Evidence for the existence of God (Part 3)

First topic message reminder :

The problem with discussions between theists and atheists is that eventually it comes down to the argument of not being able to prove a negative false. As a statistician, in my working life, I have often come across this as a problem. It really ends up as a lack of understanding of the concept of an hypothesis and the nature of the contrary position, the null hypothesis.
 
Consider the following example
 
Hypothesis 1 - There are fairies at the bottom of my garden. (My hypothesis or H1 for short)
 
In stating this I automatically generate a contrary (null) hypothesis which would be
 
Hypothesis 0 - There are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. (The null hypothesis or H0 for short)
 
The null hypothesis is entirely a consequence of stating the first hypothesis. If H1 is not true then we would automatically assume that H0 was true.
 
At this point (courtesy of the Cottingley Fairies and Arthur Conan Doyle) I produce a set of photographs. On scientific scrutiny these are held to be jolly fine photographs and completely fake. At this point I retreat into my bedroom to sulk and it is held that H1 fails on the basis of no evidence and therefore we accept the null hypothesis viz. there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Postulating that at some time in the future someone may come up with evidence that confirms H1 in no way changes the argument. We are dealing with NOW and as of NOW there is no evidence and the hypothesis fails. We accept H0. Wish fulfillment does not give you a reason to accept H1 in spite of the lack of evidence.
 
So now lets look at the existence of God argument.
 
H1 - God exists (the theist position)
which then automatically generates a contrary position
H0 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
 
In passing it is worth noting that the atheist position is a default one. It does NOT require belief. It is simply what is left when the H1 proposition fails, however this is for another time.
 
Now atheists would claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and therefore H1 fails. (In passing one might wonder why, if there is evidence for god, that the religion that has that evidence has not therefore swallowed up all the others who clearly would be lacking in this respect. Is simply a multiplicity of religions an argument for the non-existence of God I wonder?)
 
At this point many theists go for the 'You cannot prove god does not exist' argument. This is the hypotheses above the other way around.
 
H1 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
and
H0 - God exists (the theist position)
 
The atheists just shrug and the theists jump up and down with glee saying the null hypothesis has it, God exists. The problem is that when you consider what the null hypothesis is, you have to ask one crucial question. Is the null hypothesis compatible with a stated position of no evidence.
 
Consider
H1 - Unicorns exist
and hence
H0 - Unicorn do not exist
 
Is a non-existent unicorn compatible with no evidence for the existence of unicorns? Yes it is. Now ask yourself the question if the hypotheses are reversed. Is an existing unicorn compatible with no evidence? No it isn't. Where are the hoof prints and the unicorn poop!!
 
So here we reach the crux. Is a null hypothesis of H0 - God exists compatible with no evidence for God existing. Clearly, as with the unicorn, the answer is no.
 
Atheists do not have to prove God does not exist. It is a meaningless quest because, without evidence, there is no reason or logic in believing that god does exist.

There is none so etc;

You only have to look at the state of the world to see where it is heading, no one will live happily ever after, they will not even live happily at all under the present circumstances, man is his own worst enemy, there are the alright Jacks, however, there are far more that are not alright and there is no prospect of things improving for them or the world as a whole.

PG, the ones who are not alright, are mainly due to this governments cutbacks etc,not god. The ones who are ok are the rich ones,tax evaders,mps,prime minister, etc the ones who can afford what they want when they want.

polyglide wrote:There is none so etc;

You only have to look at the state of the world to see where it is heading, no one will live happily ever after, they will not even live happily at all under the present circumstances, man is his own worst enemy, there are the alright Jacks, however, there are far more that are not alright and there is no prospect of things improving for them or the world as a whole.

You seem to think you're on the right path, so to speak. I.e. through your faith. But you have a really miserable outlook on life.

Dan Fante wrote:You seem to think you're on the right path, so to speak. I.e. through your faith. But you have a really miserable outlook on life.

The thing is that his religion tell him that he will be OK and that if he tells us enough that we could choose his way but refuse that he he will sit in 'glory' looking down on us while cheerfully singing hymns while he sees us burn. The fact that his vision / faith / whatever will never come to pass does not seem to enter his mind.

Heretic

Apocalyptic Christianity is one of the worst kinds. Why polyglide even bothers getting up every morning is bewildering: We're all doomed, the world sucks, the sky is falling, everyone is evil (well, except me, of course), and we're careening toward even more gloom and doom, disaster and death, disease and famine, starvation and violence, war and murder .... but hey! Jesus is coming!!   

So polyglide may as well sit in his darkend room with the blinds drawn and the door locked waiting for his messiah to arrive. Humanity's fate was all preordained anyway, so we're all just operating on a computer program, and computers can't program themselves. So ... might as well sit back and wait for the meteors and tsunamis and earthquakes and volcanoes and mushroom clouds and WWIII and the anti-christ and the sun going dark and mutli-colored horses with their riders breaking seals and running around happily with the hyrda-like Whore of Babylon skipping along with them. Woot! Yay!

I read somewhere a woman who posted something about Israel - can't remember what it was exactly - but she thought it was one of the End Times prophecies being fulfilled. And she said, her words, "I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl," and then went on to explain how she just couldn't stop giggling.

Well, this just goes to show you how sick and twisted apocalyptic Christianity actually is - how anyone can be "giddy" and giggle like a child over the end of the world and all of the dying and suffering about to ensue, well, that kind of insanity can only be induced via religion. I don't care if I did believe in Jesus, I would STILL look upon the End Times with a lot of trepidation, not giddyness and giggles.

That was one poisoned person and whoever did that to her needs to be hauled out back and shot.

A mind reader, no doubt next a magician and then what? as a religious atheist you would be better informed reading the appropriate material, Dandy and the Beano for example.

Insults PG, what will your dear lord think of you? please say a prayer for yourself for forgiveness.

There is a vast difference between the truth and an insult.

You wouldn't know the truth PG if it bought you breakfast every morning.

polyglide wrote:There is a vast difference between the truth and an insult.

Is that why you usually resort to the latter?

It would be realy nice if you could learn the difference.

Or you could learn to spell correct all through your post once in a while PG.   

And give you no valid reason to complain ?.

PG making out he does it on purpose.

"No valid reason to complain" c'mon PG, we only need your posts!!

The heart of a problem is attempting to explain the obvious to the blind.

I have explained previously, I do not like typing and often do not go over my posts for mistakes and thought you would show a liltle leniency.

The reference to the blind in no way detracts from the fact that I have the deapest sympathy for anyone who suffers so and is used purely as an indication of those that cannot see further than their nose.

Well use your spell checker then PG.

I have not got one.

Oh dear PG.

I know, I know.

Can you not update my friend, it would save so many errors would it not?

I have not got one of my own I use the library one, I do not want the wife watching rubbish.

I do not mean our posts.

So that is why your posts are not every day PG?

Yes, I have a busy schedule and have to fit things in as and when.

I understand.

polyglide wrote:I have not got  one of my own I use the library one, I do not want the wife watching rubbish.

   

I clarified the statement.

What rubbish PG? you are a very controlling husband are you not?

No Stu, I believe the internet is a wonderful creation, unfortunately open to abuse.
My comment regarding my wife was partly a joke, however, if she wanted a computer she would have one.

I bought my grandson one but my daughter had to limit his use or he would have spent every waking hour on it.

I have no real reason to have a computer as I can conduct any of my affairs without one, the only site I use is this one and one relative to my hobby.

This one I use in an attempt to get others to see that God is there and you will find him if you seek him.

There are coincidences in life but I can assure you I have experienced too many events that the odds would indicate devine intervention rather that coinsidence.

I agree that the internet can be open to abuse by certain posters PG, depending on which site you go on. You say that the comment you made regarding your wife was partly a joke ? partly a joke yet if she wanted a computer she would have one? you only use the computer for this site and your hobby? PG as an atheist I do not try to convert anybody to my way of thinking, what is the point? so I do not believe that theists should get people to seek god if you see my point.

I do understand your point of view but it would be evil not to attempt to explain to others that which they feel would be of great benifit.

How do you know it would be of great benefit to others PG, That is an evil assumption when that person is an atheist already like myself.

Crumbs, not much has changed on here since my last visit.

I see PG still ignores the fact that the Tanakh/OT is the birth of Christianity. So anything before Jesus matters very much. Without Judaism Christianity would not have been born, Islam would not have come into existence. According to those who believe most of the Tanakh is a foreshadowing of the coming and actions of Jesus.

Of course, the Jews do not believe this. They can point to the fact that most OT prophecy is fulfilled in Jewish history. They will point out that much of Judaism has been converted into a religion by changing the meaning of the OT to suit the Christian teaching.
Satan, enemy of God, is a Christian concept. HaSatan in Judaism is an angel/messenger of God who is allowed to test men - as in Job.
The Eastern concept of Good and Evil in Judaism, that of both being created by God as the Bible says, and a balance between the two, has been converted by Christianity into the Western Good and Evil fighting against each other.

I'll not go on. Christianity is only in existence because of the Jews. Jesus himself (whether messiah or teacher) believed implicitly in the Tanakh and quoted from it many times using it's authority. He claimed he was forecast in the Tanakh, so don't tell me it has no relevance after Jesus was born.

Christianity was born at the Council of Nicea when between 250-320 bishops etc decided what should be the official doctrines from the hotchpotch of very diversified beliefs and scriptures.

And looking at some of the rejected 60+ scriptures you can see why. Try the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Jesus supposedly breathes life into birds fashioned from
clay, curses a boy, who then becomes a corpse, curses a boy who falls dead and his parents become blind.

Christianity's doctines are based on mens decisions.

You should go on, Trevor. That was an interesting post.

Hi Dan, looks like Trevor COULD GO ON FOR EVER.

stuart torr wrote:Hi Dan, looks like Trevor COULD GO ON FOR EVER.

  He has been known to. Be very   

Wouldn't bother me trevor, you make your posts as long as you wish.    

Because your stance leads to nothing.

polyglide wrote:Because your stance leads to nothing.

????????????

Present day man has nothing to do with anything prior to the birth of Jesus.

Those times are well gone and the terminology used are not applicable to today, a person is made blind, you can be blind and still have your sight.

A person can be having a life of pain etc; and releived of the pain can be said to have a new lease of life etc;etc; etc;