Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Jesster]

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".

So you are fine with being alone in your beliefs. Cool. Why post them here trying to convince others then? Also, the scientific consensus does not support your claims, so stop acting like it does. You also haven't listed a single fact that backs up your claims, so stop using that word until you do. It seems like you are the one ignoring Neil here.

I'm also not "anti-religion". I just don't believe unsupported claims, religious or not. Your claims fall into this category so far. "Lack of belief" is also not a belief. It's withholding belief until there is reason to believe.

[Nonpareil]

There is no reason that the universe can't be "alive"

Yes, there is.

The universe is not an organism. It is not alive.

[Jesster]

There is no reason that the universe can't be "alive"

Yes, there is.

The universe is not an organism. It is not alive.

It also may be useful to state what the universe is. A good working definition in the context we seem to be discussing is "the set of all things that exist". So far we know that the universe contains life. Containing something does not mean you share those properties as a whole, though.

For example:

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

[comet]

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".

So you are fine with being alone in your beliefs. Cool. Why post them here trying to convince others then? Also, the scientific consensus does not support your claims, so stop acting like it does. You also haven't listed a single fact that backs up your claims, so stop using that word until you do. It seems like you are the one ignoring Neil here.

I'm also not "anti-religion". I just don't believe unsupported claims, religious or not. Your claims fall into this category so far. "Lack of belief" is also not a belief. It's withholding belief until there is reason to believe.

Based on your comment of 'baseless claim", I don't think you have enough understanding to claim "baseless claim".   That's what Neil means too.  But let me play along like you do.    lets do a measurement.  A crude one to be sure, but look up the definition of measurement.  That way we are on the same page.

Compare the interactions of the biosphere to things we classify as non-life, viruses, and life.   
What does it match the best to?

---

Yes, there is.

The universe is not an organism. It is not alive.

It also may be useful to state what the universe is. A good working definition in the context we seem to be discussing is "the set of all things that exist". So far we know that the universe contains life. Containing something does not mean you share those properties as a whole, though.

For example:

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".

[Jesster]

Based on your comment of 'baseless claim", I don't think you have enough understanding to claim "baseless claim".   That's what Neil means too.  But let me play along like you do.    lets do a measurement.  A crude one to be sure, but look up the definition of measurement.  That way we are on the same page.

Compare the interactions of the biosphere to things we classify as non-life, viruses, and life.   
What does it match the best to?

You claim to understand what Neil is saying, but that also seems to be a baseless claim. You are still confusing your own personal beliefs with fact.

The rest of that post doesn't seem to have a place in this topic. I don't mean to sound rude, but is English your native language?

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".

You seem to have missed the point. Claiming that the universe is alive is akin to claiming that a sandwich is a pickle.

[comet]

Based on your comment of 'baseless claim", I don't think you have enough understanding to claim "baseless claim".   That's what Neil means too.  But let me play along like you do.    lets do a measurement.  A crude one to be sure, but look up the definition of measurement.  That way we are on the same page.

Compare the interactions of the biosphere to things we classify as non-life, viruses, and life.   
What does it match the best to?

You claim to understand what Neil is saying, but that also seems to be a baseless claim. You are still confusing your own personal beliefs with fact.

The rest of that post doesn't seem to have a place in this topic. I don't mean to sound rude, but is English your native language?

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".

You seem to have missed the point. Claiming that the universe is alive is akin to claiming that a sandwich is a pickle.

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.

[Jesster]

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.

When did a pickle's beliefs start to matter here?



You still aren't showing anyone how the universe is a single living organism yet. It contains living organisms. It also contains planets. Is the universe a planet?

[masterofpuppets]

It is rational to withhold belief in unfalsifiable claims until such time that they become falsifiable. We can substantiate claims only on the grounds that they are falsifiable.

The Universe may very well be "alive", but this is an unfalsifiable claim. If you have an opinion that the Universe is alive, that seems fine, but why should anyone believe it?

[comet]

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.

When did a pickle's beliefs start to matter here?



You still aren't showing anyone how the universe is a single living organism yet. It contains living organisms. It also contains planets. Is the universe a planet?

na, you are avoiding now.  Your opinion is meaningless without some type of measurement.  look up the definition of measurement.  Thats neil's point. 

You won't make the comparison because you have a personal opinion to protect.  Science is not concerned with how you feel about its descriptions of how the universe works.

Does the biosphere's interactions line up best with what we classify as non-life, virus, or life.  science is not concerned with what you believe.

[Jesster]

na, you are avoiding now.  Your opinion is meaningless without some type of measurement.  look up the definition of measurement.  Thats neil's point. 

You won't make the comparison because you have a personal opinion to protect.  Science is not concerned with how you feel about its descriptions of how the universe works.
science is not concerned with what you believe.

You are the one asserting a belief here, so you have it backwards. You believe that the universe is alive. That opinion is meaningless until you back it up. I am withholding an opinion on this until science can show that it even possibly a fact, and that hasn't happened yet.

This is exactly what Neil is saying about falsifiability. Are you sure you watched this video?