Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[comet]

Containing something does not mean you share those properties as a whole, though.

Quite.

Because our new arrival seems to need it explained, though: the fallacy he is committing is formally titled the fallacy of composition. Put in layman's terms, the sandwich may contain a pickle, but the sandwich is not, itself, a pickle, and descriptions of the pickle do not necessarily apply to the sandwich.

The universe contains life.

The universe is not alive.

thats not the point.  The point is not "if we are alive the universe is alive."  So to keep repeating that is incorrect and not a point.  Science is about looking to support the most reasonable claim.  "atheism", the belief statement, has no say in how the universe works.  

So, lets stick with a smaller volume for the less trained.  We can look at the biosphere before we go to the larger volume of the universe.  To make a claim we need a measurement, not an opinion.  You untrained, look up the definition.

what do the biosphere's interactions, as a whole, match?
non-life
virus
life

what we believe or what we want to believe has no bearing on repeating this compassion.  Take it to anybody, anywhere, at any time and see what most people record as the observation.

neils point is that a belief statement doesn't decide the best conclusion.  In this case, the more reasonable claim is that the biosphere matches what we classify as life better than what we classify as non life.

this is so simple and eloquent to demonstrate neil's point. It forums people just to post a reply thinking it makes their point more real. Neil does not approve.

now for the next part, increasing the volume.  Is there anybody here trained in the standard model and doesn't have an ax to grind? or am I dealing with "adult children of abuse" and high school-ers only?