(December 7, 2018 at 4:10 pm)Wololo Wrote:(December 6, 2018 at 6:03 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sorry, but I don't apply circular logic to my thinking, so I can't agree with your statement.
Not knowing (for me) means I can't declare.
And if you can't decide you are then best off provisionally accepting the null hypothesis, which is in this case is "there is no god". Claiming that god exists is a positive claim, it is making a prediction about reality which must both agree with what we currently know and also be predictive of future or future discovered phenomena existing in reality.
No one single person has been able to show any evidence for the god assertion*.
*Generally in science you have hypotheses and theories. Personally I think there should be four 1) assertions, which are just personal prejudices, 2) conjectures, which have some basis in reality but have not been examined for factuality, 3) hypotheses, which generally agree with what we do know but haven't been tested for predictiveness and finally 4) theories which have gone through the whole gamut of falsification methods and are still standing. You'll notice that 3 and 4 are (as I describe them) pretty close to what the scientific community treat them as, whereas 1 & 2 are not generally mentioned.
I don't have to claim either. If I do, I have to substantiate a value of 0 (atheism) or 1+ (theism)
There are already 4 (or more) Hypotheses, Theories, Laws, Facts.
Your statement that, "No one single person has been able to show any evidence for the god assertion." isn't a scientific statement. Here are some obvious flaws with it...
-It's redundant (although probably the least significant flaw. One single person? Isn't it assumed it's a value of 1? Unless you mean it's a single person that isn't in a romantic relationship, but I'm assuming that's not what you're talking about. "Any evidence" is also redundant. If you just need a value of 1 "any" doesn't need to be there. You should just say, "show evidence for the god assertion.
-You can't substantiate your claim. How do you know? You haven't shown how you know this. Is everybody is supposed to assume that you've searched and exhausted every possibility counter to your own belief?
- Accepting a null hypothesis isn't necessarily conclusive, although it can be assumed if you make the same observation enough times. In scientific study, you're attempting to determine "relationship", then assign a value to that relationship. Maybe if you're accepting the null hypothesis your research parameters were poor. Regardless, you haven't shown any study that does any of this.
-Additionally your statement is inclusive of all people past and present. Are we supposed to assume you created a time machine and observed all of them?
