Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2017, 05:15 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(23-02-2017 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only form of atheism that even remotely works as a null hypothesis when it come to theism is the sort of rebranded agnostic kind, “a lack of belief”. While others forms of atheistic views, such as physciallism, are not the null hypothesis.

Flatly wrong.

(23-02-2017 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact one can formulate a null hypothesis in regards to someone proposing physciallism is true.

And that null hypothesis would be that physicalism is true, yes. Because physicalism posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities that are not already demonstrable.

You really don't seem to be getting the point here, Tom. The null hypothesis cannot be "reformulated" depending on your point of view. That is not how it works. The only thing that can change the null hypothesis is evidence that an entity or property of an entity that is not already accounted for in the null hypothesis exists.

Physicalism, atheism (yes, even gnostic atheism), and so on are the null hypotheses for their various areas of applicability, because they do not assert the existence of anything that has not been demonstrated to exist. You cannot get around this. It is not something that you can change.

If you want to argue that any of these positions are false, you must present your evidence.

(23-02-2017 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You seem unable to get your head around that idea that positions like physiciallism are not the null hypothesis

Because they are, Tom. You are simply wrong, because you do not understand what the null hypothesis is or how it is determined.

Which is honestly pretty impressive, considering how many times it's been explained to you.

(23-02-2017 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The point that I am making, and the one that you keep failing to grasp, is that the position is incoherent.



Incoherent to who?

To anyone, Tom. Because it is not sufficiently well-defined. That is what "incoherent" means. It does not mean that I do not understand the assertion that you are trying to make; it means that you have failed to actually provide any sort of definable parameters for determining whether or not that assertion is true.

(23-02-2017 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"what about the universe makes you think it is goal-oriented?" with "the fact that it is goal-oriented”.




I said it appears goal-oriented, and that it’s perfectly logical to assume from that appearance, that it is in fact goal-oriented.

Save that you cannot show any sort of goal orientation, not in the least because you have yet to coherently define what you mean by "goal-oriented".

(23-02-2017 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let’s give you an example here, such as a common sense moral direction... Where as in a non-teleological view of nature, such goals can not exist, at best their illusions.

That's not a goal, Tom. Nor does it imply one.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2017, 09:14 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(23-02-2017 05:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And that null hypothesis would be that physicalism is true, yes. Because physicalism posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities that are not already demonstrable.

No physicalism is an alternative hypothesis, not a null hypothesis. Learn the difference. You present lack of belief as a null hypothesis, when it comes to theism. But apparently can’t see why someone can lack a belief in physicalism, in fact many atheists do, who might say there is not enough evidence or data available to confirm it. Such a position can be rendered as a null hypothesis, that the physiciallist would have to disprove. 

If you don’t understand still, perhaps you need to discuss this with whichever professor your learned about the null hypothesis from, so he can correct you.

Quote:If you want to argue that any of these positions are false, you must present your evidence.




The null hypothesis doesn’t require me to present evidence, if you want to argue that physciallism is true, the burden of proof is on you. I lack a belief, it’s your job to convince me that your belief is true.

Quote:Which is honestly pretty impressive, considering how many times it's been explained to you.



You have it wrong buddy, I’m sure any one of your professors, teachers on the subject, would confirm your lack of understanding here.

Quote:That's not a goal, Tom. Nor does it imply one.

Sure it is, to be good is a goal. Just like to get in shape is a goal, etc.. The difference in perception here, is that the latter goals are self-placed, where the former often appears as a goal placed on him intrinsically, and not of his own volition

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2017, 11:19 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(23-02-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-02-2017 05:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And that null hypothesis would be that physicalism is true, yes. Because physicalism posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities that are not already demonstrable.

No physicalism is an alternative hypothesis, not a null hypothesis.

I know the difference, Tom. I have spent the last several pages, repeatedly and patiently, explaining that difference to you. I have explained what the definition of "null hypothesis" is and shown how physicalism, atheism, and so on meet that definition.

You, on the other hand, just run around in circles saying "nuh-uh", because you don't like the fact that logic and reason don't actually support your pet theories.

(23-02-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  if you want to argue that physciallism is true, the burden of proof is on you.

Quite right.

I simply already meet the burden, because physicalism does not posit the existence of any entities or properties of entities that are not already established. As such, it has met its burden of proof, and becomes the null hypothesis.

(23-02-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:That's not a goal, Tom. Nor does it imply one.

Sure it is, to be good is a goal.

Humans having goals or social mores is not indicative of the universe having goals or social mores. These things are entirely sufficiently explained by the null hypothesis - that is, that social animals like humans develop evolutionary tendencies towards certain standards of interaction with one another because it benefits species fitness as a whole, not because of design.

And "humans have goals" is not what you said, anyway. You were arguing, again, for the existence of objective morality - but this is an incoherent concept on its own, and as even its existence cannot be established, it cannot offer much in the way of support for anything.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: