Why don't Christians read their bibles?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:41 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.
If the universe is indeed proven to be at its capacity as we perceive it at this time then an outside entity wouldn't be needed. That is not the case though as many things and understandings lack the crucial connecting pieces that would make them otherwise complete, comprehensive, and insistent on the lack of further evidence. Y'all call it God of the gaps. In doing so you acknowledge the holes in your singular disconnected hypothesies. In effect making the spot for the hypothesis that I argue about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:41 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  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.
If the universe is indeed proven to be at its capacity as we perceive it at this time then an outside entity wouldn't be needed. That is not the case though as many things and understandings lack the crucial connecting pieces that would make them otherwise complete, comprehensive, and insistent on the lack of further evidence. Y'all call it God of the gaps. In doing so you acknowledge the holes in your singular disconnected hypothesies. In effect making the spot for the hypothesis that I argue about.

Capacity? What exactly do you intend to mean by saying it's at it's capacity. There is no problem not knowing everything when you haven't had time to study all the ranges. It's called acknowledging data as it comes opposed to assuming the conclusion, then working back from 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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
02-10-2015, 03:06 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.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Does the null hypothesis take into consideration personal evidence which may or may not be delusion?

ex:

A person has sleep paralysis and thinks they are attacked by a demon. To them, it is very real. Although there is a scientific explanation, in their mind, they know exactly what happened and/or it was too "real" to be _______.

For this person, evidence has been presented to overturn the thought that demons don't exist. Now, while everyone else may have a null hypothesis about the actuality of demons, this person's anecdotal, personal evidence says otherwise.

To them, is the null hypothesis... well... null? (Dependent on the situation at hand, of course.)

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Does the null hypothesis take into consideration personal evidence which may or may not be delusion?

ex:

A person has sleep paralysis and thinks they are attacked by a demon. To them, it is very real. Although there is a scientific explanation, in their mind, they know exactly what happened and/or it was too "real" to be _______.

For this person, evidence has been presented to overturn the thought that demons don't exist. Now, while everyone else may have a null hypothesis about the actuality of demons, this person's anecdotal, personal evidence says otherwise.

To them, is the null hypothesis... well... null? (Dependent on the situation at hand, of course.)
The fact that things can be explained in scientific terms does not mean that spiritual significance is instantly wiped from the choice of possible scenarios. In know way does sleep paralysis explain away a spiritual connection. It simply shows the physical effects of such an occurrence. To say that the experienced phenomena is solely the effect of the physical properties fails to explain the actual cause of the physical changes that correlate with the experience. They are intertwined in cause and effect as all thought, emotion, feeling, and conclusion seems to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If the universe is indeed proven to be at its capacity as we perceive it at this time then an outside entity wouldn't be needed.

This is a nonsense phrase.

Presumably, you are trying to say that we do not yet know everything about the universe, which is true. And this is why the null hypothesis is explicitly formulated with the proviso that it can be overturned by new evidence.

But the thing is that you need evidence to overturn it. Saying "you don't know everything" is true, but useless.

Speculation is not evidence.

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Does the null hypothesis take into consideration personal evidence which may or may not be delusion?

"Personal evidence" is a nonsense phrase. Evidence is evidence for everyone, or it is not evidence at all.

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  A person has sleep paralysis and thinks they are attacked by a demon. To them, it is very real. Although there is a scientific explanation, in their mind, they know exactly what happened and/or it was too "real" to be _______.

For this person, evidence has been presented to overturn the thought that demons don't exist.

No, it hasn't. One person's irrational behavior does not alter the laws of logic, which is where the null hypothesis comes from.

Logic is very much like mathematics. It is not subjective.

"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
[+] 8 users Like Unbeliever's post
02-10-2015, 03:18 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 03:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If the universe is indeed proven to be at its capacity as we perceive it at this time then an outside entity wouldn't be needed.

This is a nonsense phrase.

Presumably, you are trying to say that we do not yet know everything about the universe, which is true. And this is why the null hypothesis is explicitly formulated with the proviso that it can be overturned by new evidence.

But the thing is that you need evidence to overturn it. Saying "you don't know everything" is true, but useless.

Speculation is not evidence.

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Does the null hypothesis take into consideration personal evidence which may or may not be delusion?

"Personal evidence" is a nonsense phrase. Evidence is evidence for everyone, or it is not evidence at all.

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  A person has sleep paralysis and thinks they are attacked by a demon. To them, it is very real. Although there is a scientific explanation, in their mind, they know exactly what happened and/or it was too "real" to be _______.

For this person, evidence has been presented to overturn the thought that demons don't exist.

No, it hasn't. One person's irrational behavior does not alter the laws of logic, which is where the null hypothesis comes from.

Logic is very much like mathematics. It is not subjective.
Good job.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 03:25 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 03:15 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  In know way does sleep paralysis explain away a spiritual connection.

No, but it does demonstrate that a "spiritual connection" is unnecessary and unevidenced.

Concluding that there is one when it is neither necessary nor indicated is irrational.

"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
02-10-2015, 04:23 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...

No, I think he really is just that thick. He has his delusions and nothing can get through the wall of woo he has woven.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(02-10-2015 02:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Y'all call it God of the gaps. In doing so you acknowledge the holes in your singular disconnected hypothesies. In effect making the spot for the hypothesis that I argue about.

You are actually proud of the fact that you have a god of the gaps argument.... that's insane, even for you.
Facepalm

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
02-10-2015, 07:51 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
That is true as a former Christian I would venture to say that the vast majority of Christians have only read bits and pieces of it. They mostly parrot what they have heard preached. Those are my thoughts exactly though....if it is the true word of god you would think that more Christians would be all over that book!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Maximus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: