Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Mister Agenda]

It's very significant and valuable to me. What additional value does my existence need? What point of view am I supposed to have besides my own?

 
 If it was possible to take all your experiences that are valuable to you to continue beyond your life would you be interested or just want to have it end in this lifetime ?

I would like to live longer, but not forever. I can't think of anything that would cheapen the time I have more than for it to be a mere prelude to an endless existence. I wouldn't want to try to watch a movie or read a book that never ended. Without an ending, a story is incomplete; and if it literally goes on forever; unreadable. I'm not the same person I was 25 years ago. In a trillion times infinity years, the me I am now would be long gone even if my consciousness was still floating around somewhere. Why should I care now about the fate of that hypothetically potential alien being that will barely be aware I ever existed?

---

What if it just a being that we live in?  Is this something you don't want to accept?
 

It's something I would need convincing evidence of proportionate to the claim to accept, just like any other claim.

---

You're backing up claims with more claims. Until you back up any of your claims with any evidence-based arguments, I'm not going to accept them. Now show that this is actually possible without just saying "because I said so".

it doesn't matter what you accept or not, that's what Neil means.  You can believe what you want, it doesn't affect the science.  the science points to this planet being part of the universe and not separated in any way.  that means, what traits we have the universe must have.  I can go into levels and levels of "facts", but if your anti-religion then they don't matter and will be dismissed.  What you (or possibly me and neil) don't know, doesn't effect that.

Oh, come on! Can the universe be a single mother on food stamps? Orphaned at an early age? Cheating on its spouse? Have a neurological disorder?

Look up fallacy of composition. What is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts, and vice versa.

---

My sandwich contains a slice of pickle. That does not make my sandwich a slice a pickle.

But it does mean your sandwich has, in parts, traits of a pickle.  the pickle is part of a larger system that we classify as a sandwich.  the pickle is part of something 'more" and may not "believe" its part of a more complex "sandwich".  

again, as per neil, it doesn't matter what the pickle believes, it is part of what we classify as a sandwich.  That's "how the universe works".

So the pickle is part of the sandwich. It is not itself, a sandwich, nor is the sandwich a pickle. We are part of the universe, we are not ourselves, the universe, nor is the universe us. A wall may be made entirely of bricks, but that doesn't make the wall a brick, or a brick a wall.

---

No, you missed the point.  it doesn't matter what the pickle believes.  Its part of a more complex system that is the sandwich.  If the pickle is 'alive" the sandwich" is more "alive".  We classify that system (the sandwich) as more complex then the pickle.   unless you don't understand that, then back to Neil's point we go.

did you make the comparison yet?  the measurement is the best way to form an opinion.   So lets not be baseless.

A sandwich is more complex than the pickle, but it is not more 'picklish' than the pickle. The whole is more complex than the parts, but that's not the measure in question. There's more to being alive than complexity.