Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[griffgotswag]

"If you see no evidence for something, then that counts as evidence against it, until further evidence is presented."

Couldn't this argument work against Tyson?
Ex: "I see no evidence suggesting God does not exist, therefore, that is evidence he does exist."

Bad argument on Tyson's behalf, there are many things that have existed even though there was a lack of evidence, or the evidence wasn't obvious, and people claimed there was "no evidence".

[masterofpuppets]

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.

How is it circular? Does it follow that the claims not having been demonstrated to be true is a consequence of the NT not being evidence? Of course not, you would need to replace "NT not being evidence" with "NT has no evidence".

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

How is it circular? Does it follow that the claims not having been demonstrated to be true is a consequence of the NT not being evidence? Of course not, you would need to replace "NT not being evidence" with "NT has no evidence".

Because evidence has to be presented before it can be evaluated. You're not even allowing the evidence to be presented for evaluation.

[SteveII]

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.

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true? There is ample evidence that the people of the day believed it to be true. Is there anything in particular that makes it definitely untrue? 

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over. 

3. So, both reasons you have given why people will reject 'reason, evidence, and logic' in favor of God gets rebutted (born into it, peer pressure) and then you back away from it.  So now you have moved on to 'no good reasons' -- which is to say the people are stupid. Ad hominem (another fallacy).

4. Come on. You have said so many times in so many ways there is "no evidence to suggest that God exists", "no reasons" to believe. You are moving the goal post (another fallacy)

Why do you attempt to separate knowledge and belief? Does not one feed the other? Do you think Christians skip this somehow? 

I didn't say "the Bible". I said the NT. What material scientific and historical inaccuracies are you referring to? Personal experience can't be verified? If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'? That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life so you are just pulling it out for this particular topic -- special pleading (another fallacy). I don't care if you accept my cancer story or not. You cannot say it did not happen (no way, no how). To sum up this paragraph, I have cumulative evidence that you have not proved to me is neither nonexistent nor unreasonable (which is what you keep claiming). 

5. I am pointing out your argument is based on portraying people in a very specific way. If, say a Christian believes in evolution (which many many do) half of your argument crumbles. The other half is based on a lack of understanding about the range of beliefs that Christians hold (and why).

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.  Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole, biological networks, "tree of life" has been tossed out--DNA does not confirm what scientist expected, fossil record/lack of intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, and natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient. If you are tempted to describe a theory of one type or another as an answer, make sure there is evidence for the theory and not just an explanation for a gap. This is the bar that you set: "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

7. Your argument is full of holes and you just repeat the same things over and over with little shifts to adapt to the rebuttal. You don't tell me why my beliefs are wrong, you just assert over and over that there is no evidence. I have given several kinds of evidence why I believe. I could add others. My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

[Nonpareil]

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

The extended evolutionary synthesis does not include, suggest, imply, or even state that it is possible or coherent for teleology to be included. It is an alternative approach to what factors weigh in most heavily when considering the evolutionary changes in species, and places a heavier emphasis on things like kin selection (species evolving so that family members will protect the children of relatives over themselves) and niche construction (species altering their environments and thus changing the selection pressures in play).

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.

In other words, the thing you linked to doesn't actually support anything that you just said.

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.

That is not circular.

Because evidence has to be presented before it can be evaluated.

No. Data has to be presented and evaluated for factual correctness before it can be considered evidence.

If it is not found to be factually correct, then it is discarded, because it is not evidence.

---

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true?

Because that would be a very, very stupid thing to do.

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over.

Or you could answer the question. If your belief does have a rational grounding, what is the evidence?

If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'?

Pretty much, yup.

This is why we don't just accept things like Bigfoot, ghosts, and alien abductions at face value.

That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life

It's really not.

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.

Yes, they are.

Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole

Irreducible complexity is nonsense, and, in point of fact, we almost always do know how those things evolved. Eyes, for example; a favored tentpole example of irreducible complexity, and we have known their evolutionary path for decades at this point.

And so on for the rest of your "objections". I'm sorry, Steve, but once again, you don't actually seem to know how these subjects are treated by the people who study them. This is, in fact, all settled science. The only people who object to it are demonstrable idiots with a creationist agenda, not people with an actual understanding of the science involved.

My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

Because it has not been established to be true.

This is not complicated.

[SteveII]

---

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true?

Because that would be a very, very stupid thing to do.

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over.

Or you could answer the question. If your belief does have a rational grounding, what is the evidence?

If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'?

Pretty much, yup.

This is why we don't just accept things like Bigfoot, ghosts, and alien abductions at face value. [3]

That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life

It's really not. [3]

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.

Yes, they are.

Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole

Irreducible complexity is nonsense, and, in point of fact, we almost always do know how those things evolved. Eyes, for example; a favored tentpole example of irreducible complexity, and we have known their evolutionary path for decades at this point.

And so on for the rest of your "objections". I'm sorry, Steve, but once again, you don't actually seem to know how these subjects are treated by the people who study them. This is, in fact, all settled science. The only people who object to it are demonstrable idiots with a creationist agenda, not people with an actual understanding of the science involved.

My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

Because it has not been established to be true.

This is not complicated. [7]

1. You really know how to have a discussion don't you. I don't agree. I am not the one making the charge that your belief is irrational. I don't have to defend it until you present something to rebut.

2. I have already answered that. However, because I am better at this discussion thing than you: 

A. Person of Jesus is compelling.
B. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
C. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
D. The natural theology arguments:
i. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
ii. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
iii. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
iv. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
v. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

3. That's nonsense. I like this from RoadRunner's posts: Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a term referring to a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]

• Denying, when only doubt has been established
  
• Double standards in the application of criticism
  
• The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
  
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
  
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
  
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
  
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
  
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
  

He characterized true skepticism as:[5]

• Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
  
• No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
  
• Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
  
• Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
  
• Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
  
• Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
  

6. No, they are not. Having theories of how it might have happened is not the same as evidence of how it happened. Your problem is that you think that us simply being here is evidence. I do not have to jump to that unsupported conclusion. 

7. Why not? Obviously many people think it is true because they believe what is written there really happened. What do they see that you don't? Why are they wrong?

[Nonpareil]

You really know how to have a discussion don't you.

Yes.

I don't agree.

And you are wrong.

Accepting claims as true without verifying them to be so is irrational. Formally, it is the bare assertion fallacy; informally, it's called "being a credulous fool".

This is not going to change, and is not arguable.

A. Person of Jesus is compelling.

Not evidence.

B. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

None of which can be verified as true.

C. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.

Miracles do not happen.

D. The natural theology arguments:
i. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
ii. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
iii. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
iv. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
v. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

No, no, does not exist and no, no, does not exist and no.

3. That's nonsense.

No, it isn't. If you want anything accepted as true, you have to present evidence for it.

Claims are not evidence. They are what require evidence in order to be accepted as true.

6. No, they are not.

Yes, they are, Steve.

Do some basic research.

7. Why not?

Because there is no evidence.

Obviously many people think it is true

Which is not evidence.

Why are they wrong?

Because they have no evidence.

[masterofpuppets]

How is it circular? Does it follow that the claims not having been demonstrated to be true is a consequence of the NT not being evidence? Of course not, you would need to replace "NT not being evidence" with "NT has no evidence".

Because evidence has to be presented before it can be evaluated. You're not even allowing the evidence to be presented for evaluation.

Well, I think I just told you that the NT has not presented evidence (which is why the claims haven't been demonstrated). That is different from the NT as a whole not being evidence. I implied the latter in my argument, not the former.

---

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.

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true? There is ample evidence that the people of the day believed it to be true. Is there anything in particular that makes it definitely untrue? 

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over. 

3. So, both reasons you have given why people will reject 'reason, evidence, and logic' in favor of God gets rebutted (born into it, peer pressure) and then you back away from it.  So now you have moved on to 'no good reasons' -- which is to say the people are stupid. Ad hominem (another fallacy).

4. Come on. You have said so many times in so many ways there is "no evidence to suggest that God exists", "no reasons" to believe. You are moving the goal post (another fallacy)

Why do you attempt to separate knowledge and belief? Does not one feed the other? Do you think Christians skip this somehow? 

I didn't say "the Bible". I said the NT. What material scientific and historical inaccuracies are you referring to? Personal experience can't be verified? If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'? That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life so you are just pulling it out for this particular topic -- special pleading (another fallacy). I don't care if you accept my cancer story or not. You cannot say it did not happen (no way, no how). To sum up this paragraph, I have cumulative evidence that you have not proved to me is neither nonexistent nor unreasonable (which is what you keep claiming). 

5. I am pointing out your argument is based on portraying people in a very specific way. If, say a Christian believes in evolution (which many many do) half of your argument crumbles. The other half is based on a lack of understanding about the range of beliefs that Christians hold (and why).

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.  Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole, biological networks, "tree of life" has been tossed out--DNA does not confirm what scientist expected, fossil record/lack of intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, and natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient. If you are tempted to describe a theory of one type or another as an answer, make sure there is evidence for the theory and not just an explanation for a gap. This is the bar that you set: "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

7. Your argument is full of holes and you just repeat the same things over and over with little shifts to adapt to the rebuttal. You don't tell me why my beliefs are wrong, you just assert over and over that there is no evidence. I have given several kinds of evidence why I believe. I could add others. My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

This is becoming increasingly frustrating for me so I will not continue, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

First, you need a refresher on logical fallacies. Google can help you.
Second, you haven't studied evolution enough. Google can help you with this too.

[SteveII]

Because evidence has to be presented before it can be evaluated. You're not even allowing the evidence to be presented for evaluation.

Well, I think I just told you that the NT has not presented evidence (which is why the claims haven't been demonstrated). That is different from the NT as a whole not being evidence. I implied the latter in my argument, not the former.

---

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true? There is ample evidence that the people of the day believed it to be true. Is there anything in particular that makes it definitely untrue? 

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over. 

3. So, both reasons you have given why people will reject 'reason, evidence, and logic' in favor of God gets rebutted (born into it, peer pressure) and then you back away from it.  So now you have moved on to 'no good reasons' -- which is to say the people are stupid. Ad hominem (another fallacy).

4. Come on. You have said so many times in so many ways there is "no evidence to suggest that God exists", "no reasons" to believe. You are moving the goal post (another fallacy)

Why do you attempt to separate knowledge and belief? Does not one feed the other? Do you think Christians skip this somehow? 

I didn't say "the Bible". I said the NT. What material scientific and historical inaccuracies are you referring to? Personal experience can't be verified? If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'? That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life so you are just pulling it out for this particular topic -- special pleading (another fallacy). I don't care if you accept my cancer story or not. You cannot say it did not happen (no way, no how). To sum up this paragraph, I have cumulative evidence that you have not proved to me is neither nonexistent nor unreasonable (which is what you keep claiming). 

5. I am pointing out your argument is based on portraying people in a very specific way. If, say a Christian believes in evolution (which many many do) half of your argument crumbles. The other half is based on a lack of understanding about the range of beliefs that Christians hold (and why).

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.  Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole, biological networks, "tree of life" has been tossed out--DNA does not confirm what scientist expected, fossil record/lack of intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, and natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient. If you are tempted to describe a theory of one type or another as an answer, make sure there is evidence for the theory and not just an explanation for a gap. This is the bar that you set: "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

7. Your argument is full of holes and you just repeat the same things over and over with little shifts to adapt to the rebuttal. You don't tell me why my beliefs are wrong, you just assert over and over that there is no evidence. I have given several kinds of evidence why I believe. I could add others. My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

This is becoming increasingly frustrating for me so I will not continue, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

First, you need a refresher on logical fallacies. Google can help you.
Second, you haven't studied evolution enough. Google can help you with this too.

LOL. You mean that your unsupported assertions against Christianity aren't just accepted as true?! I can imagine the frustration. TIP: In a discussion forum, you might want to use some facts in the normal back-and-forth and not just go with the same assertions over an over and wonder why I won't accept them.

[Mister Agenda]

My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

Because it has not been established to be true.

This is not complicated.

And the reason that it would have to be established as true is that it is the claim, not the evidence for the claim. All kinds of ancient documents claim miraculous events, if such things are claimed for any other religion they are not taken at face value in the West. If we treated the NT like we would a non-Abrahamic religious document making similar claims (those silly Hindus believing all that stuff Krishna was supposed to have done), it would already be classified as legendary literature. Unless, of course, there was convincing evidence outside the writings of the faithful that the miraculous parts were true. I don't see Christians telling skeptics that they should take stories about Krishna at face value unless there's a special reason not to.

If the Romans had noticed and recorded half the supernatural stuff that was supposed to be happening under their noses, even I would have to agree that there's something different about the NT compared to the supernatural claims of other cultures.

---

Well, I think I just told you that the NT has not presented evidence (which is why the claims haven't been demonstrated). That is different from the NT as a whole not being evidence. I implied the latter in my argument, not the former.

---

This is becoming increasingly frustrating for me so I will not continue, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

First, you need a refresher on logical fallacies. Google can help you.
Second, you haven't studied evolution enough. Google can help you with this too.

LOL. You mean that your unsupported assertions against Christianity aren't just accepted as true?! I can imagine the frustration. TIP: In a discussion forum, you might want to use some facts in the normal back-and-forth and not just go with the same assertions over an over and wonder why I won't accept them.

Yeah, you've run off another atheist through the power of being impenetrable. Crow like a rooster about it, like Jesus would have.