RE: "God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion
December 22, 2016 at 11:57 am
(This post was last modified: December 22, 2016 at 11:58 am by SteveII.)
(December 22, 2016 at 11:42 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:(December 22, 2016 at 9:40 am)SteveII Wrote: I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".
And thus we are completely correct in assuming god doesn't exist. [1]
And supernatural is a mealy mouthed term used by you theists to attempt to dodge the fact that you've currently no evidence, you never had any evidence, and that you know you never likely will have any evidence. The challenge is "show evidence for your position" not "talk mumbo jumbo until you fall over". [2]
[1] You can assume all you want. "God does not exist" cannot be the null hypothesis.
[2] I see why some atheists don't like the term supernatural--because discussion of it is insulated from the myopic view that only science can provide us knowledge. The point of this thread is not to argue specific evidence. However, that does not mean we concede there is no evidence. We have the events of the NT as evidence, we have personal experiences of billions of people as evidence, we have all the formal natural theology arguments which articulate an inference to the existence of God based on natural evidence. While you might not like the evidence or think it is compelling, that is your subjective opinion and does not equate to "no evidence".
(December 22, 2016 at 11:47 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:(December 22, 2016 at 9:40 am)SteveII Wrote: I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".
If we can't know of gods existence then it is of no consequence.
If it is of consequence then we should be able to notice it.
Well, there might be unknown consequences, but yes, I agree with you.
