"Faith" and "Faith"

[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 one cares about your Null Hypothesis, you arrogant twit.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

I already have dismissed you fucktard. Go guck yourself.
That is the only response that trolls get. So. Go fuck yourself.

 

[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.

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.

And you interjected a false narrative with your "Null Hypothesis". You've got a lot of nerve to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty with your false narratives and trolling.

 

[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.

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.

Go fuck yourself.

Go to hell, you arrogant trolling twit.

 

[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.

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.

Go fuck yourself.

Go to hell, you arrogant trolling twit.

See, this isn't Political Hotwire. My hands aren't tied here, forcing me to just politely put up with trolls like you. I can tell trolls to go fuck themselves. So, guess what...

Go fuck yourself.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

Go fuck yourself.

Go to hell, you arrogant trolling twit.

See, this isn't Political Hotwire. My hands aren't tied here, forcing me to just politely put up with trolls like you. I can tell trolls to go fuck themselves. So, guess what...

Go fuck yourself.

The mods at PH put up with leftist trash like you and ban Christian conservatives. You can scream all you want at me and I ain't going anywhere. Your game is done here.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Go fuck yourself.

Go to hell, you arrogant trolling twit.

See, this isn't Political Hotwire. My hands aren't tied here, forcing me to just politely put up with trolls like you. I can tell trolls to go fuck themselves. So, guess what...

Go fuck yourself.

The mods at PH put up with leftist trash like you and ban Christian conservatives. You can scream all you want at me and I ain't going anywhere. Your game is done here.

Actually, you;'re the only one done here, troll. This is another nice thing about this Forum. One I put you on ignore, I don't even see that you have posted, let alone what your post is. So, for the last time, before I ignore your trolling ass, go fuck yourself. Have fun screaming to yourself, as you will never be a valid part of any conversation I have again. Buh bye.

 

[BS Filter]

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

Go fuck yourself.

Go to hell, you arrogant trolling twit.

See, this isn't Political Hotwire. My hands aren't tied here, forcing me to just politely put up with trolls like you. I can tell trolls to go fuck themselves. So, guess what...

Go fuck yourself.

The mods at PH put up with leftist trash like you and ban Christian conservatives. You can scream all you want at me and I ain't going anywhere. Your game is done here.

Actually, you;'re the only one done here, troll. This is another nice thing about this Forum. One I put you on ignore, I don't even see that you have posted, let alone what your post is. So, for the last time, before I ignore your trolling ass, go fuck yourself. Have fun screaming to yourself, as you will never be a valid part of any conversation I have again. Buh bye.

LOL. Loser.

 

[ding]

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.

No. It's all in black in white in this thread. I trapped you in your own trap. It was pretty funny.

 

[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.

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.

No. It's all in black in white in this thread. I trapped you in your own trap. It was pretty funny.

Okay. Let's back up, shall we. Give me a few minutes to type out my response to your lies.

 

[ding]

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.

No. It's all in black in white in this thread. I trapped you in your own trap. It was pretty funny.

Okay. Let's back up, shall we. Give me a few minutes to type out my response to your lies.

The only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

So you have no way to verify his existence by your own choice because you are taking it on faith that he does not exist.

If you were not taking it on faith that he did not exist then you would study the evidence of what he created as evidence and deduce his existence using logic.

 

[ding]

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]

It would be irrational to be a materialist and reject all forms beyond the material world because we have first hand knowledge of intelligence. It would be irrational to believe that nothing matters beyond well-being and the accumulation of material goods. It would be irrational to reject the requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature than man. Such that human life does not have any higher meaning than earthly pleasure and pain. No man can ever be satisfied by that because he was made for more.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Our task on earth should be more spiritual; not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

 

[ding]

C.S. Lewis weighs in on the objective evidence we have at our fingertips...

"...Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?..."

 

[Czernobog]

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.

This is a lie. A Null hypothesis demands nothing except to be rejected by virtue of verifiable, objective evidence. Since you insist that such evidence can not be provided, the Null Hypothesis stands as valid. Do feel free to revisit the Null Hypothesis when you are able to provide objective, verifiable evidence to reject it.

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.

You're right,. You don't need to know anything about the creator to use his/her creation to infer information about the creator. However, you do need to know that the thing you are examining is created. Since you have no credible evidence that dictates that the universwe was created, the universe cannot serve as any evidence to infer anything about a creator.

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

Of course you can't. that is my point. anything that is created exhibits tell-tale signs. A rock exhibits none of those signs.

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.

Neither rules, nor information is the domain of anything. Recognition of rules, and Comprehension of information are the domains of intelligence. Guess who recognises the physical lwas of the universe? Us. Guess who conprehends the information gathered from observation of the universe? Us. The only intelligence that the rules, and information gathered by observation demonstrates is ours.

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.

It is not irrational at all. The very causal nature of the universe dictates that, given enough time, a intelligence would form, in accordance with the laws of physics. There is nothing about the progression of the universe that requires an outside intelligence.

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.

And it followed that process in accordance with the law of causality, and the Heidenberg principle. Not only, no intelligence necessary, but, as I have explained elsewhere, the Law of causality prevents outside influence.

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.

No, we don't. We live in causal universe, there is a difference. The Heisenberg princiuple, in fact, insures that the universe is not deterministic.

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.

What is irrational is to presume that there is any "purpose" to the universe.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No. It's all in black in white in this thread. I trapped you in your own trap. It was pretty funny.

Okay. Let's back up, shall we. Give me a few minutes to type out my response to your lies.

The only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

So you have no way to verify his existence by your own choice because you are taking it on faith that he does not exist.

If you were not taking it on faith that he did not exist then you would study the evidence of what he created as evidence and deduce his existence using logic.

A null hypothesis is not evidence. It is a position that is waiting to be rejected by objective, verifiable evidence.

 

[ding]

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.

No. It's all in black in white in this thread. I trapped you in your own trap. It was pretty funny.

Okay. Let's back up, shall we. Give me a few minutes to type out my response to your lies.

The only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

So you have no way to verify his existence by your own choice because you are taking it on faith that he does not exist.

If you were not taking it on faith that he did not exist then you would study the evidence of what he created as evidence and deduce his existence using logic.

A null hypothesis is not evidence. It is a position that is waiting to be rejected by objective, verifiable evidence.

In post #85 you wrote "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

In post#104 I asked you what evidence you wanted.

In post #106 you wrote that you wanted direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe.

In post #88 I pointed out that your position that you would alter your belief was a null hypothesis because it required something outside of space and time to be measured and observed by something inside of space and time.

You are an idiot QED.

 

[ding]

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.

There are many things in nature which science does not directly measure. Einstein's GToR to name one. Evolution to name another. But there are many many others. In fact, I suspect most things are indirectly measured. We believe they are right though because of the indirect measurements and logic and reason; because it makes sense. I am not doing anything differently here.

His null hypothesis was requiring evidence he knows he cannot measure. He literally said that direct measurement was necessary for him to change his mind. That is a null hypothesis.

I on the other hand say that I can indirectly measure God's existence and that logic and reason tell me that it makes perfect sense. Such that it requires less of a leap in logic for me to hold my beliefs than his leap in logic to hold his beliefs.

 

[badger2]

#158, you have exquisitely defined stupidity.

 

[ding]

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.

This is a lie. A Null hypothesis demands nothing except to be rejected by virtue of verifiable, objective evidence. Since you insist that such evidence can not be provided, the Null Hypothesis stands as valid. Do feel free to revisit the Null Hypothesis when you are able to provide objective, verifiable evidence to reject it.

In post #85 you wrote "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

In post#104 I asked you what evidence you wanted.

In post #106 you wrote that you wanted direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe.

In post #88 I pointed out that your position that you would alter your belief was a null hypothesis because it required something outside of space and time to be measured and observed by something inside of space and time.

You're right,. You don't need to know anything about the creator to use his/her creation to infer information about the creator. However, you do need to know that the thing you are examining is created. Since you have no credible evidence that dictates that the universwe was created, the universe cannot serve as any evidence to infer anything about a creator.

There is more than enough objective evidence that space and time were created ~14 billion years ago. And since that time matter and energy has just changed form. For you to argue otherwise is to argue against science.

Of course you can't. that is my point. anything that is created exhibits tell-tale signs. A rock exhibits none of those signs.

There is more than enough objective indirect evidence that points to intelligence behind existence. We have first hand knowledge of intelligence. You are without excuse because the evidence is plain to see in what that intelligence has created.

Neither rules, nor information is the domain of anything. Recognition of rules, and Comprehension of information are the domains of intelligence. Guess who recognises the physical lwas of the universe? Us. Guess who conprehends the information gathered from observation of the universe? Us. The only intelligence that the rules, and information gathered by observation demonstrates is ours.

Rules are 100% the domain of intelligence. That there are underlying rules which govern the behavior of everything is a sign of a greater intelligence. The very fabric of existence is governed by rules. It is because we are able to examine ourselves that we are able to make the inference that there is intelligence behind existence. We can use our own experiences as a proxy. When we create something it is the realization of our intention that was created for a purpose. The more complex the creation the greater intelligence required. When we create something it is created in steps or stages. The more complex the creation the greater number of steps or stages required.

It is not irrational at all. The very causal nature of the universe dictates that, given enough time, a intelligence would form, in accordance with the laws of physics. There is nothing about the progression of the universe that requires an outside intelligence.

Of course it would be irrational to believe that there is not intelligence behind the laws of nature. The laws of nature existed before space and time and produced intelligence. Logic requires a first cause that is eternal and unchanging. And given that our own experiences tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and given that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation, it would be irrational to believe there was not intelligence behind creation especially given the incredible complexity of nature.

And it followed that process in accordance with the law of causality, and the Heidenberg principle. Not only, no intelligence necessary, but, as I have explained elsewhere, the Law of causality prevents outside influence.

And you made no sense whatsoever when you tried to do so. As to the Uncertainty principle, how do you know that isn't the creator's backdoor program? You don't.

No, we don't. We live in causal universe, there is a difference. The Heisenberg princiuple, in fact, insures that the universe is not deterministic.

You don't understand the Uncertainty principle. I do. You are wrong. Quantum mechanics do not violate the laws of nature. You live in a deterministic universe governed by laws and rules where every cause has an effect. To argue causality is anything more or less is stupid.

What is irrational is to presume that there is any "purpose" to the universe.

Don't be silly. We know from our own experiences that our creations do have a purpose. It is the nature of creations.