| JWeinCom said: You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the hypothesis has not been proven. So, the null hypothesis to "god doesn't exist" is "god has not been proven to exist". The hypothesis that there is no god is not atheism. That is antitheism. That hypothesis would absoltely need to be proven. But this is a hypothesis that few atheists make. Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC. From what source did you get this definition of atheism? What atheists don't believe in is any supernatural being. They don't believe in "nothing". Atheism is a belief regarding the claim that god exists. If you believe the claim, you are a theist. If you do not believe the claim, you are an atheist. Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe that god exists, but they are not sure that he does not. This is the category that most atheists would fall under. A gnostic atheist believes definitively that god does not exist. Also known as an atheist. This kind of atheist does have a burden of proof. The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend. This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god". |
By making your null hypothesis you are by also assuming a paradox which just simply doesn't work in science. The concept of reality is far too abstract for you to make a binary "This is" vs "This is not". My whole point is that your hypoethesis vs null hypothesis does not work on something that is NOT testable. You cannot prove, and you cannot disprove. This is why this is a theological/philosophical discussion rather than scientific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]"
God is an abstract concept. I'm not asking you to believe.
That is not the argument occuring here. My point is that when it comes to defining the fundamentals of reality it is just as arrogant and niave to assume that someone has to prove to you something that is neither provable or disprovable. You are claiming that x cannot be true because their is no evidence, even though the lack of x causes a paradox.
