Why don't Christians read their bibles?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
If so then the null hypothesis is a false statement. If someone is not provable one way or another it does not prove itself false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:10 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  What the....


How the fuck did you come to that conclusion? That's some quality mental gymnastics to be able to twist around so completely.

No, you stupid fuck, The Null Hypothesis would state that the person is innocent until it is proven that they have a link to the crime.

Jesus fuck, you're stupid.

Weeping
No shit. The same can be said of a hypothesis. It is plausible until proven not true.

No you shouldn't think things are plausible until not proven not. Plus things don't all work in a if not proven true then it is false manner.

You can just remain not assuming either way. You keep wanting to assume something was lost with spiritual/whatever connection when people in the scientific enlightenment began viewing the world as what they can examine physically.

There is no reason other than desire for assertion to think non-physically interacting in the supernatural essence things exist.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:10 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  What the....


How the fuck did you come to that conclusion? That's some quality mental gymnastics to be able to twist around so completely.

No, you stupid fuck, The Null Hypothesis would state that the person is innocent until it is proven that they have a link to the crime.

Jesus fuck, you're stupid.

Weeping
No shit. The same can be said of a hypothesis. It is plausible until proven not true.

I've given you the definition for the null hypothesis and you STILL manage to get it exactly wrong. You are too stupid for words.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
02-10-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:29 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No shit. The same can be said of a hypothesis. It is plausible until proven not true.

I've given you the definition for the null hypothesis and you STILL manage to get it exactly wrong. You are too stupid for words.
Regardless, is irrelevant as my hypothesis are relevant and pertain to all observable existence in a wholly encompassing fashion. Indeed much more that simply a feasible scenario based on chance, but a comprehensive cohesive explanation that not only explains but guides.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:27 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If so then the null hypothesis is a false statement. If someone is not provable one way or another it does not prove itself false.

Dear god... You've got to be fucking with us... Please please tell me you're just fucking with us for the sake of trolling...

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
02-10-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:32 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:29 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  I've given you the definition for the null hypothesis and you STILL manage to get it exactly wrong. You are too stupid for words.
Regardless, is irrelevant as my hypothesis are relevant and pertain to all observable existence in a wholly encompassing fashion. Indeed much more that simply a feasible scenario based on chance, but a comprehensive cohesive explanation that not only explains but guides.

Yes, and that is what makes there no reason to take anything you say as anything but your wishful hoping view of how you wish reality worked... or you just confirm to that because you want it to seem to make sense to you with order and guiding action as you view it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:32 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:29 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  I've given you the definition for the null hypothesis and you STILL manage to get it exactly wrong. You are too stupid for words.
Regardless, is irrelevant as my hypothesis are relevant and pertain to all observable existence in a wholly encompassing fashion. Indeed much more that simply a feasible scenario based on chance, but a comprehensive cohesive explanation that not only explains but guides.

If you don't know what the null hypothesis is, how can you say it is not relevant to what you're saying.

That's like saying "I have no idea what water is, so it's not relevant to swimming."

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:27 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If so then the null hypothesis is a false statement. If someone is not provable one way or another it does not prove itself false.

Since you seem to be having so much trouble with this, let me lay it out for you.

The null hypothesis is formulated in response to a given question, and is the position which is assumed to be true until evidence is presented to overturn it. It is the starting position from which inquiries are made. In order to fashion an acceptable null hypothesis, it is necessary to find the possible explanation which best satisfies the requirement for parsimony - that is, the null hypothesis is the position which does not posit the existence of any entities or forces not in evidence.

Take, for example, the question of whether or not Bigfoot exists. People claim to have seen Bigfoot, so the question is "did they really see it?". The null hypothesis is "no, Bigfoot sightings are people being mistaken or lying, since we know that people do those things". This is the position that we consider true until evidence is presented to overturn it, because it does not require any unproven entities to explain it.

In the case of the question "was the universe designed?", the null hypothesis is "no". There is no demonstrable requirement for a designer or evidence of one in the universe. Everything seems to have come about through natural processes, without any need or sign of outside intervention. To posit the existence of a designer when there is no apparent need for or evidence of one is to violate parsimony.

Until you present some evidence of a designer, the null hypothesis stands, and we conclude that, no, the universe is not designed.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
02-10-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:33 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:27 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If so then the null hypothesis is a false statement. If someone is not provable one way or another it does not prove itself false.

Dear god... You've got to be fucking with us... Please please tell me you're just fucking with us for the sake of trolling...

Pop's level of logic and comprehension.

[Image: 6nEGAVy.jpg?1]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:27 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If so then the null hypothesis is a false statement. If someone is not provable one way or another it does not prove itself false.

Since you seem to be having so much trouble with this, let me lay it out for you.

The null hypothesis is formulated in response to a given question, and is the position which is assumed to be true until evidence is presented to overturn it. It is the starting position from which inquiries are made. In order to fashion an acceptable null hypothesis, it is necessary to find the possible explanation which best satisfies the requirement for parsimony - that is, the null hypothesis is the position which does not posit the existence of any entities or forces not in evidence.

Take, for example, the question of whether or not Bigfoot exists. People claim to have seen Bigfoot, so the question is "did they really see it?". The null hypothesis is "no, Bigfoot sightings are people being mistaken or lying, since we know that people do those things". This is the position that we consider true until evidence is presented to overturn it, because it does not require any unproven entities to explain it.

In the case of the question "was the universe designed?", the null hypothesis is "no". There is no demonstrable requirement for a designer or evidence of one in the universe. Everything seems to have come about through natural processes, without any need or sign of outside intervention. To posit the existence of a designer when there is no apparent need for or evidence of one is to violate parsimony.

Until you present some evidence of a designer, the null hypothesis stands, and we conclude that, no, the universe is not designed.

Thanks for taking the time to write that out, but I doubt pops will read it and if he does, he'll still think he's right... somehow.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: