Caspian ji
I don't want to be long winded either. LOL So I will react to a small subset of your overall reply, and perhaps come back later.
Quote:
So if your asking me why some atheists might resort to that argument? I'm guessing simply because they dont want to be long winded  |
My own impression is that they have been very long winded especially on YouTube.
Quote:
|
However, the null hypothesis in my point of view is "that there is no god." Are we on the same page their or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god?
|
No! Sadly we are not on the same page. I reject the notion that "There is no God." The absence of evidence from a scientific standpoint only justifies the conclusion "There is no material evidence for God." And then further in the absence of evidence one would have to accept an agnostic stance not an atheist stance. Why do I say this? Because the atheist stance believes it proves the negative. The absence of evidence in science only permits a tentative conclusion. How is it logically possible to "prove" the "negative" or "absence" of anything except in the most tentative way.
Quote:
|
or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god?
|
No,I do not agree. The null hypothesis is not subject to belief or disbelief. It is also not subject to proof or disproof. The null hypothesis is never tested. Only its alternative is tested. Therefore, for science the null hypothesis just
is--- until evidence to the contrary suggests that its alternative exceeds the expectation of chance, according to a stated mathematical probability.
It is semi-ridiculous to want to subject God to inferential proof rather than ontological proof. But let's give it a go. For someone like me who accepts that God
is, God is much like the null hypothesis. God just is, until one can demonstrate that there is a better alternative.