"Faith" and "Faith"

[Czernobog]

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

 

[ding]

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

Your null hypothesis was created by your insistence that the lack of said evidence proves God's nonexistence.

I don't need to know who or even how something was created to use it as evidence. It is the nature of all tangible things that they can be used as objective evidence. They can be observed, examined and studied. In fact, this is the basis for science. As science is the study of nature to understand how nature works to make predictions concerning nature.

Again your logic is flawed, it would not be equally rational to assume that a rock shaped like a boat was built by a boat builder.

We live in a universe governed by rules and information. Rules and information are the domain of intelligence. It would be irrational to believe that rules and information are not the domain of intelligence.

We live in a universe where the rules of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions. It would be irrational to believe that the laws of nature did not predestine intelligence to emerge. SETI searches for signs of intelligent life because they expect intelligence to exist in the universe because of their rational belief that intelligence is a natural condition of life because of the laws of nature.

Every stage of the evolution of matter has followed a similar process until such time that consciousness emerged and the universe knows itself. It would be irrational not to recognize the pattern and to project that pattern upon intelligence which is the pinnacle of creation.

We live in a deterministic universe where everything has a reason for happening. It would be irrational to believe that there was no purpose for the universe to exist.

And it would be irrational to believe that the purpose of the universe is not to produce beings that know and create given that everything that has unfolded has unfolded according to the laws of nature and that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation.

 

[ding]

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

My argument is that everything did occur naturally according to the laws of nature and that it isn't an accident or fluke. That the purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. And that the source or matrix of existence is intelligence. That intelligence created intelligence.

So, everything in the universe can be used as evidence of a creator.

You on the other hand are forced to ignore this data and demand evidence that you yourself know to be impossible to examine and yet demand others to produce.

 

[Czernobog]

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

 

[BS Filter]

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

 

[Czernobog]

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. Get back to me when you know what a null hypothesis is.

Lemme help you out:

"Gravity does not exist" - is this a null hypothesis?

 

[BS Filter]

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.



You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. Get back to me when you know what a null hypothesis is.

Lemme help you out:

"Gravity does not exist" - is this a null hypothesis?

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

 

[Meriweather]

My argument is that everything did occur naturally according to the laws of nature and that it isn't an accident or fluke. That the purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. And that the source or matrix of existence is intelligence. That intelligence created intelligence.

So, everything in the universe can be used as evidence of a creator.

You on the other hand are forced to ignore this data and demand evidence that you yourself know to be impossible to examine and yet demand others to produce.

Keep in mind in science, the existence of God is a null hypothesis because we cannot give physical measurements of God Himself. People of faith agree that God is not a physical being, which automatically places Him in the null hypothesis grouping in regards to science.

To study God, we must transfer to metaphysics, philosophy, and spirituality because God cannot be measured. An interesting question is whether reality is the observable--or is the greater reality intelligence? I see this as the point you are making. Is there an intelligence behind the design of the universe, or is it all simply happenstance?

If science wants to argue God, then they need to come over to our playing field (metaphysics, philosophy, and spirituality) instead of always wanting to drag the question into their field of play. Science ONLY deals in what is capable of being measured/observed.

 

[Meriweather]

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

They are not mind games, so much as admitting science is extremely limited as it cannot study God. God is beyond science. If people of faith try to argue God in science, they are limiting themselves. If you come across a person of a scientific bent who wishes to discuss God, invite him to play on the much more expansive philosophical and intellectual field. There is nothing to see (in regards to God) on the science field.

 

[BS Filter]

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

They are not mind games, so much as admitting science is extremely limited as it cannot study God. God is beyond science. If people of faith try to argue God in science, they are limiting themselves. If you come across a person of a scientific bent who wishes to discuss God, invite him to play on the much more expansive philosophical and intellectual field. There is nothing to see (in regards to God) on the science field.

I know this twit from another forum. He's just here to troll.

 

[Meriweather]

I know this twit from another forum. He's just here to troll.

The third Billy Goat Gruff had this to say to trolls--and it worked well for him:

Well, come along! I've got two spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I've got besides two curling-stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.

The troll retreated.

 

[Czernobog]

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. Get back to me when you know what a null hypothesis is.

Lemme help you out:

"Gravity does not exist" - is this a null hypothesis?

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

Actually, it's not. You may be dumb, but I will certainly try not to hold that against all Christians. You are dismissed.

 

[BS Filter]

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. Get back to me when you know what a null hypothesis is.

Lemme help you out:

"Gravity does not exist" - is this a null hypothesis?

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

Actually, it's not. You may be dumb, but I will certainly try not to hold that against all Christians. You are dismissed.

Oh, go to hell. You're nothing but an ignorant troll from Political Hotwire. You can't pull your crap around here.

 

[Czernobog]

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. Get back to me when you know what a null hypothesis is.

Lemme help you out:

"Gravity does not exist" - is this a null hypothesis?

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

Actually, it's not. You may be dumb, but I will certainly try not to hold that against all Christians. You are dismissed.

Oh, go to hell. You're nothing but an ignorant troll from Political Hotwire. You can't pull your crap around here.

Sorry, I guess you didn't get the memo. "You are dismissed" is a polite way of telling you to go fuck yourself. I'm not the one who trolled his way into another's thread to bitch about what a troll he is. so. Go fuck yourself, troll.

 

[ding]

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

I'm pretty good.

You stopped right there because you had no good response.

You take it on faith that God does not exist. I don't have that much faith.

 

[Czernobog]

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

In pretty good.

You stopped right there because you had no good response.

I stopped right there because you were creating a straw man by misrepresenting what a Null Hypothesis is. feel free to circle back around when you want to honestly continue our discussion.

 

[ding]

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.



You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

In pretty good.

You stopped right there because you had no good response.

I stopped right there because you were creating a straw man by misrepresenting what a Null Hypothesis is. feel free to circle back around when you want to honestly continue our discussion.

No. I trapped you in your own trap.

 

[BS Filter]

One man's theory that events aren't related. It's a man made theory which has nothing to do with the Creator.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. Get back to me when you know what a null hypothesis is.

Lemme help you out:

"Gravity does not exist" - is this a null hypothesis?

Oh, go play your mind games somewhere else. You're smart and Christians are dumb is your total argument. Go back to Political Hotwire with your fellow losers.

Actually, it's not. You may be dumb, but I will certainly try not to hold that against all Christians. You are dismissed.

Oh, go to hell. You're nothing but an ignorant troll from Political Hotwire. You can't pull your crap around here.

Sorry, I guess you didn't get the memo. "You are dismissed" is a polite way of telling you to go fuck yourself. I'm not the one who trolled his way into another's thread to bitch about what a troll he is. so. Go fuck yourself, troll.

You don't dismiss anyone, troll. Now go back to your shithole forum with your corrupt mods. I'm here to stop your arrogant derailing of a topic. Go ahead and post and this is what you'll get.

 

[BS Filter]

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.



You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

In pretty good.

You stopped right there because you had no good response.

I stopped right there because you were creating a straw man by misrepresenting what a Null Hypothesis is. feel free to circle back around when you want to honestly continue our discussion.

No one cares about your Null Hypothesis, you arrogant twit.

 

[Czernobog]

Of course i created a null hypothesis. I have always said that. Now admit that without evidence of being created, you cannot use the universe as "evidence of a creator".

See, when I see a boat on the beach, it is logical to assume that it was built by a boat builder. However, if I come across a rock shaped like a boat, is it equally rational to assume that was built by a boat builder? Or, lacking the tell-tale signs of having been created, is it more rational to assume that erosion, and time caused the rock to be so shaped?

Nice try.

Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time.

I stoped right there, because you clearly do not understand what a Null Hypothesis is. Get back to me after you've studied some more.

In pretty good.

You stopped right there because you had no good response.

I stopped right there because you were creating a straw man by misrepresenting what a Null Hypothesis is. feel free to circle back around when you want to honestly continue our discussion.

No. I trapped you in your own trap.

You didn't trap anything. You created a definition for a concept that actually exists, and has a definition, and attempted to create an argument based on your lie. If you want to believe that you accomplished something by lying, that's up to you. but, don't pretend that I have to follow you into your intellectual dishonesty.