Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Mechaghostman2]

So here Neil DeGrasse Tyson comments that disproving god is similar in disproving a bear in your backyard. If you see no evidence for something, then that counts as evidence against it, until further evidence is presented.

[purplepurpose]

Still, its only a strong OPINION you are presenting. There is a place for doubt... There might be God. But who cares, when people wish to thrive.

[ignoramus]

100% lack of evidence for the existence of god is or at least should be considered beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, the court rules in favour of the evidence, case dismissed.

[AceBoogie]

Sort of a burden of proof argument. It's hard to convince theists that the burden of proof lies on them. This is probably because theists are taught since they are very young that their way is true, without question. There is nothing to prove because they simply see things as being that way: That god is real and there is no need to prove His existence. They do not see it as a claim of god's existence, they see it as the fact of god's existence.

Unfortunately, one believing in something strongly is does not suffice in attempting to exclude it from the other multitudes of scientific claims that exist in the world. The claim that there is a divine intelligence that created existence itself is a scientific claim. To deny that claim is not necessarily a claim, in and of itself.

In every other area of life we tend to make claims as to how things are or were, not how things are not and were not. Yet theists feel the need to say that an absence of a claim is a claim in and of itself because that gives them a bit of an intellectual back door where they can start on the offensive instead of actually having to defend their beliefs (because who wants to do that? That takes effort).

So yea, I don't know where you guys live, but there's no bear in my backyard.

[masterofpuppets]

"If you see no evidence for something, then that counts as evidence against it" is not necessarily always true. The fact that we have not found evidence against a claim is not necessarily evidence that the claim is false, because there may be (a) insufficient investigation of the claim, or (b) the claim being unknowable in principle. An assertion that a claim is false because it has not yet been demonstrated to be true is an argument from ignorance if (a) or (b) applies, which is a logical fallacy.

Hence, in the case of a deistic god who initiated the Big Bang and thereafter left the Universe to proceed under the laws of nature, without any subsequent influence from such a god, a lack of evidence for such a god's existence does not count as evidence against its existence, because we have no known method of investigating such a claim. However, in the case of the God of the Bible, lack of evidence does constitute as evidence against such a god, because we can, for instance, investigate prayer thoroughly and find no evidence that prayer has any divine implications, which is evidence against prayer.

[RoadRunner79]

Sort of a burden of proof argument. It's hard to convince theists that the burden of proof lies on them. This is probably because theists are taught since they are very young that their way is true, without question. There is nothing to prove because they simply see things as being that way: That god is real and there is no need to prove His existence. They do not see it as a claim of god's existence, they see it as the fact of god's existence.

Unfortunately, one believing in something strongly is does not suffice in attempting to exclude it from the other multitudes of scientific claims that exist in the world. The claim that there is a divine intelligence that created existence itself is a scientific claim. To deny that claim is not necessarily a claim, in and of itself.

In every other area of life we tend to make claims as to how things are or were, not how things are not and were not. Yet theists feel the need to say that an absence of a claim is a claim in and of itself because that gives them a bit of an intellectual back door where they can start on the offensive instead of actually having to defend their beliefs (because who wants to do that? That takes effort).

So yea, I don't know where you guys live, but there's no bear in my backyard.

I would agree, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.    I would disagree, however, that denying is not a claim in itself, and removes one from the burden of proof.   The skeptical position is a neutral one, in which you are not confirming or denying (are not making any claims).  There is a difference between doubt and denial.

[AceBoogie]

I would agree, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.    I would disagree, however, that denying is not a claim in itself, and removes one from the burden of proof.   The skeptical position is a neutral one, in which you are not confirming or denying (are not making any claims).  There is a difference between doubt and denial.

Surely denying a claim is different than making a claim. To deny the existence of a bear in my backyard is certainly different than claiming that there is absolutely no bear in my backyard.

However, I am willing to make the claim that there is no bear in my backyard.

I am also willing to make the claim, based on a complete lack of evidence, that there is no god. At least not a christian god.

[Minimalist]

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.  The conclusion can be easily overturned by presenting evidence.
Ball is in your court, religitards.

Meanwhile, here we sit.

[Amarok]

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.  The conclusion can be easily overturned by presenting evidence.
Ball is in your court, religitards.

Meanwhile, here we sit.

Oh no the ball exists in a magic parallel dimension that interacts with the real world in ways that look exactly the same as if no such place exists

[AceBoogie]

A world where there is no tangible evidence for something is as good as a world where that thing simply does not exist.

Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.

And if god is another thing we don't yet understand or don't yet even have the capacity to understand then god is, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson so eloquently put it, an ever decreasing gap of scientific knowledge.