Patrick.net

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O'Reilly

By Dan8267   Follow   Thu, 24 May 2012, 5:13pm   1,178 views   9 comments
In Boca Raton FL 33433   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Neil rocks! Bill's a moron.

Viewing Comments 1-9 of 9     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

   1   12:40am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Terrible video with audio sync issues. Good content though, I like his succinct label "God of the gaps".

2. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 487 comments Alameda, CA

   2   7:17am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   I've heard this argument before, although not exactly in this form. The "god of the gaps" argument does sort of work (from the believer's point of view) in a backwards kind of way. I believe that bears exist; therefore if I see bear tracks with no other way to explain them I'd be justified in tentatively presuming that a bear made them although I'd be prepared to reevaluate this in light of more information. In the same way, if you start by presupposing that god exists then "god did it" could be the best explanation for some things that you currently can't explain otherwise (although again you'd have to be tentative and prepared to reevaluate this if you got more information/ understanding about the thing in question). It's not a perfect analogy but "bear" with me :-) So I think the real problem with this isn't that some or even most events once attributed to god are now explained without god any more than than it would be a "problem for belief in bears" if some or most of what we thought were bear tracks turned out to be something else. The real problem is that it's not an argument! It's just a theistic person telling you the way the world looks to them. And yes, the example of the tides was particularly stupid.

3. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   3   8:52am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   bdrasin says The "god of the gaps" argument does sort of work (from the believer's point of view) in a backwards kind of way. In the same way that believing in unicorns creating everything works. "God did it" simply becomes "unicorns did it". Works just as well. Actually works just as well with "Satan did it", too. So let's all worship Satan and do as he asks.

4. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 487 comments Alameda, CA

   4   9:25am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Dan8267 says bdrasin says The "god of the gaps" argument does sort of work (from the believer's point of view) in a backwards kind of way. In the same way that believing in unicorns creating everything works. "God did it" simply becomes "unicorns did it". Works just as well. Actually works just as well with "Satan did it", too. So let's all worship Satan and do as he asks. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think this really captures what's going on. Theists (at least most of them) believe that god exists and wants the universe to be an ordered and nice-at-least-for-me type of place. Therefore when they see some order-type-thing in the universe which doesn't have another explanation (like the tides if you are a moron), they are justified in ascribing it to god (again, granting the initial assumption that this type of god exists). With regard to the unicorn, let's say that I believe that unicorns exist and like to fight lions. I find a set of horse-looking tracks that lead across a field to where a dead lion is lying with a hole gored in his head. To me, the simplest explanation is that a unicorn killed the lion, whereas you (who doesn't believe in unicorns) have to come up with a more complicated explanation (like a man on horseback with a spear) or just throw up your hands and say you don't know. What I'm trying to point out is that the assumptions which make up your interpretive framework (e.g. god) can't be proven by the interpretations that result from applying those assumptions to events. At least that's the way it seems to me.

5. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   5   10:19am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   bdrasin says Theists (at least most of them) believe that god exists and wants the universe to be an ordered and nice-at-least-for-me type of place. So do scientists. And indeed there is great order and chaos in the universe, and the great thing is that you can understand the universe and make sense out of why it is the way it is, and even why it's relatively congenial to life. But the god of the gaps argument fails not only because it makes an unfounded assumption from ignorance, but also because then it compounds that assumptions with a multitude of extremely more specific assumptions that have nothing to do with the gap. Assumptions like... 1. There is only one creator rather than a committee. 2. The creator more or less thinks like a human with the same moral beliefs that are typical of humans, or worse yet, a very specific moral code like the Ten Commandments. 3. The creator never reveals himself today, but frequently did during the Bronze Age directly talking to humans. 4. The creator has specific spokespersons like Jesus, Mohammed, Abraham, the pope, priests, etc. 5. You can talk to the creator through telepathy, i.e., prayer. 6. The creator is aware of your existence, 7. and he cares about you personally. 8. The creator will smite the evil doers. 9. Sometimes the creator wants you to go to war and kill infidels. And I could go on and on. The god of the gaps argument, even ignoring all of it's ridiculous flaws, simply doesn't justify the belief in the kind of god that theists believe in. It doesn't justify an active, moral code bearing, human affairs interfering god. I.e., it doesn't justify the god of any church in existence.

6. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 487 comments Alameda, CA

   6   11:42am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Dan8267 says bdrasin says Theists (at least most of them) believe that god exists and wants the universe to be an ordered and nice-at-least-for-me type of place. So do scientists. And indeed there is great order and chaos in the universe, and the great thing is that you can understand the universe and make sense out of why it is the way it is, and even why it's relatively congenial to life. I don't follow, sorry. Did you misread what I wrote? Lots of scientists don't believe in god at all, let alone a god who cares about an ordered universe. And if they do, they don't (or at least shouldn't) let that believe intrude on their work to explain why the universe is the way it is, etc. Dan8267 says Assumptions like... 1. There is only one creator rather than a committee. 2. The creator more or less thinks like a human with the same moral beliefs that are typical of humans, or worse yet, a very specific moral code like the Ten Commandments. [etc] Yes, quite! That's what I mean when I said it's not really an argument, they are just telling you what the universe looks like with their set of assumptions. Dan8267 says I.e., it doesn't justify the god of any church in existence. I think we violently agree :-)

7. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

   7   11:49am Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   bdrasin says I find a set of horse-looking tracks that lead across a field to where a dead lion is lying with a hole gored in his head. To me, the simplest explanation is that a unicorn killed the lion Unicorns go for the gut, not the head.

8. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   8   1:02pm Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bdrasin says I don't follow, sorry. Scientists are always looking for ways to explain the universe and provide a order to it. Even chaos theory provides a level of order, causality, and some level of predictability to the universe. But the search for order and organization does not require a supernatural explanation. Nature can self-organize as science has demonstrated. bdrasin says violently agree I hope not violently... Vicente says Unicorns go for the gut, not the head. I've always said that unicorns are the manliest of the mythological creatures, especially the pink ones. Think about it? Unicorns are horses, and a man's man is called a stallion. And unicorns are horses with horns that can impale other creatures, totally bad ass. And pink unicorns? Imagine how touch you'd have to be to survive being pink when everyone else thought you could be pushed over. There's nothing that says I'm a man more than riding a pink unicorn with a rainbow coming out of its tail end.

9. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 487 comments Alameda, CA

   9   1:11pm Fri 25 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says There's nothing that says I'm a man more than riding a pink unicorn with a rainbow coming out of its tail end. Uh, that and a pair of testicles...