over and over that the NT is not and does not contain evidence. That is obviously false. 

You are talking about additional corroborating evidence. That would be nice, but little has survived. That would strengthen the proof (the conclusion), but does not affect the evidence we do have.

---

No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it.

And the evidence that Santa flies around the world in one night every year on a magic sleigh pulled by magic flying reindeer is the millions of letters written to him by children over the centuries.

I could have written the second sentence better:

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about.

[Cyberman]

And that differs from children's letters to Santa how?

[Harry Nevis]

 But none of it is testable, supportive evidence for your god or the veracity of the bible.[1]  The NT may be evidence of people writing a book,[2]   but is not testable, supporting evidence that what is says is fact [3].  It's the same for every other piece of "evidence" that has been claimed by believers. [4]  And why is evidence so important to you anyway?  I thought faith was enough. [5]

1. Testable? Since when is analysis of historical evidence ever been testable? That is something made up by atheists just for this particular topic and its called special pleading. 

I would say analysis is testing.  Looking for outside corroboration, etc.

2. Regarding your comment "writing a book" -- are you not aware we are talking about 27 different documents--plus the additional evidence that comes to light from the books/letters themselves (that I outlined a couple of posts back)? 

So, books.

3. The evidence I presented are facts (or tell me which one's you don't think are true) --that's what makes them evidence. 

None of it is evidence for the existance of your god; just that people believed it.

4. The evidence is overwhelming that contemporaneous people believed the events cataloged and discussed at length in the NT. What other category of evidence could there be? 

Objective, testable evidence?  Wow, this is evidence that PEOPLE BELIEVED SOMETHING!!!  Big deal.

5. That glib comment just illustrates that you don't know much about what it is you criticize.  

And, of course, I can't KNOW anything about what I'm talking about if I don't agree with you, right?

Of course, your position might be that everything about the NT was made up as part of a conspiracy so none of it is evidence of anything. Is that your position? If so, can you lay out your arguments for that conclusion?

 There you go, putting words in my mouth. Why don't YOU lay the arguments out, as I have no idea what you're talking about.


I could have written the second sentence better:

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about.

And that is evidence that something was written about someone named Jesus a long time ago.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If I have understood you correctly, especially regarding some of your posts in the what is atheism thread, then a main problem with atheism being defined as the lack of belief in god, is that even if one has a lack of belief, then that individual must have reasons for his or her lack of belief; therefore, those reasons are subject to scrutiny.  Have I understood correctly?

Yes that it absolutely what I am saying. I follow this up by questioning whether or not atheism should be the default position, as many atheists assume. My position is that people are justified in believing that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise, i.e. that some ideas are properly basic and one of those ideas is that some divine agency is operative in the world. Nature appears teleological. People instinctively sense a transcendent moral order.  Synchronicities abound. Uncanny personal experiences are ubiquitous. The list goes on and on. To all appearances the world does seem saturated with the divine. Now, maybe it isn’t. Maybe that is only how things appear but not how they actually are. Of course that is possible, but one needs sound reasons for denying what seems to be the case.

Most AF members seem congenial and for them the question of whether God exists is not particularly important up until it touches their life in some significant way. But if someone is going to go around saying that theism is irrational and that theists are deluded because they accept a properly basic belief then THOSE accusations are positive claims that needs to be justified. It is juvenile to avoid accountability for those accusations by playing semantic games.

I’ll say that another way for clarity. Rejections of properly basic beliefs require justification.

Many of the secular members here have written that they have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the existence of a deity.  Hence, IMO, in this thread and others concerning atheism, theism, and etc., it seems that theists and atheists are not using the term evidence in the same way: many of the secular posters here want hard, scientific, measurable data that would stand up to the intense scrutiny of multiple examinations being performed by different teams of qualified individuals, while some theist posters have said that the NT, along with their personal experience and observations of reality, is evidence for them.  Do you see things differently?

We are generally on the same page. The word has a certain amount of ambiguity. My 9th edition Webster’s defines it as clear and obvious facts as in “At the party, lots of celebrities were in evidence” and I do admit it can be used as a synonym for proof. But it isn’t fair to vacillate between the two meanings, which is what I think the atheist posters are doing.

The real question is whether people are using appropriate criteria for evaluating the veracity of any given proposition. The criteria used in historical research, philosophy, literary criticism and mathematics aren’t appropriate for doing natural science and vice versa. Lincoln’s assassination will not be repeated. The value of pi isn’t an average of measurements taken from circular objects. Being-as-Such does not have a control set. The symbolism of Dante’s Inferno can’t be isolated in a test tube. And yet, that is how unreasonable most of the demands for “evidence” made by atheists sound to me.

For example, the way you wrote it makes it seem like the NT would not qualify as “intense scrutiny of multiple examinations being performed by different teams of qualified individuals”. As SteveII has abundantly demonstrated to willfully ignorant ears, nothing could be further from the truth. The NT is not a single source; the bible is a summary collection of accounts and letters by various authors from disparate populations. Asking for sources outside the NT is like saying various reference materials don’t count if they come from the same library! Even then there actually are extra-biblical written records, even if like everything from the ancient world, there are only a handful. These illuminate cultural practices of the NT era, like customs for criminal burials, that support the biblical narrative. Archaeology has located everything from inscriptions mentioning Pilate to the pool of Bethesda, these too support the biblical narratives. It is one thing to say that none of that evidence supports (proves) the Resurrection, it is a completely different thing to say there is no evidence at all.

… plenty of posters here have pointed out that many of the arguments made by theists rely on assertion, and from a skeptical and secular point of view, asserting the truth of a statement must be reinforced with sound logic and supported with proof/data that shows that each premise of the argument is in fact true.  Hence, do you find that these objections are dodgy? Do you think that the evidence that the secular members here have asked for is unreasonable?

I welcome sincere debate over what conclusions can be drawn from observable facts. I am not saying that objections are dodgy. The notion that one doesn’t need a valid reason to justify rejecting a properly basic belief is. And as I wrote at length above, some of the demands for certain kinds of evidence are unreasonable.

[Jesster]

I follow this up by questioning whether or not atheism should be the default position, as many atheists assume.

I made a point recently that you agreed with. Maybe the entire point wasn't made.

Most commonly in a court case, a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". While we aren't entirely sure they are innocent, they are treated as such until there is enough evidence to show that they are actually guilty.

This is the default position on any claim. We don't treat a claim like it is true until there is enough evidence to show that it is true. This is how atheism is responding on a basic level with theistic claims. If you understand the court case example, it shouldn't be too difficult to apply it here as well.

[SteveII]

1. Testable? Since when is analysis of historical evidence ever been testable? That is something made up by atheists just for this particular topic and its called special pleading. 

I would say analysis is testing.  Looking for outside corroboration, etc.

2. Regarding your comment "writing a book" -- are you not aware we are talking about 27 different documents--plus the additional evidence that comes to light from the books/letters themselves (that I outlined a couple of posts back)? 

So, books.

3. The evidence I presented are facts (or tell me which one's you don't think are true) --that's what makes them evidence. 

None of it is evidence for the existance of your god; just that people believed it.

4. The evidence is overwhelming that contemporaneous people believed the events cataloged and discussed at length in the NT. What other category of evidence could there be? 

Objective, testable evidence?  Wow, this is evidence that PEOPLE BELIEVED SOMETHING!!!  Big deal.

5. That glib comment just illustrates that you don't know much about what it is you criticize.  

And, of course, I can't KNOW anything about what I'm talking about if I don't agree with you, right?

Of course, your position might be that everything about the NT was made up as part of a conspiracy so none of it is evidence of anything. Is that your position? If so, can you lay out your arguments for that conclusion?

 There you go, putting words in my mouth. Why don't YOU lay the arguments out, as I have no idea what you're talking about. [6]


I could have written the second sentence better:

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about.

And that is evidence that something was written about someone named Jesus a long time ago. [7]

1. You are backpedaling. First you were judging the quality of the evidence. Now you are asking for additional evidence. 
3. That is incomplete. The evidence I presented is that of people believing that specific events happened and that they related them correctly. Since these specific events included miracles and a resurrection, that would be evidence for the existence of God. You might not find the evidence compelling, but it is evidence for the existence of God.
4. You are back to testable. What you seem to mean is more evidence. They are not the same thing.
5. You asked why I would care about evidence and then referenced faith. Next time phrase it like a question rather than try to make a point and miss the mark. 
6. Read that again. I am asking if there is an underlying belief to your denial. 
7. Again, that's incomplete. People writing about what they saw, heard, and/or believed others to have done the same is evidence of those events happening.

[Cyberman]

Most commonly in a court case, a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". While we aren't entirely sure they are innocent, they are treated as such until there is enough evidence to show that they are actually guilty.

This is the default position on any claim. We don't treat a claim like it is true until there is enough evidence to show that it is true. This is how atheism is responding on a basic level with theistic claims. If you understand the court case example, it shouldn't be too difficult to apply it here as well.

That's how I view it. I find gods in general, and the Abrahamic god in particular, innocent of existing until shown to be otherwise.

[Jesster]

That's how I view it. I find gods in general, and the Abrahamic god in particular, innocent of existing until shown to be otherwise.

Well like I said, that is the default position. I use that with gods in general. When a specific god claim is made that goes against what I know to be true and/or involves enough logical contradictions, I will not only disbelieve, but believe that it is false as well. That is what I believe about the Abrahamic god. I can't make the same statement about gods in general, of course. Those remain at the default.

[SteveII]

And that differs from children's letters to Santa how?

Using the definition discussed above: Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something.

Letters to Santa =/= evidence of Santa because the letters do not provide us any first-hand information or facts about Santa that the writer has access to. 

Documents describing events that the author/editor personally saw or interviewed people who saw is first-hand information about those events and is therefore evidence for those events. The epistles support (corroborate) the information in the gospels by providing us with a large group of people (the churches through Asia Minor and Greece) that already believed the basics of the gospels before they even had the gospels. 

Again, you might claim it is not compelling evidence to prove the existence of God, but proof is a subjective conclusion and not everyone has evaluated the evidence the same nor has the same threshold for proof. For example, if a person has no problem believing in the supernatural, they could take the same body of evidence that is available to you and arrive at a different conclusion (proof).

[Neo-Scholastic]

I follow this up by questioning whether or not atheism should be the default position, as many atheists assume.

...Most commonly in a court case, a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". While we aren't entirely sure they are innocent, they are treated as such until there is enough evidence to show that they are actually guilty....This is the default position on any claim.

As SteveII pointed out there are different standards for acceptance - "preponderance of the evidence", "reasonable doubt", and "absolute certainty." And as I have said, different criteria of acceptance are used claims in different domains such as history, mathematics, text interpretation, archaeology, philosophy and physics. The default position for a properly basic belief is acceptance.