Please critique this argument against miracles

[psionl0]

The correct way to misuse 'null hypoithesis' is "No circle exists"

ftfy.

"Null hypothesis" is a term used in statistics to indicate that no relationship exists between two sets of data or two random variables (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis).

If I were to apply it to logic, I would say that it is the negation of x <=> y (meaning that the two way conditional is false - you can have one without the other).

 

[psionl0]

But if you insist, I'd be happy to present the many, many reasons why the Christian god is BS. Care for me go into that litany of absurdities? I would be happy to oblige

You seem incapable of seeing that this is not relevant to the question of God's existence (or not). To put it in more neutral terms:

The statement "I believe that Russell's teapot doesn't exist" is just a simple statement about your belief and needs no justification. Even if somebody says that you are lying, you are not required to justify your statement. They are making a positive claim and the burden is on them to prove it.

The statement "Russell's teapot doesn't exist" is a claim and needs to be justified. Of course, this is easy to do since we know that Russell's teapot is just an analogy. Note that you don't get to use the magic words "null hypothesis" and remove the burden of proof. Similarly, a list of all of the faults with teapots is not evidence that Russell's teapot doesn't exist.

 

[psionl0]

Duplicate post.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You seem incapable of seeing that this is not relevant to the question of God's existence (or not). To put it in more neutral terms:

The statement "I believe that Russell's teapot doesn't exist" is just a simple statement about your belief and needs no justification. Even if somebody says that you are lying, you are not required to justify your statement. They are making a positive claim and the burden is on them to prove it.

Correct so far

The statement "Russell's teapot doesn't exist" is a claim and needs to be justified. Of course, this is easy to do since we know that Russell's teapot is just an analogy. Note that you don't get to use the magic words "null hypothesis" and remove the burden of proof. Similarly, a list of all of the faults with teapots is not evidence that Russell's teapot doesn't exist.

Wrong.
The null hypothesis is clearly that there is no teapot, the claim being that there is one.
You got the analogy upside down.
Sure there could be one, but the claim needs to be substantiated with a list of possible ways of how it got there.

The only legitimate claim about it is that there could be one, not that it exists, since by the parameters of the analogy it is undetectable.

 

[psionl0]

The null hypothesis is clearly that there is no teapot, the claim being that there is one.

Wrong. This is not statistics so "null hypothesis" doesn't apply. "Russell's teapot exists" and "Russell's teapot doesn't exist" are two separate claims and the burden of proof falls upon whoever makes either claim.

If somebody says, "Russell's teapot exists" you don't have to deny that claim (that would be making a counter claim). You can simply challenge that person to prove their claim. If they can't prove their claim then you can dismiss it (which is not the same as denying it).

 

[arthwollipot]

Similarly, a list of all of the faults with teapots is not evidence that Russell's teapot doesn't exist.

What is? Or rather, what could be?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Wrong. This is not statistics so "null hypothesis" doesn't apply. "Russell's teapot exists" and "Russell's teapot doesn't exist" are two separate claims and the burden of proof falls upon whoever makes either claim.

If somebody says, "Russell's teapot exists" you don't have to deny that claim (that would be making a counter claim). You can simply challenge that person to prove their claim. If they can't prove their claim then you can dismiss it (which is not the same as denying it).

you are inconsistent.
The existence or absence of the teapot cannot have the same initial credence.
And the likelihood of something existing that cannot be detected is logically lower than it not existing at all.

 

[psionl0]

The existence or absence of the teapot cannot have the same initial credence.

"Credence" is irrelevant. Something is either true or false. That's it. It doesn't matter if you know which.

You could make an alternative claim such as "The probability that Russel's teapot exists is less than 1 in a million". That might be easier to prove. Of course, if it turns out that the probability is slightly more than 1 in a million then the claim is false.

 

[psionl0]

What is? Or rather, what could be?

The post that you quoted hints at a valid argument.

 

[arthwollipot]

The post that you quoted hints at a valid argument.

I'm interested in what kind of evidence would demonstrate the nonexistence of something. The fact that the teapot is an analogy is irrelevant to that question.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"Credence" is irrelevant. Something is either true or false. That's it. It doesn't matter if you know which.

this is, of course, nonsense.
nothing is ever true with 100% certainty in the absence of Complete Information, which is almost never available.

The ENTIRE point of Reasoning is to make the best assumption given the available argument.
And reason dictates that it is more likely there there is no invisible, undetectable elephant pooing on my shoes at this very moment than there being one.

If you want to do the "we can never know" thing, then you are just admitting that you do not want to make a reasoned argument.

 

[acbytesla]

You seem incapable of seeing that this is not relevant to the question of God's existence (or not). To put it in more neutral terms:

The statement "I believe that Russell's teapot doesn't exist" is just a simple statement about your belief and needs no justification. Even if somebody says that you are lying, you are not required to justify your statement. They are making a positive claim and the burden is on them to prove it.

The statement "Russell's teapot doesn't exist" is a claim and needs to be justified. Of course, this is easy to do since we know that Russell's teapot is just an analogy. Note that you don't get to use the magic words "null hypothesis" and remove the burden of proof. Similarly, a list of all of the faults with teapots is not evidence that Russell's teapot doesn't exist.

WOW! Totally wrong and totally misses the point.

Yes, I concede that Russell's teapot is an analogy. But it's an analogy FOR EVERY GOD CLAIM. It demonstrates the absurdity of attempting to disprove the existence of the unfalsifiable. And no, you cannot disprove its existence by calling it an analogy. What if I said, no, it's not an analogy. It's real and you damn well need to take that back. The teapot can be mean and spiteful. And non-believers are destined to be fuel for the fire to heat the tea.

I can't disprove the moronic and inane claims of every invisible, spaceless, timeless, god that every fool is praying to. But you can't disprove the existence of the very real, Roland, the all powerful, invisible closet goblin.

 

[stanfr]

ftfy.

"Null hypothesis" is a term used in statistics to indicate that no relationship exists between two sets of data or two random variables (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis).

If I were to apply it to logic, I would say that it is the negation of x <=> y (meaning that the two way conditional is false - you can have one without the other).

Per AI:

Yes, "there is no god" can be considered a null hypothesis in the context of discussing the existence of a god or gods. In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis is the default assumption, and it's what researchers try to disprove. If evidence fails to disprove the null hypothesis, it is "fail to reject" the null, but not necessarily "accepted".

Substitute "circle' for God, and you can see I was using the 'null hypothesis' correctly in my response, albeit not in a statistical sense.

Regardless of the formal logic,
You still are confused about burden of proof. If I make the claim that "no invisible unicorn named Frank exists under my bed"--what do you consider proof of that claim? I can demonstrate evidence of its absence--take some photos of nothing, call out its name and nothing answers. Is that good enough for you? It's evidence, so the burden of proof shifts to you; prove that I'm wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

Per AI:

Yes, "there is no god" can be considered a null hypothesis in the context of discussing the existence of a god or gods. In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis is the default assumption, and it's what researchers try to disprove. If evidence fails to disprove the null hypothesis, it is "fail to reject" the null, but not necessarily "accepted".

Substitute "circle' for God, and you can see I was using the 'null hypothesis' correctly in my response, albeit not in a statistical sense.

Regardless of the formal logic,
You still are confused about burden of proof. If I make the claim that "no invisible unicorn named Frank exists under my bed"--what do you consider proof of that claim? I can demonstrate evidence of its absence--take some photos of nothing, call out its name and nothing answers. Is that good enough for you? It's evidence, so the burden of proof shifts to you; prove that I'm wrong.

But God Damn It. Photos doesn't prove that Frank is not there! Frank doesn't reflect photons!

 

[psionl0]

Per AI:

Let me guess: You asked AI "Can 'there is no god' be considered a null hypothesis?" and AI agreed because that is what atheists constantly assert in discussion forums.

Even if it could be considered the case, there is no statistical set of tests that you could run to test the alternate hypothesis and certainly none where you could reduce the probability of a type II error to an arbitrarily small value. You can't even calculate the probability of a type II error.

If I make the claim that "no invisible unicorn named Frank exists under my bed"--what do you consider proof of that claim?

I am not the arbiter of proof. Your claim, your burden. Something doesn't become true because you can't disprove that it is true and can't prove that it is false. Something doesn't become false because you can't disprove that it is false and can't prove that it is true. You wan't "obviously true" or "obviously false" to mean that the burden of proof is removed otherwise there is an infinite variety of nonsensical statements that can't be logically rejected. Unfortunately, no such principle exists in logic.

In this particular instance, I would say "I believe you" because (to the best of my knowledge) nobody has stated the negation of your claim. If nobody challenges your claim then you don't have to prove anything to anybody. The status of the claim might still be "unknown" but nobody cares.

 

[psionl0]

But it's an analogy FOR EVERY GOD CLAIM.

You just emotionalized the debate again by bringing God back in and your use of all-caps shows that you are so emotional about this that rational discussion will not be possible.

 

[acbytesla]

You just emotionalized the debate again by bringing God back in and your use of all-caps shows that you are so emotional about this that rational discussion will not be possible.

God has been in the conversation since the very beginning. What do you think Russell's teapot is an analogy for? There is nothing irrational about my post. If ALL CAPS disturbs you I won't use them. But I stand by the text. The Celestial Teapot is an analogy for every unfalsifiable God claim.

 

[stanfr]

Let me guess: You asked AI "Can 'there is no god' be considered a null hypothesis?" and AI agreed because that is what atheists constantly assert in discussion forums.

Even if it could be considered the case, there is no statistical set of tests that you could run to test the alternate hypothesis and certainly none where you could reduce the probability of a type II error to an arbitrarily small value. You can't even calculate the probability of a type II error.

Sucks, doesn't it?

I am not the arbiter of proof. Your claim, your burden. Something doesn't become true because you can't disprove that it is true and can't prove that it is false. Something doesn't become false because you can't disprove that it is false and can't prove that it is true. You wan't "obviously true" or "obviously false" to mean that the burden of proof is removed otherwise there is an infinite variety of nonsensical statements that can't be logically rejected. Unfortunately, no such principle exists in logic.

In this particular instance, I would say "I believe you" because (to the best of my knowledge) nobody has stated the negation of your claim. If nobody challenges your claim then you don't have to prove anything to anybody. The status of the claim might still be "unknown" but nobody cares.

Glad you believe me, that's a good first step. Wonderful, now let's change my statement to "There is no God"
What do you think constitutes adequate proof of that statement?
How about the lack of any evidence for the contrary statement--is that sufficient?

 

[psionl0]

Wonderful, now let's change my statement to "There is no God"

That is a statement that a lot of people would care if it were true or false.
Since there is no way to test it (and can't prove the alternative doesn't render the statement true) all you can do is choose to believe or not believe.

 

[acbytesla]

Sucks, doesn't it?

Glad you believe me, that's a good first step. Wonderful, now let's change my statement to "There is no God"
What do you think constitutes adequate proof of that statement?
How about the lack of any evidence for the contrary statement--is that sufficient?

Great question. Here's another. How do I prove I didn't murder my wife? Spouses are commonly the most likely suspects.