Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[SteveII]

---

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true?

Because that would be a very, very stupid thing to do.

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over.

Or you could answer the question. If your belief does have a rational grounding, what is the evidence?

If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'?

Pretty much, yup.

This is why we don't just accept things like Bigfoot, ghosts, and alien abductions at face value. [3]

That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life

It's really not. [3]

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.

Yes, they are.

Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole

Irreducible complexity is nonsense, and, in point of fact, we almost always do know how those things evolved. Eyes, for example; a favored tentpole example of irreducible complexity, and we have known their evolutionary path for decades at this point.

And so on for the rest of your "objections". I'm sorry, Steve, but once again, you don't actually seem to know how these subjects are treated by the people who study them. This is, in fact, all settled science. The only people who object to it are demonstrable idiots with a creationist agenda, not people with an actual understanding of the science involved.

My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

Because it has not been established to be true.

This is not complicated. [7]

1. You really know how to have a discussion don't you. I don't agree. I am not the one making the charge that your belief is irrational. I don't have to defend it until you present something to rebut.

2. I have already answered that. However, because I am better at this discussion thing than you: 

A. Person of Jesus is compelling.
B. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
C. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
D. The natural theology arguments:
i. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
ii. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
iii. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
iv. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
v. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

3. That's nonsense. I like this from RoadRunner's posts: Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a term referring to a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]

• Denying, when only doubt has been established
  
• Double standards in the application of criticism
  
• The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
  
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
  
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
  
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
  
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
  
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
  

He characterized true skepticism as:[5]

• Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
  
• No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
  
• Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
  
• Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
  
• Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
  
• Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
  

6. No, they are not. Having theories of how it might have happened is not the same as evidence of how it happened. Your problem is that you think that us simply being here is evidence. I do not have to jump to that unsupported conclusion. 

7. Why not? Obviously many people think it is true because they believe what is written there really happened. What do they see that you don't? Why are they wrong?