RE: Question about "faith"
September 25, 2020 at 1:15 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2020 at 1:17 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 24, 2020 at 8:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(September 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Just like I do not have to consciously rule out gods as an explanation for the universe, I need justification to rule it in.
That's not how we do science ironically enough, quite the opposite.
Seriously?
Ever hear of the null hypothesis?
"The null hypothesis is a typical statistical theory which suggests that no statistical relationship and significance exists in a set of given single observed variable, between two sets of observed data and measured phenomena."
In other words, there is no relationship between the noise in my house, and a ghost, until a statistical relationship can be shown to exist. Same with gods and the existence of the universe.
So, just how would one go about demonstrating that an unfalsifiable hypothesis (a god is responsible for the existence of the universe, for example), adds anything to the statistical relationship of the existence of the universe, and a god or gods being responsible?
So, given the god hypothesis' unfalsifiability, and inability to demonstrate any statistical connection between the existence of the universe, there is no reason to rule it in as an explanation.
And because of the above reasons, supernatural and god claims are never ruled in as possible explanations as part of science.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.