"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Mister Agenda]

"God does not exist" would be the null hypothesis only if there were absolutely no evidence for God. If any evidence whatsoever is presented, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is evidence (it does not matter if you don't find it compelling) so the null hypothesis must be rejected. If the null hypothesis is rejected, "God does not exists" becomes a positive claim.

If there were sufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis would be refuted. If there is insufficient evidence to refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis stands. There's nothing in it about 'absolutely no evidence against the null hypothesis'. Only evidence sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis justifies rejecting it.

In particular, 'any evidence whatsoever being presented' is certainly not the standard for rejecting the null hypothesis. The evidence must stand up to scrutiny, and be of adequate significance. Just calling something evidence doesn't make it evidence. It has to point to the specific conclusion that would refute the null hypothesis.

There's an obvious reason why you would want to make the null hypothesis so ethereally flimsy, but the definitions at hand are not under your dominion.

---

Gotta agree with Steve here.  "God does not exist" is an assertion, which requires evidence of its own to support it - not simply a lack of evidence for the contrary.  The null hypothesis in this situation is rejecting both the assertion "God exists" and the assertion "God does not exist."  This, simply, is (weak) atheism, which is what I hold to.

Since 'God does not exist' is an assertion that can only exist as a response to the claim 'God exists' I think it's a little different in relation to the null hypothesis. If someone says 'Magical unicorns exist' and I say 'magical unicorns do not exist would be the null hypothesis, what have you got to defeat it?'; I have not created a new condition in which the null hypothesis is that magical unicorns neither exist nor don't exist. The null hypothesis is still that magical unicorns do not exist.

That doesn't mean that stating magical unicorns don't exist as an absolute truth isn't an assertion that must be supported; stating that it's the null hypothesis is not the same thing: implicit in the null hypothesis is that sufficient evidence will refute it. It's a hypothesis, after all.

I'm a weak atheist, too. I don't assert that no God or gods exist. However, the null hypothesis is that no God or gods exist.

---

Do I live my life as if no gods exist? Sure.  And you're right, if you really pressed me on it, I'd probably say yeah - I think it's likely that gods do not exist.  I just wouldn't be able to give any evidence for that belief besides "there hasn't been any gods proven to exist," which is just an argument from ignorance (besides the definitions of a god that are logically contradictory or incomprehensible).

'There haven't been any gods proven to exist, therefore no gods exist' would be an argument from ignorance. 'There haven't been any gods with adequate evidence to support their existence, therefore there is no rational justification to believe that they do exist, lacking such evidence'; however, is not an argument from ignorance. Not disputing as much as seeking clarification, let me know if you disagree.

---

Interesting, so your opinion is that it is okay for someone to disrespect all Christians because of a subset of them and bad arguments warrant abusive language. So...you think it is just a lack of character.

You're all Christians now, are you?