Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[SteveII]

This is why out of all gods, the Biblical God is probably one of the least likely of gods to be true.

Belief in such a god entails that reason, evidence and logic all get tossed out the window. Theist's justification? Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God. It's all a bunch of circular logic and special pleading.

When a belief is relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born, he/she perceives, what are demonstrably the best tools (reason, evidence, logic) in acquiring knowledge about our universe, as being enemies of God. Out of fear and social pressure, theists simply lean on the side of God. A god whose basic existence hasn't been demonstrated.

Belief in the Biblical God is not knowledge. It limits knowledge.

It seems you have built up a straw man (your caricature of a god no one believes in) and coupled it with another straw man (your caricature of Christian who think as you proposes) -- so your arguments/reasons seem successful. I don't think you could fit any more nonsense into a post that length.

[masterofpuppets]

This is why out of all gods, the Biblical God is probably one of the least likely of gods to be true.

Belief in such a god entails that reason, evidence and logic all get tossed out the window. Theist's justification? Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God. It's all a bunch of circular logic and special pleading.

When a belief is relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born, he/she perceives, what are demonstrably the best tools (reason, evidence, logic) in acquiring knowledge about our universe, as being enemies of God. Out of fear and social pressure, theists simply lean on the side of God. A god whose basic existence hasn't been demonstrated.

Belief in the Biblical God is not knowledge. It limits knowledge.

It seems you have built up a straw man (your caricature of a god no one believes in) and coupled it with another straw man (your caricature of Christian who think as you proposes) -- so your arguments/reasons seem successful. I don't think you could fit any more nonsense into a post that length.

It's not a strawman when so many theists (not only Christians, I used their god only as an example) don't believe in evolution and indeed base a large amount of their worldview on scripture.

I'm addressing theists on the more fundamentalist side, not necessarily all theists, but that is still a large portion of theists overall. You are misrepresenting the point of my post.

[SteveII]

This is why out of all gods, the Biblical God is probably one of the least likely of gods to be true.

Belief in such a god entails that reason, evidence and logic all get tossed out the window. [1] Theist's justification? Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God. It's all a bunch of circular logic and special pleading. [2]

When a belief is relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born, he/she perceives, what are demonstrably the best tools (reason, evidence, logic) in acquiring knowledge about our universe, as being enemies of God. Out of fear and social pressure, theists simply lean on the side of God. [3] A god whose basic existence hasn't been demonstrated. [4]

Belief in the Biblical God is not knowledge. It limits knowledge. [5]

It seems you have built up a straw man (your caricature of a god no one believes in) and coupled it with another straw man (your caricature of Christian who think as you proposes) -- so your arguments/reasons seem successful. I don't think you could fit any more nonsense into a post that length.

It's not a strawman when so many theists (not only Christians, I used their god only as an example) don't believe in evolution and indeed base a large amount of their worldview on scripture. [6]

I'm addressing theists on the more fundamentalist side [7], not necessarily all theists, but that is still a large portion of theists overall. You are misrepresenting the point of my post.

No, I got the point of your post. I'm just saying that are wrong on many levels.

1. None of the three things follows from "Belief in God". So, you either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally describing an extreme to make your point sound better. Either way, straw man.
2. I'm starting to think it is 'you don't know what you are talking about'.
3. I have a defeater for that logic - tens of millions of adult conversions to Christianity each year. 
4. I think that the existence of God has been demonstrated. All you can say it that you are not convinced by the evidence. You don't have any other warrant to make a claim than that. 
5. That's quite a loaded statement. How so? 
6. I believe in various parts of evolutionary theory. I don't think common decent has been anywhere near proven. Perhaps buried in your assertions is the unwarranted belief that all (or even a majority) of Christians are YEC. Either way, this does not in any way support your overall premise.
7. You think fundamentalist are a large portion of theists?  Setting aside that you are wrong, how do you define fundamentalist Christians and what is the major problem with movement?

[Harry Nevis]

This is why out of all gods, the Biblical God is probably one of the least likely of gods to be true.

Belief in such a god entails that reason, evidence and logic all get tossed out the window. [1] Theist's justification? Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God. It's all a bunch of circular logic and special pleading. [2]

When a belief is relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born, he/she perceives, what are demonstrably the best tools (reason, evidence, logic) in acquiring knowledge about our universe, as being enemies of God. Out of fear and social pressure, theists simply lean on the side of God. [3] A god whose basic existence hasn't been demonstrated. [4]

Belief in the Biblical God is not knowledge. It limits knowledge. [5]


It's not a strawman when so many theists (not only Christians, I used their god only as an example) don't believe in evolution and indeed base a large amount of their worldview on scripture. [6]

I'm addressing theists on the more fundamentalist side [7], not necessarily all theists, but that is still a large portion of theists overall. You are misrepresenting the point of my post.

No, I got the point of your post. I'm just saying that are wrong on many levels.

1. None of the three things follows from "Belief in God". So, you either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally describing an extreme to make your point sound better. Either way, straw man.
2. I'm starting to think it is 'you don't know what you are talking about'.
3. I have a defeater for that logic - tens of millions of adult conversions to Christianity each year. 
4. I think that the existence of God has been demonstrated. All you can say it that you are not convinced by the evidence. You don't have any other warrant to make a claim than that. 
5. That's quite a loaded statement. How so? 
6. I believe in various parts of evolutionary theory. I don't think common decent has been anywhere near proven. Perhaps buried in your assertions is the unwarranted belief that all (or even a majority) of Christians are YEC. Either way, this does not in any way support your overall premise.
7. You think fundamentalist are a large portion of theists?  Setting aside that you are wrong, how do you define fundamentalist Christians and what is the major problem with movement?

3.  Lessee, a few posts ago, it was millions of converts.  Now it's tens of millions.  Not that that has anything to do with logic.

[Mister Agenda]

Imagine if we were having this conversation about anything else.

Person A: Almost every American citizen was born in America.
Person B: But hundreds of thousands of people who weren't born in America become citizens every year!
Person A: Well, yeah, but my point still stands, since the vast majority are still born there.
Person B: Oh, yeah, I suppose it does, what was I thinking?

[SteveII]

Imagine if we were having this conversation about anything else.

Person A: Almost every American citizen was born in America.
Person B: But hundreds of thousands of people who weren't born in America become citizens every year!
Person A: Well, yeah, but my point still stands, since the vast majority are still born there.
Person B: Oh, yeah, I suppose it does, what was I thinking?

No, that is not a good analogy. Puppet Master said that Christians belief is a result of 'relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born' as a component to his line of reasoning why 'reason, evidence, logic' are 'enemies of God'. I was just being thorough in my trashing of his reasoning. 

[masterofpuppets]

This is why out of all gods, the Biblical God is probably one of the least likely of gods to be true.

Belief in such a god entails that reason, evidence and logic all get tossed out the window. [1] Theist's justification? Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God. It's all a bunch of circular logic and special pleading. [2]

When a belief is relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born, he/she perceives, what are demonstrably the best tools (reason, evidence, logic) in acquiring knowledge about our universe, as being enemies of God. Out of fear and social pressure, theists simply lean on the side of God. [3] A god whose basic existence hasn't been demonstrated. [4]

Belief in the Biblical God is not knowledge. It limits knowledge. [5]


It's not a strawman when so many theists (not only Christians, I used their god only as an example) don't believe in evolution and indeed base a large amount of their worldview on scripture. [6]

I'm addressing theists on the more fundamentalist side [7], not necessarily all theists, but that is still a large portion of theists overall. You are misrepresenting the point of my post.

No, I got the point of your post. I'm just saying that are wrong on many levels.

1. None of the three things follows from "Belief in God". So, you either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally describing an extreme to make your point sound better. Either way, straw man.
2. I'm starting to think it is 'you don't know what you are talking about'.
3. I have a defeater for that logic - tens of millions of adult conversions to Christianity each year. 
4. I think that the existence of God has been demonstrated. All you can say it that you are not convinced by the evidence. You don't have any other warrant to make a claim than that. 
5. That's quite a loaded statement. How so? 
6. I believe in various parts of evolutionary theory. I don't think common decent has been anywhere near proven. Perhaps buried in your assertions is the unwarranted belief that all (or even a majority) of Christians are YEC. Either way, this does not in any way support your overall premise.
7. You think fundamentalist are a large portion of theists?  Setting aside that you are wrong, how do you define fundamentalist Christians and what is the major problem with movement?

1. There is no way someone can become convinced that God exists through proper examination of the available evidence coupled with the use of reason and logic in determining whether arguments for God are viable.
2. Please elaborate on your rebuttal here instead of simply claiming I don't know what I am talking about.
3. Yes, because they often do so out of social pressure, fear or a personal desire to seek out a deity (which comes down to having faith). There is no evidence to suggest that God exists; neither does proper use of reason and logic lead one to conclude that God exists.
4. Yes, and there are billions of other people who also think the existence of God has been demonstrated. My claim, however, is not that I am not convinced by the evidence. My claim is that there is no reason to be convinced that a God exists. This is also not a claim that I believe to be absolutely true. It is a claim that I believe is true with reasonable certainty. Belief in a god is not reasonable because it has not been demonstrated to be reasonable. Of course theists think it is reasonable, but that's not relevant.
5. The Biblical God gives you solutions to unanswered questions without basis, and that causes you to lose your motivation to seek the true answer.
6. Did I say all or majority? I said "so many": 42% of Christians in the United States believe in the Creationist account of human origins. By the way, common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like it or not, macroevolution is a scientific fact. Also, I never mentioned Young Earth creationists.
7. I consider Christians who do not believe in evolution, and instead Creationism, as fundamentalist Christians, so that's 42%. There's clearly a problem when 42% of Christians accept a 2000 year old collection of fabricated scribblings instead of the scientific method.

[SteveII]

No, I got the point of your post. I'm just saying that are wrong on many levels.

1. None of the three things follows from "Belief in God". So, you either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally describing an extreme to make your point sound better. Either way, straw man.
2. I'm starting to think it is 'you don't know what you are talking about'.
3. I have a defeater for that logic - tens of millions of adult conversions to Christianity each year. 
4. I think that the existence of God has been demonstrated. All you can say it that you are not convinced by the evidence. You don't have any other warrant to make a claim than that. 
5. That's quite a loaded statement. How so? 
6. I believe in various parts of evolutionary theory. I don't think common decent has been anywhere near proven. Perhaps buried in your assertions is the unwarranted belief that all (or even a majority) of Christians are YEC. Either way, this does not in any way support your overall premise.
7. You think fundamentalist are a large portion of theists?  Setting aside that you are wrong, how do you define fundamentalist Christians and what is the major problem with movement?

1. There is no way someone can become convinced that God exists through proper examination of the available evidence coupled with the use of reason and logic in determining whether arguments for God are viable.
2. Please elaborate on your rebuttal here instead of simply claiming I don't know what I am talking about.
3. Yes, because they often do so out of social pressure, fear or a personal desire to seek out a deity (which comes down to having faith). There is no evidence to suggest that God exists; neither does proper use of reason and logic lead one to conclude that God exists.
4. Yes, and there are billions of other people who also think the existence of God has been demonstrated. My claim, however, is not that I am not convinced by the evidence. My claim is that there is no reason to be convinced that a God exists. This is also not a claim that I believe to be absolutely true. It is a claim that I believe is true with reasonable certainty. Belief in a god is not reasonable because it has not been demonstrated to be reasonable. Of course theists think it is reasonable, but that's not relevant.
5. The Biblical God gives you solutions to unanswered questions without basis, and that causes you to lose your motivation to seek the true answer.
6. Did I say all or majority? I said "so many": 42% of Christians in the United States believe in the Creationist account of human origins. By the way, common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like it or not, macroevolution is a scientific fact. Also, I never mentioned Young Earth creationists.
7. I consider Christians who do not believe in evolution, and instead Creationism, as fundamentalist Christians, so that's 42%. There's clearly a problem when 42% of Christians accept a 2000 year old collection of fabricated scribblings instead of the scientific method.

1. Sure there is. People read the NT every day and believe the authors' accounts and believe that God wants to have a relationship with them. If you are going to say that the NT is not evidence, why? 
2. You said the Christian's justification to set aside reason, evidence, and logic was "Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God." You are making up an imaginary person so you can make fun of. It is becoming clear you do not understand your opponent's positions.
3. Is that why the Chinese christian community is growing at phenomenal rates? Peer pressure? For an extreme example, try Turkey. 
4. You keep saying there is no evidence that God exists. Do you realize, you could not possibly know that? Setting that aside, I have the compelling person of Jesus, the events of the NT, I have the evidence that people whom I know have been changed from the inside by God, I have my own personal experiences, I have family who's child was cleared of brain cancer as they prepared to remove the tumor. 
5. That bullshit. Another attribute you ascribe to your imaginary straw man. Modern science started with a Christian worldview--that the universe was NOT endowed with magical mystical powers (as the rest of the world thought) but was an object that could be studied.
6. No, you did not mention YEC, you mentioned people who don't believe in evolution. Did you mean someone different? Common decent proven? LOL. How did they go do that? What would you say is the top 3 reasons common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
7. Okay, now you have moved onto Christians in a particular country--all the way from just "theists". That is not the definition of a fundamentalist christian. You are confusing a single belief that some fundamentalist hold with an entire ideology. Why do you think someone has to choose between the Bible and the scientific method. You are setting up a false dilemma--another fallacy.

[masterofpuppets]

1. There is no way someone can become convinced that God exists through proper examination of the available evidence coupled with the use of reason and logic in determining whether arguments for God are viable.
2. Please elaborate on your rebuttal here instead of simply claiming I don't know what I am talking about.
3. Yes, because they often do so out of social pressure, fear or a personal desire to seek out a deity (which comes down to having faith). There is no evidence to suggest that God exists; neither does proper use of reason and logic lead one to conclude that God exists.
4. Yes, and there are billions of other people who also think the existence of God has been demonstrated. My claim, however, is not that I am not convinced by the evidence. My claim is that there is no reason to be convinced that a God exists. This is also not a claim that I believe to be absolutely true. It is a claim that I believe is true with reasonable certainty. Belief in a god is not reasonable because it has not been demonstrated to be reasonable. Of course theists think it is reasonable, but that's not relevant.
5. The Biblical God gives you solutions to unanswered questions without basis, and that causes you to lose your motivation to seek the true answer.
6. Did I say all or majority? I said "so many": 42% of Christians in the United States believe in the Creationist account of human origins. By the way, common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like it or not, macroevolution is a scientific fact. Also, I never mentioned Young Earth creationists.
7. I consider Christians who do not believe in evolution, and instead Creationism, as fundamentalist Christians, so that's 42%. There's clearly a problem when 42% of Christians accept a 2000 year old collection of fabricated scribblings instead of the scientific method.

1. Sure there is. People read the NT every day and believe the authors' accounts and believe that God wants to have a relationship with them. If you are going to say that the NT is not evidence, why? 
2. You said the Christian's justification to set aside reason, evidence, and logic was "Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God." You are making up an imaginary person so you can make fun of. It is becoming clear you do not understand your opponent's positions.
3. Is that why the Chinese christian community is growing at phenomenal rates? Peer pressure? For an extreme example, try Turkey. 
4. You keep saying there is no evidence that God exists. Do you realize, you could not possibly know that? Setting that aside, I have the compelling person of Jesus, the events of the NT, I have the evidence that people whom I know have been changed from the inside by God, I have my own personal experiences, I have family who's child was cleared of brain cancer as they prepared to remove the tumor. 
5. That bullshit. Another attribute you ascribe to your imaginary straw man. Modern science started with a Christian worldview--that the universe was NOT endowed with magical mystical powers (as the rest of the world thought) but was an object that could be studied.
6. No, you did not mention YEC, you mentioned people who don't believe in evolution. Did you mean someone different? Common decent proven? LOL. How did they go do that? What would you say is the top 3 reasons common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
7. Okay, now you have moved onto Christians in a particular country--all the way from just "theists". That is not the definition of a fundamentalist christian. You are confusing a single belief that some fundamentalist hold with an entire ideology. Why do you think someone has to choose between the Bible and the scientific method. You are setting up a false dilemma--another fallacy.

1. The New Testament is not evidence because the claims made in the New Testament have not been demonstrated to be true.

2. No, Christians are making up an imaginary person who they believe in not due to reason, evidence and logic, but rather on faith alone. You wouldn't believe in such a God if you actually used those tools properly, because they shouldn't lead you to such a conclusion. If that's not the case, where is the good evidence and arguments for the existence of God? I have yet to come across such things (as I explain in 4).

3. They are growing for the reasons I already pointed out. Not necessarily peer pressure. I never claimed peer pressure is the only factor. There are even more reasons than the examples I gave, but none are good reasons, which is the point. 

4. I didn't claim to know there is no evidence, did I? I believe that no good evidence has been presented thus far. If I knew there was no evidence, I wouldn't keep requesting that Christians present it. Moreover, knowledge is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, as we are discussing reasonableness of belief. That said, the "evidence" that you presented is invalid. Saying "The Bible" doesn't count because you are presupposing that the Bible is accurate when it is actually ridden with scientific and historical inaccuracies. Personal experiences don't count either because those can't be verified and hence established as fact. I have also had all kinds of personal experiences that I could attribute to anything, but I don't because I'd need to demonstrate that such attribution is valid. "Changed from the inside by God" is essentially a fancy way of restating "personal experiences", and I won't even begin to accept your cancer story as evidence.

5. You seem to be saying "straw man" just for the sake of discrediting my argument, when it clearly isn't.

6. Fossil record, genetics and the differences in development of animal behaviour between species. I'm not going to explain this all to you; the information is out there.

7. I said I consider them as fundamentalist Christians, and with this definition my previous arguments hold water. Also, you seem to like pulling logical fallacies out of nowhere in a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. I didn't claim that those were the only two options. I said they accept the Bible's explanations instead of the scientific method, as these are the two most common approaches.

[Neo-Scholastic]

6. I believe in various parts of evolutionary theory. I don't think common decent has been anywhere near proven.

Have you seen any of the papers from the last Royal Society Conference in London regarding the "extended evolution synthesis"? Royal Society

A lot of recent research is calling into question the neo-Darwinist Synthesis. That is not to say that any of research directly supports so-called intelligent design but it strongly suggests that excluding all teleology from biological systems by fiat is deeply problematic. It also seriously undermines the notion that natural selection and random mutations are the end all be all of speciation.The link goes to a very diplomatic article that carefully avoids directly challenging existing concepts in evolutionary theory so you have to read between the lines and look at the original findings to really get a sense of the controversies.

Here's one pregnant line...

...too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution. Under this perspective, the sharp distinction between the proximate and the ultimate is undermined by the fact that proximate causes are themselves often also evolutionary causes. Hence, the EES entails not only new research directions but also new ways to think about, and interpret, new and familiar problems in evolutionary biology.

---

1. The New Testament is not evidence because the claims made in the New Testament have not been demonstrated to be true.

I would invite you to reflect on the circularity of that statement.