Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[RoadRunner79]

Thanks, I understand now....
You are really not stating anything more than X didn't occur.  Not making a conclusion or arguement yet.

Yes.

This is something that often takes some time for people to adjust to, when speaking with me. I mean exactly what I say, and my terms are concretely defined. I am methodical and straightforward. I do not necessarily agree with all the implications and side-arguments that others often bring up when discussing the things that I discuss, which sometimes trips people up - they assume that I am making some sort of argument towards a conclusion other than what is included in my post, and have to progressively walk their assumptions back, because what I am saying is often so simple that, for some people, it doesn't look as though it could possibly be the entire point.

It usually is, though. People often underestimate how important simple things are.

When engaged in discussions with me, it would probably be helpful to discard any sort of preconceptions about what I may or may not believe, or may be "ultimately" arguing towards. Just understand that I mean exactly what I say, no more and no less.

Ok... just a note, but if you would have went even simpler without all the "said god didn't exist stuff"; this would have been a lot shorter. That is if all you are saying is that X didn't happen, the other part I. Is understood in is unnecessary.

Edit to add... I do appreciate you taking the time to explain, and let me understand what you meant properly.

[Nonpareil]

Ok... just a note, but if you would have went even simpler without all the "said god didn't exist stuff";  this would have been a lot shorter.

Perhaps. But the point needed to be made.

You would be surprised at the number of people who don't understand that proving magic to be nonexistent establishes that unicorns aren't real, and so on.

(EDIT: To explain the above example, because it might appear nonsensical - unicorns are one-horned white horses with magic powers. I once got involved in a lengthy and pointless runaround with a poster on another forum - an atheist, in fact - who simply could not grasp the point that, if magic isn't real, unicorns are also not real, because unicorns have magic powers.)

[masterofpuppets]

 If I state the universe is God and  we can verify the universe objectively, which part you don't agree with ?
Do you feel God has to be some super natural being outside the universe or inside the universe?
What if it just a being that we live in? 
Is this something you don't want to accept? By using the word God does it hinder you in accepting this universe is God?

 If I state the universe is God and we can verify the universe objectively, which part you don't agree with? As I already mentioned earlier, stating that the universe is God is meaningless, but I will also reject it as false. God by definition is a deity, and deities exist independently of the universe. If you cannot agree on common definitions, and instead define God the way you want, then we are no longer discussing a deity.

But let's grant your definition. The universe is in fact God. Can you please demonstrate this claim, instead of coming up with fancy word salad? I think you can't, because the claim cannot even be demonstrated in principle. Far from having any explanatory power, we literally have nothing to work with. It's like telling you that your television is actually God revealing to you.

Do you feel God has to be some super natural being outside the universe or inside the universe? 

If he isn't supernatural, he isn't God. Deities are supernatural by definition.

What if it just a being that we live in? 

Can you demonstrate that this is true?

Is this something you don't want to accept? By using the word God does it hinder you in accepting this universe is God?

It's not that I do not want to accept it. I just don't find this claim convincing at all for the reasons I already stated.

[comet]

 If I state the universe is God and  we can verify the universe objectively, which part you don't agree with ?
Do you feel God has to be some super natural being outside the universe or inside the universe?
What if it just a being that we live in? 
Is this something you don't want to accept? By using the word God does it hinder you in accepting this universe is God?

 If I state the universe is God and we can verify the universe objectively, which part you don't agree with? As I already mentioned earlier, stating that the universe is God is meaningless, but I will also reject it as false. God by definition is a deity, and deities exist independently of the universe. If you cannot agree on common definitions, and instead define God the way you want, then we are no longer discussing a deity.

But let's grant your definition. The universe is in fact God. Can you please demonstrate this claim, instead of coming up with fancy word salad? I think you can't, because the claim cannot even be demonstrated in principle. Far from having any explanatory power, we literally have nothing to work with. It's like telling you that your television is actually God revealing to you.

Do you feel God has to be some super natural being outside the universe or inside the universe? 

If he isn't supernatural, he isn't God. Deities are supernatural by definition.

What if it just a being that we live in? 

Can you demonstrate that this is true?

Is this something you don't want to accept? By using the word God does it hinder you in accepting this universe is God?

It's not that I do not want to accept it. I just don't find this claim convincing at all for the reasons I already stated.

It seems to me you are sticking with an out dated definition then rejecting it.  There is no reason that the universe can't be "alive" while also not be a 'god' by our definition.

[Jesster]

It seems to me you are sticking with an out dated definition then rejecting it.  There is no reason that the universe can't be "alive" while also not be a 'god' by our definition.

Show that it can be, first.

[comet]

It seems to me you are sticking with an out dated definition then rejecting it.  There is no reason that the universe can't be "alive" while also not be a 'god' by our definition.

Show that it can be, first.

show what first?

[Jesster]

Show that it can be, first.

show what first?

We have a very specific definition for 'alive'. Why should anyone accept that the universe can be alive at all?

[comet]

show what first?

We have a very specific definition for 'alive'. Why should anyone accept that the universe can be alive at all?

There is nothing you can be and the universe not be.  
We can discuss volumes (amounts) but not the fact.

[Jesster]

There is nothing you can be and the universe not be.  
We can discuss volumes (amounts) but not the fact.

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".

[comet]

There is nothing you can be and the universe not be.  
We can discuss volumes (amounts) but not the fact.

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.

I say, "Don't believe me, go learn more."   Its useless talking about science with non science people. Thats what Neil means too. He means, try and be honest with ourselves too, if we don't know why would we go running around denying claims based on a belief, like, "lack belief in anything".