RE: Atheism 101: The Null Hypothesis
July 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2013 at 12:36 pm by pineapplebunnybounce.)
@Esquilax
Hm, yea I know theists always use absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence to their advantage while it's just good science education to know that it doesn't equal. But yea, that would only reduce god to one of the millions of things that humans have imagined, each with almost the same improbability of existing. Which theists don't get.
Which is why i added the second part, which is the god hypothesis does not fit into any existing knowledge and cannot be proposed if one is honest. if it is we'll move on to how to test god. Then find out that god question is not a good scientific question because it' not testable. But if you say that they'll say their god is outside the scope of science. Not understanding that everything that is real and has a real effect on real things is not outside the scope of science, considering science is a method of objective investigation.
But it's good to have them attempting to disprove mainstream science as long as their results are honestly represented. Because science does work that way. But since they're lying about so much, and are so incredibly bias that their work cannot be taken seriously :/ it's not at all productive.
Hm, yea I know theists always use absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence to their advantage while it's just good science education to know that it doesn't equal. But yea, that would only reduce god to one of the millions of things that humans have imagined, each with almost the same improbability of existing. Which theists don't get.
Which is why i added the second part, which is the god hypothesis does not fit into any existing knowledge and cannot be proposed if one is honest. if it is we'll move on to how to test god. Then find out that god question is not a good scientific question because it' not testable. But if you say that they'll say their god is outside the scope of science. Not understanding that everything that is real and has a real effect on real things is not outside the scope of science, considering science is a method of objective investigation.
But it's good to have them attempting to disprove mainstream science as long as their results are honestly represented. Because science does work that way. But since they're lying about so much, and are so incredibly bias that their work cannot be taken seriously :/ it's not at all productive.
