Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Nonpareil]

Your problem is with word definitions.

It's really not.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth or existence of something.

Yes. Evidence is that which logically supports a given conclusion.

And you don't have any.

So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof.

No. I mean that it is objectively not evidence, because it fails to support your conclusion.

At all.

---

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

Yes.

There appears to be no god. That is why atheism is the null hypothesis.

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.

Yes. It does.

Unfortunately, it at no point becomes any less incoherent and poorly defined, and never actually presents any evidence to support its claims.

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.

There is no such thing as a "properly basic belief". There are only beliefs that are rational and beliefs that are not rational.

Theism is not rational. This is justified by the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a god.

If there were, you could present it.

The real question is whether people are using appropriate criteria for evaluating the veracity of any given proposition.

They are.

You just have no evidence.

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”.

Because it wouldn't.

The qualification of the individuals is exactly what is in question. In order to establish their qualifications, you must present evidence.

But there isn't any.