Does God (Christian) exist (Try No.2)

[Mavorpen]

So you're agreeing God doesn't exist then? That was fast.

No, of course I will always be a theist. I just typed "Right". I was impressed by the 3rd paragraph, actually. The truth is, you cannot find proof of God's existence.

No one is asking for "proof".

And well, you're basically admitting god doesn't exist. And I'm fine with that.

[WestRedMaple]

Not really. You lack any evidence that I own a Mazda. That is not evidence that I do not own a Mazda

If you don't have any documentation that says you own a Mazda, it's great evidence to say you don't own a Mazda.

In fact, if you do actually have a Mazda but no documentation, I can make a safe assumption you stole the Mazda or bought it from someone who stole it, or at least that it isn't your Mazda.

Which is irrelevant, since you don't have any knowledge of whether or not I have documentation for a Mazda.

Now, if you found a Mazda title with my name on it, THEN you would have some evidence.

[True American States]

If this isn't locked, I've lost faith in the mods.
In other words, "Obvious flamebait is obvious".

And no doubt this will be a breeding ground for hate and trolls and flame all week. Well...

My answer to the question, is yes. I believe he does. I don't care to argue my point, because I'm perfectly happy not getting called an idiotic monkey.

Kinda proves my point earlier that Atheists are impolite.

[Mavorpen]

No. The default position is that "X is not true/doesn't exist/etc." That's the entire point of the null hypothesis. To test your hypothesis against.

Actually, the correct answer is yes. The default position IS lack of knowledge.

Since you didn't even TRY to address my post, I'll repost it for you.

There is quite a difference between 'I have no reason to believe this exists' and 'I know this does not exist'

The default position is always lack of knowledge

No. The default position is that "X is not true/doesn't exist/etc." That's the entire point of the null hypothesis. To test your hypothesis against.

Hopefully this time you're actually respond to my post instead of shouting "NO!!!!"

[Calisu]

therefore god doesn't exist.

You do not have to find proof of God's existence for God to exist. It will actually be futile for me to point evidences leading toward a God for we all judge evidences based on our assumptions.

Um no. Any evidence that follows the scientific method and proves current assumptions would completely destroy your argument.

[Farnhamia]

Locked pending review. Said review will not be coming from me, so be patient until another Mod gets to it.

[Euroslavia]

So, to be clear, you believe everything people tell you?

Oh yes, very I believe that bears riding pigs that are flying in the sky are very much real, and are not outside of the realm of possibility, due to grafting and genetically splicing pig and bird genes successfully, and training bears for their behavioral functions to be able to ride on a strength-enhanced flying pig without the natural temptations to feast on such a spectacle, and as such, the conclusion can be reached that a bear riding a flying pig can be very real.

This, on top of your signature which read ""Feeding NSG flames with them falling for the bait every time. Just mention something opposite to them, and the bait will hold. A good tip for them falling for it: say that God exists. That'll rustle their jimmies hard.""

Pretty obvious that you should receive a *** Warning for Trolling ***.

[Euroslavia]

Why do you need evidence that I.P.U does not exist? What, you're hating on unicorns now?

Wow.

Please don't feel the troll.

Let's not toss accusations on trolling. If you feel they are, report it in Moderation and do not post in the thread in question. We'll take it from there.

[WestRedMaple]

Actually, the correct answer is yes. The default position IS lack of knowledge.

Since you didn't even TRY to address my post, I'll repost it for you.

No. The default position is that "X is not true/doesn't exist/etc." That's the entire point of the null hypothesis. To test your hypothesis against.

Hopefully this time you're actually respond to my post instead of shouting "NO!!!!"

I did. You have yet to demonstrate how the fact I stated is in any way incorrect. You just said I was wrong and then incorrectly tried to apply the null hypothesis.

Here, I'll prove my point: give even ONE example of the default starting point being something OTHER than lack of knowledge.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't know. He/she may or may not exist.

[WestRedMaple]

That is utterly illogical.

Something either exists or does not, regardless of whether you have found any evidence for it yet.

Well...no shit.

That tells us utterly nothing though.

Actually, it does. It tells us that not seeing something is not the same thing as that thing not existing.

[Mavorpen]

I did. You have yet to demonstrate how the fact I stated is in any way incorrect. You just said I was wrong and then incorrectly tried to apply the null hypothesis.

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Here, I'll prove my point: give even ONE example of the default starting point being something OTHER than lack of knowledge.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

[Mavorpen]

Well...no shit.

That tells us utterly nothing though.

Actually, it does. It tells us that not seeing something is not the same thing as that thing not existing.

So... it doesn't tell us anything? Because, no one actually said anything close to something saying otherwise. You can't see atoms. No one would say that means they don't exist.

If you're openly attacking a straw man, then that's an entirely different story then, and I'll gladly just be quiet and let you go on with that silliness.

[Sun Wukong]

I did. You have yet to demonstrate how the fact I stated is in any way incorrect. You just said I was wrong and then incorrectly tried to apply the null hypothesis.

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Here, I'll prove my point: give even ONE example of the default starting point being something OTHER than lack of knowledge.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be trying testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

Every-time it applies to him, it's "incorrectly applied." Though he can never quite say why.

[WestRedMaple]

I did. You have yet to demonstrate how the fact I stated is in any way incorrect. You just said I was wrong and then incorrectly tried to apply the null hypothesis.

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Here, I'll prove my point: give even ONE example of the default starting point being something OTHER than lack of knowledge.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be trying testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

There we go, you're unable to actually support your claim with even one case.

A null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge. You just gave an example of one being based on prior knowledge in the course of attaining further knowledge.

I'm still challenging you to find something where the default includes knowledge

[Mavorpen]

A null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge. You just gave an example of one being based on prior knowledge in the course of attaining further knowledge.

Um... yeah. No shit. We can't make a null hypothesis with utterly ZERO information. The hell does that have to do with my post?

I'm still challenging you to find something where the default includes knowledge

I have utterly no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. I'll just repost what I said since you didn't address it at all.

I did. You have yet to demonstrate how the fact I stated is in any way incorrect. You just said I was wrong and then incorrectly tried to apply the null hypothesis.

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Here, I'll prove my point: give even ONE example of the default starting point being something OTHER than lack of knowledge.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

[Immoren]

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be trying testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

There we go, you're unable to actually support your claim with even one case.

A null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge. You just gave an example of one being based on prior knowledge in the course of attaining further knowledge.

I'm still challenging you to find something where the default includes knowledge

Why wouldn't null hypothesis be default?

[WestRedMaple]

Actually, it does. It tells us that not seeing something is not the same thing as that thing not existing.

So... it doesn't tell us anything? Because, no one actually said anything close to something saying otherwise. You can't see atoms. No one would say that means they don't exist.

If you're openly attacking a straw man, then that's an entirely different story then, and I'll gladly just be quiet and let you go on with that silliness.

So you should go back and actually read the discussion you were jumping into.

The position was that not having evidence of something means it does not exist.

I pointed out that this position is incorrect.

[WestRedMaple]

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be trying testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

Every-time it applies to him, it's "incorrectly applied." Though he can never quite say why.

Ah, so are unfamiliar with what we are talking about and couldn't actually come up with anything to contribute to the discussion or topic.

But hey, I'll issue the challenge to you as well: can you find a case where the default state was knowledge?

[Sun Wukong]

So... it doesn't tell us anything? Because, no one actually said anything close to something saying otherwise. You can't see atoms. No one would say that means they don't exist.

If you're openly attacking a straw man, then that's an entirely different story then, and I'll gladly just be quiet and let you go on with that silliness.

So you should go back and actually read the discussion you were jumping into.

The position was that not having evidence of something means it does not exist.

I pointed out that this position is incorrect.

There is no sign that Mav has misconstrued anything. Stop accusing others of ineptitude when they argue you into a corner. It makes you look petulant.

[Mavorpen]

So... it doesn't tell us anything? Because, no one actually said anything close to something saying otherwise. You can't see atoms. No one would say that means they don't exist.

If you're openly attacking a straw man, then that's an entirely different story then, and I'll gladly just be quiet and let you go on with that silliness.

So you should go back and actually read the discussion you were jumping into.

The position was that not having evidence of something means it does not exist.

I pointed out that this position is incorrect.

No you didn't. You pointed out that not having evidence and not existing aren't the same thing. They aren't. There not being evidence of something leads to the functional nonexistence of that something. The position doesn't literally mean that something not having evidence renders an existent thing nonexistent. That's stupid and honestly downright silly to pretend it is.

[Mavorpen]

There we go, you're unable to actually support your claim with even one case.

A null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge. You just gave an example of one being based on prior knowledge in the course of attaining further knowledge.

I'm still challenging you to find something where the default includes knowledge

Why wouldn't null hypothesis be default?

Because he says so. Duh.

[Sun Wukong]

Every-time it applies to him, it's "incorrectly applied." Though he can never quite say why.

Ah, so are unfamiliar with what we are talking about and couldn't actually come up with anything to contribute to the discussion or topic.

But hey, I'll issue the challenge to you as well: can you find a case where the default state was knowledge?

Why would I argue in favor of your invented strawman?

[WestRedMaple]

A null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge. You just gave an example of one being based on prior knowledge in the course of attaining further knowledge.

Um... yeah. No shit. We can't make a null hypothesis with utterly ZERO information. The hell does that have to do with my post?

I'm still challenging you to find something where the default includes knowledge

I have utterly no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. I'll just repost what I said since you didn't address it at all.

I didn't "incorrectly apply" anything. You didn't demonstrate how I did. You said, "NO!" and that was the extent of your rebuttal. I can only assume you have no actual response.

Leprechauns took my favorite shirt today between 10 AM and 11 AM.

The default position, or null hypothesis, would be that leprechauns DIDN'T take it. And if I wanted to, for example, try to support my hypothesis that my mom took it to wash it, I would be testing that hypothesis against the default position or null hypothesis. This is how science works.

So you admit that I'm correct. You claimed that the null hypothesis meant that the default was a lack of knowledge. Now you admit that you do need some in order to form the hypothesis.

So null hypothesis obviously was irrelevant to the topic to which you were responding.

[Mavorpen]

Every-time it applies to him, it's "incorrectly applied." Though he can never quite say why.

Ah, so are unfamiliar with what we are talking about and couldn't actually come up with anything to contribute to the discussion or topic.

But hey, I'll issue the challenge to you as well: can you find a case where the default state was knowledge?

You do realize that you're effectively arguing that the null hypothesis is not the default because the null hypothesis is not the default, right?