Religion

Sal316

(3,373 posts) Mon Jan 23, 2012, 12:29 PM Jan 2012

Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God [View all]

In my graduate studies, I learned that every time you formed a hypothesis (God is), you were also required to develop a null hypothesis that says the opposite of your hypothesis (God isn't). Keep in mind that there are no "facts" in science, but rather hypotheses (educated guesses) and theories (hypotheses that have been supported by science, but that may ultimately be disproved). Now, I'm not a scientist, but it makes perfect sense within this model to have the "null hypothesis" that God doesn't exist.

However, to leap from that to certitude of God's non-existence is to violate the principles of the scientific method, isn't it? Even Aristotle conceded that the boundaries of science prohibited it from testing certain metaphysical phenomena such as the existence of God.

Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God

Interesting article.

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God [View all] Sal316 Jan 2012 OP

Rather startling ignorance on what a null hypothesis is dmallind Jan 2012 #1

As I recall rrneck Jan 2012 #2

Yep - just another sad ploy to pretend all atheists must be explicit atheists dmallind Jan 2012 #4

Again we seem to have limited the conversation to the concept of a personal God-- Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #6

Your link doesn't work for me. Jim__ Jan 2012 #7

Thanks, Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #14

The only way I limited that was in my assertion as false dmallind Jan 2012 #11

Tillich is just one link in a long chain Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #15

All to the good, but why is the Bible and not, say, Buddhist texts dmallind Jan 2012 #26

How was Bible compiled tama Jan 2012 #30

Well apart from the anarcho-syndicalist crap, fair questions - just irrelevant to mine. dmallind Jan 2012 #33

Trotsky and Stalin? tama Jan 2012 #34

Were you raised with the God you currently worship? ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #25

Apart from a few theologians kids, who is? nt dmallind Jan 2012 #27

The notion of God as a super human, in a cloud with beard, is very hard to gets rid of. Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #41

So what is the penalty? immoderate Jan 2012 #3

I sort of like this response, as a way of thinking about the topic. MarkCharles Jan 2012 #5

"manmade" tama Jan 2012 #8

I guess you missed the point. MarkCharles Jan 2012 #9

I don't disagree with the point tama Jan 2012 #18

I admire your attempt to compare earlier religious beliefs to ... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #20

Only if you deny succesfull evolutionary adaptation tama Jan 2012 #22

Consider one concept of God that Piatt gives us. Jim__ Jan 2012 #10

Very interesting. Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #16

Keep in mind that there are no "facts" in science FarCenter Jan 2012 #12

Well yes, but he's right in context here I believe dmallind Jan 2012 #13

"Why" is irrelevant FarCenter Jan 2012 #17

"Why" is irrelevant tama Jan 2012 #21

For a 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry, the exponent must be 2 exactly FarCenter Jan 2012 #24

What I said tama Jan 2012 #29

Why do objects have M to 2? dmallind Jan 2012 #28

The force between two masses is proportional to each of the masses FarCenter Jan 2012 #31

I know - but why is mass there? dmallind Jan 2012 #32

"Why" does not apply to mass FarCenter Jan 2012 #35

Not true dmallind Jan 2012 #36

If it is a question of existence, then the answer is --- Mass exists. FarCenter Jan 2012 #37

So does being certain of the non-existence skepticscott Jan 2012 #19

and unicorns are real. lindysalsagal Jan 2012 #23

Is there a china tea pot orbiting the sun or not? AlbertCat Jan 2012 #38

The china tea pot really does exist, its just located directly opposite of us in orbit of the sun. LAGC Jan 2012 #39

so is not believing in unicorns a null hypothesis on unicorns? La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2012 #40