Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[SteveII]

[Nonpareil]

Two points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.

Which is still not evidence.

2. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). How can you describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as "the claim" as if it were one thing?

Because none of it has any supporting evidence.

No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it.

That isn't evidence.

[masterofpuppets]

You've made an equivocation fallacy here. It's not that atheists have no beliefs. It's that atheists have no belief in the existence of gods. It doesn't follow that atheists don't have beliefs about the purported "evidence" Christians give, or beliefs about the claim that a god exists.

Technically you are correct. I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God. They give reasons for why they are incredulous. When a theist replies that their objections aren't sound the atheist says it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, the definition of atheism. It's dodgy.

Maybe the actual problem is that the "objections aren't sound" isn't a valid point? I've never come across an atheist simply shrug it off and happily proclaim that because it's a lack of belief in the existence of a god, they are somehow immune to scrutiny even without justifying why they hold such a position.

[Cyberman]

No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it.

And the evidence that Santa flies around the world in one night every year on a magic sleigh pulled by magic flying reindeer is the millions of letters written to him by children over the centuries.

[Sal]

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.

I agree.

[Harry Nevis]

You've made an equivocation fallacy here. It's not that atheists have no beliefs. It's that atheists have no belief in the existence of gods. It doesn't follow that atheists don't have beliefs about the purported "evidence" Christians give, or beliefs about the claim that a god exists.

Technically you are correct. I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God. They give reasons for why they are incredulous. When a theist replies that their objections aren't sound the atheist says it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, the definition of atheism. It's dodgy.

If we're "blissfully unaware" of god, then all you apologists are doing a piss poor job at pointing him out.  And just saying that our objections aren't sound is different than proving them unsound.

[Mister Agenda]

The more recent posts kinda show the problem with the "lack of belief" chestnut. Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

The point where it struck you as odd is the point where you should have wondered if you were understanding it correctly. That we don't have any beliefs, plural, doesn't follow at all. Not that there aren't a few atheists for whom the word 'belief' is so tainted that they'll deny they have any at all, but that's kind of the opposite of the fallacy of equivocation, in my opinion.

---

You've made an equivocation fallacy here. It's not that atheists have no beliefs. It's that atheists have no belief in the existence of gods. It doesn't follow that atheists don't have beliefs about the purported "evidence" Christians give, or beliefs about the claim that a god exists.

Technically you are correct. I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God. They give reasons for why they are incredulous. When a theist replies that their objections aren't sound the atheist says it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, the definition of atheism. It's dodgy.

Neo, if you really think atheists are pretending to be blissfully unaware of the concept of God, that would be really stupid of you. I have a hard time believing that's actually the case; which is a shame. Actually being stupid wouldn't be your fault.

[SteveII]

Two points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.

Which is still not evidence.

2. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). How can you describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as "the claim" as if it were one thing?

Because none of it has any supporting evidence.

No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it.

That isn't evidence.

Your problem is with word definitions.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. They are NOT synonyms. 

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. 

So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

[Mister Agenda]

You don't seem to be very good at discerning what people really mean, Steve. Maybe you should refrain from telling them what they mean and ask for clarification instead.

The claim is that the miraculous events described in the NT really happened. An example of evidence of that claim would be if the pagan Romans noted the sky darkening from noon to three the day they crucified that Jewish rabble-rouser, or resurrected Jews wandering around Jerusalem appearing to many people. It wouldn't be great evidence, but it would be actual evidence.

[Harry Nevis]

Which is still not evidence.


Because none of it has any supporting evidence.


That isn't evidence.

Your problem is with word definitions.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. They are NOT synonyms. 

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. 

So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

 But none of it is testable, supportive evidence for your god or the veracity of the bible.  The NT may be evidence of people writing a book, but is not testable, supporting evidence that what is says is fact.  It's the same for every other piece of "evidence" that has been claimed by believers.  And why is evidence so important to you anyway?  I thought faith was enough.