Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Nonpareil]

If someone claims that a deity exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we can establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, then we have established that the claimed deity does not exist.

We have done so.

Said deity does not exist.

That doesn't follow.

Yes, it does.

If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon.  If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods.  It doesn't follow that I do not exist.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not what I said.

If someone claims that a person exists - not you, not anyone specific, just a person - who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon, and we demonstrated that there were no streakers in Shanghai at noon today, then we know that the claimed person who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon does not exist.

In the same way, when it is claimed that a deity exists who flooded the world for forty days, and it is demonstrated that this never happened, we know that the claimed deity does not exist.

Now, this does not mean that we have demonstrated that there is no deity in existence. But it does mean that this specific claimed entity with defined characteristics that are demonstrably untrue does not exist. Even if a deity is later shown to exist, it would not be the one that was claimed.

Before you say it: yes, this is an extremely narrow conclusion. It is not meant to be anything but narrow, but it is still important to point out.

[RoadRunner79]

That doesn't follow.

Yes, it does.

If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon.  If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods.  It doesn't follow that I do not exist.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not what I said.

If someone claims that a person exists - not you, not anyone specific, just a person - who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon, and we demonstrated that there were no streakers in Shanghai at noon today, then we know that the claimed person who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon does not exist.

In the same way, when it is claimed that a deity exists who flooded the world for forty days, and it is demonstrated that this never happened, we know that the claimed deity does not exist.

Now, this does not mean that we have demonstrated that there is no deity in existence. But it does mean that this specific claimed entity with defined characteristics that are demonstrably untrue does not exist. Even if a deity is later shown to exist, it would not be the one that was claimed.

Before you say it: yes, this is an extremely narrow conclusion. It is not meant to be anything but narrow, but it is still important to point out.

How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.

[MadaraUchihuh]

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.

Something like Gods is not as foolish as you may think:

(1) There is exponential technological change.
(2) We can yield sophisticated (but crude universe simulations)
(3) The simulations in 2 get better and better, on (1)
(4) There is no law of physics that says technological change will stop, i.e., no law that says we can't simulate an accurately detailed universe, with conscious beings.
(5) Therefore something like god (ourselves actually) is not a foolish proposition.

[Minimalist]

Therefore something like god (ourselves actually) is not a foolish proposition.

Um, we are not gods.

[Nonpareil]

How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.

I just explained how.

The question that I am talking about is "does an entity with this specific characteristic exist?". The question that you posited was "does this existent entity have this specific characteristic?". They are not equivalent.

[MadaraUchihuh]

Therefore something like god (ourselves actually) is not a foolish proposition.

Um, we are not gods.

Not gods, but something like the old gods...

[AceBoogie]

[RoadRunner79]

[Mister Agenda]

How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.

If you claim to be a person who streaked in the desert and you did not streak in the desert, then you are actually not a person who streaked in the desert. You are not the entity you claimed to be.

If I say I know a guy who streaked in the desert on Tuesday and you can verify that no one streaked in the desert on Tuesday, then I actually don't know a guy who streaked in the desert on Tuesday, even if that guy was Joe, and he told me he did it, and I totally believed him and Joe really exists, he's not a guy who streaked in the desert on Tuesday, which is who I said I knew, and that guy doesn't actually exist. No guy who is supposed to have streaked through the desert on Tuesday actually exists, because it didn't happen.

If I'm trying to convince you that Joe is real, I need to ditch the streaking through the desert story, which is easy for me, because it's not like it's holy scripture or anything.

[AceBoogie]