(December 21, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:SteveII Wrote:"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.
Thank you for the correction about the null hypothesis.
