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.

Irrespective of your lack of belief in God, I wish you all well
for over Christmas and continued good health in the New Year and any troubles you may encounter may God give you the strength to bear them.

Merry Saturnalia, PG. All the best and, as Dave Allen said, may your god go with you

Merry christmas and a happy new year pg, but I always sort my own troubles out thanks,it's easier that way than waiting for miracles.  

stuart torr wrote:Merry christmas and a happy new year pg, but I always sort my own troubles out thanks,it's easier that way than waiting for miracles.  

And more satisfying.

Heretic

Much more satisfying is it not Heretic.   

stuart torr wrote:Much more satisfying is it not Heretic.   

Yes, I find if I do everything I can then when there's something I cannot do somebody steps up to the plate.

Heretic

I have a friend like that Heretic, he will help me and I will help him, very useful to as he only lives next door.

A little love and a little unederstanding goes a long way.

Feeling Christmassy polyglide? Happy New Year!

Hope the New Year brings you knowledge and peace so that you can understand others as well. Best wishes, Snowy

Happy new year to you also snowy, have a good one.stu.

Hi Heretic,

I try to convey to others, sometimes baybe not in the manner they appreciate, that God is the best and only way in which I and many others feel mankind will be eventually saved to partake in the life originally intended.

I attempt to show that many theories are not worth the attention many give them.

My own belief is that the gentleman who said.
He did not know how the third world war would be conducted but was certain any fourth world war would be fought with sticks and stones, is nearer the mark than anyone else.

I know the basis of Bible teachings and that they can appear at times to be confusing, the times stated we accept as those of 24hrs in a day etc; but I do not think this to be correct.

If we now had a nuclear war in conjunction with a vast natural disaster that errased all buildings and buried them and left the rest of mankind subject to radiation and other manner of harmful
matters. the people left would possibly return to those of the stone age people and humans would start all over again.

I beleive this has probably happened on several previous occasions in the worlds history and will continue so long as there is one true Christian or until the alloted time God gave Satan to turn everyone against him is up.

I remember another idiot laughing at a corgy just before a bulldog tore him apart.

polyglide wrote:I remember another idiot laughing at a corgy just before a bulldog tore him apart.

What is that even supposed to mean?   

Like I have said before Dan, desperate.

When you start replying instead of attempting insults I will try to educate you.

Yep, it looks far more intelligent than you.

Polyglide my dog and myself are almost psychic with each other, I know exactly what she wants just by her paw movements and head movements, and when I ask her to show me she does either the drawer where her brush is kept or goes to the middle door so I know she wishes to go out OR WHERE i KEEP HER BALL SO i KNOW SHE WANTS TO PLAY. This is from a rescue dog too?

polyglide wrote:Hi Heretic,

If we now had a nuclear war  in conjunction with a vast natural disaster that errased all buildings and buried them and left the rest of mankind subject to radiation and other manner of harmful  
matters. the people left would possibly return to those of the stone age people and humans would start all over again.

I beleive this has probably happened on several previous occasions in the worlds history and will continue so long as there is one true Christian or until the alloted time God gave Satan to turn everyone against him is up.

So in order to break out of a cycle of progress and destruction all we have to do is dispose of the 'true' Christians who are perpetuating the problem.

Since they all think of themselves as "true" Christians they should all go.

polyglide wrote:Hi Heretic,

I try to convey to others, sometimes baybe not in the manner they appreciate, that God is the best and only way in which I and many others feel mankind will be eventually saved to partake in the life originally intended.

I attempt to show that many theories are not worth the attention many give them.

These would have to be properly understood by you in the first place before you could determine that had nothing of value to say.

polyglide wrote:My own belief is that the gentleman who said. He did not know how the third world war would be conducted but was certain any fourth world war would be fought with sticks and stones, is nearer the mark than anyone else.

There is probably more than a grain of truth in that.

polyglide wrote:I know the basis of Bible teachings and that they can appear at times to be confusing, the times stated we accept as those of 24hrs in a day etc; but I do not think this to be correct.

If it does not mean day then why use the word for day? Other words could do like 'time' or 'era' or 'age' or 'eternity' or whatever. The creation myths of less sophisticated societies manage to use less confusing terms.

polyglide wrote:If we now had a nuclear war  in conjunction with a vast natural disaster that errased all buildings and buried them and left the rest of mankind subject to radiation and other manner of harmful matters. the people left would possibly return to those of the stone age people and humans would start all over again

This has been explored in depth in the science fiction genre many times and sometimes what you describe takes place and sometimes technology comes to the rescue. The guiding factor seems to be the skill sets of those that remain.

polyglide wrote:I beleive this has probably happened on several previous occasions in the worlds history and will continue so long as there is one true Christian or until the alloted time God gave Satan to turn everyone against him is up.

On what evidence do you base this?

The flood? If this then some evidence would be nice.

Heretic

Perhaps PG you should stop preaching non-stop, and just have a normal conversation like other posters you may find it more helpful.  

Hi Heritic, I always go by the things I am aware of and in this respect I am aware that there must have been at least one other matter than the Ice Age that had a very profound effect on the earth.

Having worked down a mine for a short period I have been aware of the fact that coal is the product of trees and that the trees must have been subject to a force or forces of a great magnitude
to puit them sometimes over two miles below the earths surface.

Now this could have been the result of one event or a series of events all of which could have buried the life of the times etc;

Between the coal and the earths surface there may be evidence to explain many things and I feel this is most likely.

regards.

polyglide wrote:Between the coal and the earths surface there may be evidence to explain many things and I feel this is most likely.

Like the slow march of time, history itself in the making.

Heretic

As far as I am concerned I believe God provided everything that man needed to have a good and fruitful life.

The world at the present time includes the following;-

Thousands starving to death. There is ample food on earth to feed everyone and leave plenty over the reason people are starving is because of people and not God.

People are killing each other on a daily basis for varying reasons, this is man's doing and not God.

There are millions of people who have no clean drinking water or sanitation this could be resolved over night with the co operation of mankind, this is not God's fault.

Abuse of all kinds of humans is rampant today, this is not God's fault.

Even in countries where they are not in conflict with other countries there are internal problems, this is not God's fault.

Illness abounds that could be helped with the right will with the things available to do so.

The above is just several of many examples that show that mankind is the reason for 100% of man's problems, he has been given the means to solve them but they have not the will.

How do you explain the correlation between the most poverty-stricken nations and high levels of religiosity in relation to those assertions, PG?
Please try and give a straight answer for once (if you can).

Dan Fante wrote:How do you explain the correlation between the most poverty-stricken nations and high levels of religiosity in relation to those assertions, PG?
Please try and give a straight answer for once (if you can).

This might be interesting, I'll sit and wait.



Heretic

polyglide wrote:As far as I am concerned I believe God provided everything that man needed to have a good and fruitful life.

The world at the present time includes the following;-

Thousands starving to death. There is ample food on earth to feed everyone and leave plenty over the reason people are starving  is because of people and not God.

People are killing each other on a daily basis for varying reasons, this is man's doing  and not God.

There are millions of people who have no clean drinking water or sanitation this could be resolved over night with the co operation of mankind, this is not God's fault.

Abuse of all kinds of humans is rampant today, this is not God's fault.

Even in countries where they are not in conflict with other countries there are internal problems, this is not God's fault.

Illness abounds that could be helped with the right will with the things available to do so.

The above is just several of many examples that show that mankind is the reason for 100% of man's problems, he has been given the means to solve them but they have not the will.

 

Believe me when I say - not one single atheist would disagree with you.

Shirina wrote:Believe me when I say - not one single atheist would disagree with you.

Walked into that one didn't he.

Heretic

Then why blame God for man's shorcomings?

I note you've avoided answer my question, PG (and have a look at the previous page before asking 'which one?').

polyglide wrote:Then why blame God for man's shorcomings?

No one is.

What confuses you is when atheists argue from inside of your religion to show how it doesn't make any sense.

Just because we may argue that God is responsible for sin because he created evil as a concept - that doesn't mean we actually believe that God is responsible for anything. We're just showing you how the Christian dogma - what YOU believe - is logically bankrupt.

And when we're done arguing on the forum, atheists walk away from the whole thing without blaming a non-existent entity for anything at all.   

You cannot blame something you think does not exist for anything.

There is far more sense in thinking that there must be a creator that thinking that everything came about by chance.

I have stated many times that the odds of everything coming about by chance are beyond calculation and this is accepted by those who consider all the facts and not supposition and theories that are baseless when the full details are considered.

I know from your posts that you do not believe that intelligence of some kind is not involved and then you must consider how and why

polyglide wrote:You cannot blame something you think does not exist for anything.

That was part of her reasoning. There's a vast difference between believing in something and pointing out the inconsistencies in belief system.

Sure, there was an intelligence - which you believe is the Biblical God - that designed everything. Literally created the entire universe and everything in it from nothingness.

Well ... everything exept evil. And harmful bacteria.

And, he didn't create a planet with lots of natural disasters, either.

He didn't create man's health issues or his propensity for greed or his physical inferiority to almost all other creatures.

Yes, he did create Satan, but despite God's omniscience, had NO idea that Satan was going to end up becoming the Prince of Lies. Wow, what a shocker that turned out to be.

So what to do with an evil traitor and all of his nasty followers? God apparently thought sending Satan to earth so he could torment the mortals was the optimum solution.

But God didn't create concepts like disloyalty and megalomania, so it would seem Satan did that ... well, unless Man was created before Satan. But if that's the case, just who was it hiding in a snake's body to tempt Eve?

God, I suppose, also thought it was a really spiffy idea to let a demon prince trundle around unimpeded in a place that was supposed to be paradise (Eden). Yeah, because if I ever had a paradise, populating it with evil demons would be the FIRST thing I would do ... how about the rest of you?

Uh huh.

But God didn't create any of that - which means God has lost control of his own creation. Whoops, so much for that "divine plan."  I guess things may not happen for a reason after all, and God isn't calling all the shots. Nope, you can't say to a dead soldier's family, "God took him because Heaven needed a hero." Nope, because God might not have had anything to do with it. Perhaps Satan killed the soldier just to make you cry.

OR ... you can admit that God really IS behind everything and thus put the blame for it all where it actually lies - right in front of God's spectacularly polished and licked-clean boots.

Of course, that assumes Christian stories are true ...

polyglide wrote:...I have stated many times that the odds of everything coming about by chance are beyond calculation and this is accepted by those ...

Yes you have and without any supporting evidence. Most people who believe as you do usually have at least one person in science to quote some statistic or other. As a starter you might like to look up Fred Hoyle. He was the astronomer royal back in the 50s (?). He thought as you did and had quite a nice analogy.

The junkyard tornado is an argument used to deride the probability of both abiogenesis and the evolution of higher lifeforms as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.  It was used originally by Fred Hoyle's statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time.  While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay of creationist and intelligent design criticisms of evolution.

You will find a fuller description HERE

Sadly you will find it a little disappointing. The analogy is wrong because it makes a lot of false assumptions. It assumes the process is random - it is not, and it assumes it happened in one go in an instant whereas clearly evolution happened in stages and over a very long period of time. It also ignores the WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE which is entirely relevant.

Like all the false assumptions regarding evolution, only they are clearly wrong, when no one can deny the possibility of God creating everything is not only a possibility but a probability, when all things are cosidered.

Are you sure you are not on the other site under a different name PG? Cos when you are on here he is missing from there and visa versa?

stuart torr wrote:Are you sure you are not on the other site under a different name PG? Cos when you are on here he is missing from there and visa versa?

Perhaps one spins one way and this one the other?

Sort of puts the world back in synch with itself.

:->>

Heretic

didn't sleep all night Heretic mind was a bit awol lol.

No, Iam only interested in the religious aspect and am not on any other site.

polyglide wrote:Like all the false assumptions regarding evolution, only they are clearly wrong, when no one can deny the possibility of God creating everything is not only a possibility but a probability, when all things are cosidered.

Because I always consider magic and the paranormal as the most likely explanation. That's what all smart and superstitious people do.