Do you believe in Evolution?

[The Tovian Way]

It does not point to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy if one denies that happiness is, in every respect, good and that tragedy or suffering is, in every respect, evil. It might very well be the case that some happiness is not good, and/or that some tragedy or suffering is not evil.

Which begs the question: why would any of these concepts be necessary for an omnipotent deity?

I'm not here claiming that any of these concepts are necessary. I was responding to the claim of incoherency between the theory of evolution via natural selection and Christian theism, and Christian theism claims that God has these attributes, so I took them as granted to show that Christian theism is not incompatible with the theory of evolution via natural selection, and thus that there is no necessary incoherency in supporting Christian theistic evolution.

[Utceforp]

He wouldn't want imperfect creatures, because he's omnibenevolent.

I don't see how this follows. There doesn't seem to be any conflict a priori between omnibenevolence and a desire to create imperfect creatures.
For an example, keeping it understood that this is merely an example rather than a claim I am asserting, it is entirely possible that the omnibenevolent God desires not merely perfect creatures, but creatures who, through their own effort and in dependence upon Him as creator, become perfect. Such a God would therefore create creatures imperfect, so that they may become perfect during their mortal existence, or become moreso at least.

Okay, so a perfect being that is humble due to having been imperfect is better than a being that was created perfect. So why didn't God just create a perfect being, create some memories of being imperfect, and implant them into the perfect being's brain. Why go to the effort of letting your creations start imperfect and become perfect when you can just make them think they were imperfect earlier?

[Liriena]

How about practicality? Even with your rationale, the entire know process through which our Universe and our species came to be is awfully impractical and wasteful.

If God is timeless, omnipotent and created the world out of nothing, as Christianity asserts, then no manner of creation is impractical, because God can actualize any logically possible means of creation He wishes, and choosing the one He did wastes none of His existence, since He is timeless, and none of His materials, since He used no material to create the world in the first place.

What sort of clusterfuck is this?

[Riiser-Larsen]

How about practicality? Even with your rationale, the entire know process through which our Universe and our species came to be is awfully impractical and wasteful.

If God is timeless, omnipotent and created the world out of nothing, as Christianity asserts, then no manner of creation is impractical, because God can actualize any logically possible means of creation He wishes, and choosing the one He did wastes none of His existence, since He is timeless, and none of His materials, since He used no material to create the world in the first place.

If God is timeless, then that would imply that he is being both created and destroyed at the same time, as all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation. How can it possibly seem logical that there is a being which is immortal, violates all laws of reality, and exists out of time?

[Neo Rome Republic]

So something is false until proven true?

Of course not. It's a hypothesis until supported through evidence or until refuted through evidence which renders it invalid. Then the hypothesis must be either reformulated or abandoned.

A hypothesis is neither true nor false until it's tested. It's a prediction—sometimes a very well-educated one and sometimes not—and should be treated as such.

But I thought supernatural concepts were not Scientific. Wasn't I told that God, wasn't a hypothesis?

[The Tovian Way]

That's twice now I've asked you to back up your claim that "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God." and twice now that you've avoided attempting to do so, either through repetition of the claim or changing the subject

Which is funny because this is precisely what you have done since the beginning. I HAVE explained this. You refused to listen. So I'll try again. I'll fucking hold your hand.

When you make a hypothesis (keep in mind you haven't even done so), you are testing it against the null hypothesis. The null hyppthesis is always X is not true or does not exist. It is up to YOU to disprove the null hypothesis and demonstrate your hypothesis has a better probability of being true than it.

And so, I asked you to provide evidence for your claim in place of your nonexistant hypothesis. You refused to do so and therefore disprove the null hypothesis, which is that God (or X) does not exist.

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

[Liriena]

Which begs the question: why would any of these concepts be necessary for an omnipotent deity?

I'm not here claiming that any of these concepts are necessary. I was responding to the claim of incoherency between the theory of evolution via natural selection and Christian theism, and Christian theism claims that God has these attributes, so I took them as granted to show that Christian theism is not incompatible with the theory of evolution via natural selection, and thus that there is no necessary incoherency in supporting Christian theistic evolution.

Except there is, in the fact that the Universe itself in no way suggests an anthropocentric designer.

If God is timeless, omnipotent and created the world out of nothing, as Christianity asserts, then no manner of creation is impractical, because God can actualize any logically possible means of creation He wishes, and choosing the one He did wastes none of His existence, since He is timeless, and none of His materials, since He used no material to create the world in the first place.

If God is timeless, then that would imply that he is being both created and destroyed at the same time, as all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation. How can it possibly seem logical that there is a being which is immortal, violates all laws of reality, and exists out of time?

No...because MAGIC!

[Kantria]

Of course not. It's a hypothesis until supported through evidence or until refuted through evidence which renders it invalid. Then the hypothesis must be either reformulated or abandoned.

A hypothesis is neither true nor false until it's tested. It's a prediction—sometimes a very well-educated one and sometimes not—and should be treated as such.

But I thought supernatural concepts were not Scientific. Wasn't I told, it wasn't a hypothesis?

They aren't. What exactly do you think I just said?

[Bottle]

Of course not. It's a hypothesis until supported through evidence or until refuted through evidence which renders it invalid. Then the hypothesis must be either reformulated or abandoned.

A hypothesis is neither true nor false until it's tested. It's a prediction—sometimes a very well-educated one and sometimes not—and should be treated as such.

But I thought supernatural concepts were not Scientific. Wasn't I told, it wasn't a hypothesis?

Do you want to propose a hypothesis about the supernatural? Please do!

[Nationalist State of Knox]

They're not treated as scientific facts, they are scientific facts.

ARRRRGH.

No.

Ok.

Evolution occurs. This is a fact. It is a thing that happens.

When people talk about "the theory of evolution," they are actually talking about the theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection. Calling it "the theory of evolution" is like how you call someone Bill when their full name is William. It's a nickname, that's all.

The Big Bang is a model for what happened. It is a theory.

A principle is not a hypothesis or theory. A principle is like a law: it describes a fundamental behavior or reality. It does not posit a mechanism or explanation, but rather is a the distilled result of repeated observation. It describes what is.

So:

EVOLUTION is a fact.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION (often nicknamed the Theory of Evolution) is the really really really really really really really well supported collection of piles and piles of hypotheses which, together, describe how evolution happens.

The BIG BANG THEORY is the prevailing cosmological model for how the universe came to exist. It is a scientific theory. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists and is the defining model for our current study of cosmology.

The HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE is a principle. It does not try to explain why or how anything is happening, but rather it is a description of what does happen.

I was actually talking about evolution, which was the subject of the post in question.

[The Black Forrest]

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

And he took that biscuit and ate it.

But was it a good biscuit and more importantly; why didn't he share?

[Utceforp]

Which is funny because this is precisely what you have done since the beginning. I HAVE explained this. You refused to listen. So I'll try again. I'll fucking hold your hand.

When you make a hypothesis (keep in mind you haven't even done so), you are testing it against the null hypothesis. The null hyppthesis is always X is not true or does not exist. It is up to YOU to disprove the null hypothesis and demonstrate your hypothesis has a better probability of being true than it.

And so, I asked you to provide evidence for your claim in place of your nonexistant hypothesis. You refused to do so and therefore disprove the null hypothesis, which is that God (or X) does not exist.

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

Nope. That's exactly the opposite of what we believe. Any hypothesis which is not proven is false.

[Orham]

What sort of clusterfuck is this?

It basically means God used cheat codes.

[Shelstein]

This has to be the 49059205905982495th thread on this.

[Mavorpen]

Which is funny because this is precisely what you have done since the beginning. I HAVE explained this. You refused to listen. So I'll try again. I'll fucking hold your hand.

When you make a hypothesis (keep in mind you haven't even done so), you are testing it against the null hypothesis. The null hyppthesis is always X is not true or does not exist. It is up to YOU to disprove the null hypothesis and demonstrate your hypothesis has a better probability of being true than it.

And so, I asked you to provide evidence for your claim in place of your nonexistant hypothesis. You refused to do so and therefore disprove the null hypothesis, which is that God (or X) does not exist.

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

No. You don't prove hypotheses to be true, you only disprove them or attempt to promote the hypothesis to the status of theory.

For fucks sake what did they teach you in high school science?

[Riiser-Larsen]

Which is funny because this is precisely what you have done since the beginning. I HAVE explained this. You refused to listen. So I'll try again. I'll fucking hold your hand.

When you make a hypothesis (keep in mind you haven't even done so), you are testing it against the null hypothesis. The null hyppthesis is always X is not true or does not exist. It is up to YOU to disprove the null hypothesis and demonstrate your hypothesis has a better probability of being true than it.

And so, I asked you to provide evidence for your claim in place of your nonexistant hypothesis. You refused to do so and therefore disprove the null hypothesis, which is that God (or X) does not exist.

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

Because the burden of proof lies with someone trying to prove something, therefore the alternative must be true. If I said that there was a teapot floating between Earth and the Sun, then even though there is no way to prove it and thus the null hypothesis is true, that we should suddenly start warning our astronauts to watch out for a floating teapot?

[Neo Rome Republic]

But I thought supernatural concepts were not Scientific. Wasn't I told, it wasn't a hypothesis?

Do you want to propose a hypothesis about the supernatural? Please do!

Nope, but right now I'm a sad and confused Atheist.

[The Tovian Way]

I don't see how this follows. There doesn't seem to be any conflict a priori between omnibenevolence and a desire to create imperfect creatures.
For an example, keeping it understood that this is merely an example rather than a claim I am asserting, it is entirely possible that the omnibenevolent God desires not merely perfect creatures, but creatures who, through their own effort and in dependence upon Him as creator, become perfect. Such a God would therefore create creatures imperfect, so that they may become perfect during their mortal existence, or become moreso at least.

Okay, so a perfect being that is humble due to having been imperfect is better than a being that was created perfect. So why didn't God just create a perfect being, create some memories of being imperfect, and implant them into the perfect being's brain. Why go to the effort of letting your creations start imperfect and become perfect when you can just make them think they were imperfect earlier?

Again, why wouldn't he? What I gave you was merely an example, but there's no reason why an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want imperfect creatures as imperfect creatures, much less why He wouldn't want them to become perfect, or moreso, by their own actions. I was showing that the omnibenevolence of God does not necessitate that He would create only perfect creatures.

[Riiser-Larsen]

This has to be the 49059205905982495th thread on this.

So? It's still fun to argue over.

[Neo Rome Republic]

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

Because the burden of proof lies with someone trying to prove something, therefore the alternative must be true. If I said that there was a teapot floating between Earth and the Sun, then even though there is no way to prove it and thus the null hypothesis is true, that we should suddenly start warning our astronauts to watch out for a floating teapot?

So the idea that, God does not exist it is true until proven otherwise, correct?

[Riiser-Larsen]

Because the burden of proof lies with someone trying to prove something, therefore the alternative must be true. If I said that there was a teapot floating between Earth and the Sun, then even though there is no way to prove it and thus the null hypothesis is true, that we should suddenly start warning our astronauts to watch out for a floating teapot?

So the idea that, God does not exist it is true until proven, correct?

Yes, exactly. At least from a knowledge base. If we proved it then based on the nature of god it would have always been true, but unless that happens the opposite is true.

[Bottle]

Which is funny because this is precisely what you have done since the beginning. I HAVE explained this. You refused to listen. So I'll try again. I'll fucking hold your hand.

When you make a hypothesis (keep in mind you haven't even done so), you are testing it against the null hypothesis. The null hyppthesis is always X is not true or does not exist. It is up to YOU to disprove the null hypothesis and demonstrate your hypothesis has a better probability of being true than it.

And so, I asked you to provide evidence for your claim in place of your nonexistant hypothesis. You refused to do so and therefore disprove the null hypothesis, which is that God (or X) does not exist.

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

Gonna guess "no," since that's not how science works...

It is scientifically impossible to "prove" any hypothesis. You can either disprove it or you can fail to disprove it. If you fail to disprove your hypothesis, then that can be considered support for your hypothesis...at which point you propose more ways to disprove the hypothesis.

You keep doing this until you either find something that disproves your hypothesis or you run out of ideas for how to try, at which point you ask your colleagues to come up with ideas for how to disprove your hypothesis. If you run through all their ideas and STILL don't disprove it, then you publish and ask everyone else in your field to come up with ideas for how to disprove your hypothesis.

Once you've run through all of those ideas on how to disprove your hypothesis (which will take years at the very least, and can take multiple lifetimes in many cases), your hypothesis--and the various other related hypotheses which will have become related to it over the course of all this research--may reach the esteemed status of being a Theory.

And you know what?

You still won't think you've proven it.

[Utceforp]

Okay, so a perfect being that is humble due to having been imperfect is better than a being that was created perfect. So why didn't God just create a perfect being, create some memories of being imperfect, and implant them into the perfect being's brain. Why go to the effort of letting your creations start imperfect and become perfect when you can just make them think they were imperfect earlier?

Again, why wouldn't he? What I gave you was merely an example, but there's no reason why an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want imperfect creatures as imperfect creatures, much less why He wouldn't want them to become perfect, or moreso, by their own actions. I was showing that the omnibenevolence of God does not necessitate that He would create only perfect creatures.

Imperfection implies that there is something wrong with the imperfect being in question. An omnibenevolent god would not want there to be something wrong in his creation, because he's omnibenevolent.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So the idea that, God does not exist it is true until proven, correct?

Yes, exactly.

Thank you. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

[The Tovian Way]

If God is timeless, omnipotent and created the world out of nothing, as Christianity asserts, then no manner of creation is impractical, because God can actualize any logically possible means of creation He wishes, and choosing the one He did wastes none of His existence, since He is timeless, and none of His materials, since He used no material to create the world in the first place.

If God is timeless, then that would imply that he is being both created and destroyed at the same time, as all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation. How can it possibly seem logical that there is a being which is immortal, violates all laws of reality, and exists out of time?

God's timelessness does not imply any kind of creation or destruction.
I see no reason to accept the claim that all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation; every observed material being capable of conscious thinking does eventually degrade, but that is a far cry from saying that all beings whatsoever capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation.
Which law of reality is God violating? If God exists outside the spacetime apparatus of creation, which Christians claim He does, then it would be odd to assume He must be bound by the laws which operate within the spacetime apparatus of creation.