| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Troy" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2004 01:16:59 PM |
| Object: |
Burden of Proof |
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
follicles, DNA, bloody glove, etc., and also eye witness testimony. Eye
witnesses must be present at the trail for their testimony to be considered
valid. The defense, on the other hand, will try to attack the witness'
character and possibly sway the jurors to believe that the witness'
testimony may be false. In cases where there is "hard" evidence (i.e.:
fingerprints), eye witness testimony is secondary. The best way to convict a
criminal is through hard evidence.
In the case of the god/no god debate, it's a little difficult to place the
burden of proof on either side. Because there is no crime or an accuser.
However, if we were to make either side a criminal act, we could definitely
place the burden of proof on either side. For instance, if it was illegal to
believe in god, we could have a trail and the burden of proof falls in the
hands of the accuser (the non-believer in this case). Which puts the
non-believer in a conundrum if you will, because lack of evidence is not
evidence. We (the prosecution) would have to prove that god does not exist.
Which, in my opinion, is impossible. It is impossible to show evidence of a
supernatural being using only natural evidence. You could show evidence
that, if said supernatural being had performed acts which effect the natural
world, show evidence to the contrary. Therefore, during this trail, we (the
prosecution) could prove the bible as false, because the physical evidence
of the acts of god cited in the bible, would prove to be contradictory. But,
we could NOT prove that there is no god or some other supernatural being
(i.e. ghosts). You might be able to say with reasonable certainty, that if
there is a god, he cannot affect our physical world.
Any case dealing with the supernatural would have the same outcome. If you
changed god to Santa clause in the above case, you could easily prove that
Santa certainly does not deliver toys around the world every Christmas, but
you could not prove he doesn't exist. In other words, you could prove the
folklore about a supernatural being is false, but not actual existence. A
person could claim to be a vampire and you could easily prove the folklore
false (i.e. burned by holy water or sunlight and reflection in mirror), but
you could not prove he is not a vampire.
Now, if you turn the tables and say it is illegal NOT to believe in god and
put an atheist on trail, the burden of proof falls back on the believer (now
the accuser). They would have to prove a supernatural being exists. Which as
stated earlier is clearly impossible. If you narrow it down and say it is
illegal not to believe in the god described in the bible, the accuser must
use the bible and its stories as evidence. And since there has never been
any physical, hard evidence that any of the stories (A&E, Noah, Tower of
Babel, Jesus, etc.) actually did happen, the accused is obviously innocent.
Because, they would have to prove that ALL stories actually happened. If one
is false, the entire bible is false. Faith is not an option. You could get a
billion people to say "I believe god exists," but their testimony is
irrelevant without hard evidence. Just because I believe I am the
reincarnation of Napoleon, doesn't mean it's true.
Since neither is illegal, we come back to the original dilemma, where, or
with whom, does the burden of proof fall. The theists says "Show me proof
that there is no god" and the atheist says "Show me proof there is a god." I
would like to move to make that argument irrelevant, because as I've stated,
it is impossible to prove the existence of supernatural beings using only
natural evidence. Therefore, we should narrow the field and prove that the
existence of the biblical account of god is false. Both sides need only show
their "hard", physical evidence to support their claims. It would be much
easier also, if we take one story at a time. Such as Noah's flood. Both
sides should show their physical evidence to support their claim and then
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
26 Jan 2004 12:44:07 AM |
|
|
"Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02...
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
<snip>
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
So, what is your point?
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
29 Jan 2004 12:15:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:44:07 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com>, Message ID:
<XG2Rb.16318$uQ5.9821@twister.socal.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02...
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
<snip>
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
So, what is your point?
He's whining because people aren't giving his brand of unsupported
assertions special treatment.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CQMMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 01:56:57 PM |
|
|
"Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02...
Since neither is illegal, we come back to the original dilemma, where, or
with whom, does the burden of proof fall. The theists says "Show me proof
that there is no god" and the atheist says "Show me proof there is a god."
I
would like to move to make that argument irrelevant, because as I've
stated,
it is impossible to prove the existence of supernatural beings using only
natural evidence. Therefore, we should narrow the field and prove that the
existence of the biblical account of god is false. Both sides need only
show
their "hard", physical evidence to support their claims. It would be much
easier also, if we take one story at a time. Such as Noah's flood. Both
sides should show their physical evidence to support their claim and then
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and
we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
Sounds reasonable, now all we need is all the members of that particular
sect (xtianity) to actually agree on it first :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 11:10:36 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 +0000 didst Troy speak thusly:
Such as Noah's flood. Both
sides should show their physical evidence to support their claim and then
the impartial jury will decide.
Well, on *that one it would at least be quick. There's simply *no evidence
for a global flood at all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 08:42:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
In the case of the god/no god debate, it's a little difficult to place the
burden of proof on either side. Because there is no crime or an accuser.
In the case of an unlimited existential claim ("my god exists"), the
positive claimant bears the burden of proof.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 08:44:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
their "hard", physical evidence to support their claims. It would be much
easier also, if we take one story at a time. Such as Noah's flood. Both
sides should show their physical evidence to support their claim and then
the impartial jury will decide.
No need to "decide" anything - no global flood has occurred during the
lifetime of our species.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 07:14:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
-snip-
Since neither is illegal, we come back to the original dilemma, where, or
with whom, does the burden of proof fall. The theists says "Show me proof
that there is no god" and the atheist says "Show me proof there is a god." I
would like to move to make that argument irrelevant, because as I've stated,
it is impossible to prove the existence of supernatural beings using only
natural evidence. Therefore, we should narrow the field and prove that the
existence of the biblical account of god is false. Both sides need only show
their "hard", physical evidence to support their claims. It would be much
easier also, if we take one story at a time. Such as Noah's flood. Both
sides should show their physical evidence to support their claim and then
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
You are confusing a legal procedure with the epistemological principle
it is derived from. The Burden of Proof in metaphysics isn't terribly
comparable to the issue in an American legal proceeding. However, the
legal procedure is based on the broader principle that we should have
to have a good reason to believe someone is truly guilty of a specific
act before we can take action against them. And the whole issue of
Burden of Proof then stems from the epistemological principle that
knowledge consists of, among other things, justification for the
belief one claims to "know".
So, if an atheist claims he knows that God does not exist, then he
should provide some reason for why. That satisfies his burden of
proof at that poitn in time. (It is very local and specific.)
Similarly the theist must have some reason for believing some godlike
being exists. The difficult part in all of this is that no one has
the patience to sit around and go tit for tat in a formal process of
building up properly in a real examination of each other's belefs.
Instead we want to be able to make very general statements about what
is or is not the case and take care of entire classes of possible
views on what could possibly be entailed by "God".
Not really many people take the flood story very seriously anymore.
So, trying to push the debate back to an argument over the veracity of
a literal interpretation of the bible isn't really going to go very
far. You will just wind up arguing with a small group of kooks.
Limiting ourselves to the kooks while imagining that we are engaging
in honest debate is really just a strawman. On the other hand,
embracing the burden proof issue as part and parcel of the debate over
the existence of God leaves you wide open to all views, including and
especially the slipperiest and most difficult to rebut. So in short,
to really deny the existence of any kind of god in advance of any
proposal by insisting that either such a being cannot exist or such a
being cannot rightly be called "God", requires a serious explanation.
Any proposition like that does. And one should not act as if their
mere attitude that theists are largely a bunch weakminded idiots who
aren't nearly as cool as us atheists really qualifies as knowledge
about reality or some such thing.
(Just by the way, to clarify my general position on such matters, I do
take such an extremely strong atheist position as to deny any
possibility of a thing called "God".)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 05:36:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
:
<snip>
:
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
It's quite plain to me:
Those arguing against the null hypothesis need to provide the proof.
Atheists support the null hypothesis.
Theists need to provide proof against that.
Verifiable counter-examples would suffice.
In all of human existence, they have yet to come up with a single bit
of actual evidence.
The null hypothesis stands until the evidence demands its withdrawal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Troy" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 06:26:06 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dek810pir7lqq4e4p3frvsgsr0uds4gg0k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the
prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
:
<snip>
:
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and
we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get
a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
It's quite plain to me:
Those arguing against the null hypothesis need to provide the proof.
Atheists support the null hypothesis.
Theists need to provide proof against that.
Verifiable counter-examples would suffice.
In all of human existence, they have yet to come up with a single bit
of actual evidence.
The null hypothesis stands until the evidence demands its withdrawal.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just a little fuzzy on the null
hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is not accepted just because it is not rejected. Could
you explain further? I think you may be saying - "We (atheists) came to
the conclusion through available evidence that the biblical god does not
(null) exist, therefore you (theist) must show other evidence to support
that god does exist." Is that close?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 08:48:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:26:06 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just a little fuzzy on the null
hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is not accepted just because it is not rejected.
No, it's accepted until there's actual evidence to the contrary.
Could you explain further? I think you may be saying - "We (atheists) came to
the conclusion through available evidence that the biblical god does not
(null) exist, therefore you (theist) must show other evidence to support
that god does exist." Is that close?
No.
"An assertion isn't believed until there's actual evidence to support
it."
The assertion is that there's a god. We're still waiting for
evidence.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 07:13:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:26:06 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dek810pir7lqq4e4p3frvsgsr0uds4gg0k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the
prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
:
<snip>
:
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and
we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get
a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
It's quite plain to me:
Those arguing against the null hypothesis need to provide the proof.
Atheists support the null hypothesis.
Theists need to provide proof against that.
Verifiable counter-examples would suffice.
In all of human existence, they have yet to come up with a single bit
of actual evidence.
The null hypothesis stands until the evidence demands its withdrawal.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just a little fuzzy on the null
hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is not accepted just because it is not rejected. Could
you explain further? I think you may be saying - "We (atheists) came to
the conclusion through available evidence that the biblical god does not
(null) exist, therefore you (theist) must show other evidence to support
that god does exist." Is that close?
"The null hypothesis is a term that statisticians often use to
indicate the statistical hypothesis tested. The purpose of most
statistical tests, is to determine if the obtained results provide a
reason to reject the hypothesis that they are merely a product of
chance factors.
For example, in an experiment in which two groups of randomly selected
subjects have received different treatments and have yielded different
means, it is always necessary to ask if the difference between the
obtained means is among the differences that would be expected to
occure by chance whenever two groups are randomly selected.
In this example, the hypothesis tested is that the two samples are
from populations with the same mean.
Another way to say this is to assert that the investigator tests the
null hypothesis that the difference between the means of the
populations from which the samples were drawn, is zero.
If the difference between the means of the samples is among those that
would occur rarely by chance when the null hypothesis is true, the
null hypothesis is rejected and the investigator describes the results
as statistically significant. "
In this case the Hypothesis that is being tested is: "God exists", and
the statistsics that go to support that assertion.
The null hypothesis states that the supplied statistics are a result
of chance, and no such case is proven. (I.e.: God does not exist)
As no statistics have been supplied to date, the null hypothesis
stands.
Extraordinary evidence must be supplied for the extraordinary claim
that there is a God, or Gods.
If I make the claim that you have an invisible leprechaun with an
invisible nuclear generator and a bunch of daisies hovering right in
front of your face, I expect that your null hypothesis would be that
their isn't and that I am delusional, unless I could come up with some
pretty good evidence that I am correct.
It's similar with fantastic Gods that exhibit the 'shyness effect'.
When tested, there is no evidence of them whatsoever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Troy" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 08:13:24 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:5mp810t51dba6f57kd31b89tdqvc412bm7@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:26:06 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dek810pir7lqq4e4p3frvsgsr0uds4gg0k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered
innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the
prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
:
<snip>
:
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury
and
we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can
get
a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible
is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
It's quite plain to me:
Those arguing against the null hypothesis need to provide the proof.
Atheists support the null hypothesis.
Theists need to provide proof against that.
Verifiable counter-examples would suffice.
In all of human existence, they have yet to come up with a single bit
of actual evidence.
The null hypothesis stands until the evidence demands its withdrawal.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just a little fuzzy on the null
hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is not accepted just because it is not rejected. Could
you explain further? I think you may be saying - "We (atheists) came to
the conclusion through available evidence that the biblical god does not
(null) exist, therefore you (theist) must show other evidence to support
that god does exist." Is that close?
"The null hypothesis is a term that statisticians often use to
indicate the statistical hypothesis tested. The purpose of most
statistical tests, is to determine if the obtained results provide a
reason to reject the hypothesis that they are merely a product of
chance factors.
For example, in an experiment in which two groups of randomly selected
subjects have received different treatments and have yielded different
means, it is always necessary to ask if the difference between the
obtained means is among the differences that would be expected to
occure by chance whenever two groups are randomly selected.
In this example, the hypothesis tested is that the two samples are
from populations with the same mean.
Another way to say this is to assert that the investigator tests the
null hypothesis that the difference between the means of the
populations from which the samples were drawn, is zero.
If the difference between the means of the samples is among those that
would occur rarely by chance when the null hypothesis is true, the
null hypothesis is rejected and the investigator describes the results
as statistically significant. "
In this case the Hypothesis that is being tested is: "God exists", and
the statistsics that go to support that assertion.
The null hypothesis states that the supplied statistics are a result
of chance, and no such case is proven. (I.e.: God does not exist)
As no statistics have been supplied to date, the null hypothesis
stands.
Extraordinary evidence must be supplied for the extraordinary claim
that there is a God, or Gods.
If I make the claim that you have an invisible leprechaun with an
invisible nuclear generator and a bunch of daisies hovering right in
front of your face, I expect that your null hypothesis would be that
their isn't and that I am delusional, unless I could come up with some
pretty good evidence that I am correct.
It's similar with fantastic Gods that exhibit the 'shyness effect'.
When tested, there is no evidence of them whatsoever.
Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. You just shot my theory full of
holes. LOL. I'm don't think the theist extremists will buy it though. Let
'em live with their delusions, as long as they're happy I guess. Until they
bomb the next abortion clinic.
Troy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 08:08:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:43:28 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:26:06 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dek810pir7lqq4e4p3frvsgsr0uds4gg0k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the
prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
:
<snip>
:
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and
we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get
a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
It's quite plain to me:
Those arguing against the null hypothesis need to provide the proof.
Atheists support the null hypothesis.
Theists need to provide proof against that.
Verifiable counter-examples would suffice.
In all of human existence, they have yet to come up with a single bit
of actual evidence.
The null hypothesis stands until the evidence demands its withdrawal.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just a little fuzzy on the null
hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is not accepted just because it is not rejected. Could
you explain further? I think you may be saying - "We (atheists) came to
the conclusion through available evidence that the biblical god does not
(null) exist, therefore you (theist) must show other evidence to support
that god does exist." Is that close?
"The null hypothesis is a term that statisticians often use to
indicate the statistical hypothesis tested. The purpose of most
statistical tests, is to determine if the obtained results provide a
reason to reject the hypothesis that they are merely a product of
chance factors.
For example, in an experiment in which two groups of randomly selected
subjects have received different treatments and have yielded different
means, it is always necessary to ask if the difference between the
obtained means is among the differences that would be expected to
occure by chance whenever two groups are randomly selected.
In this example, the hypothesis tested is that the two samples are
from populations with the same mean.
Another way to say this is to assert that the investigator tests the
null hypothesis that the difference between the means of the
populations from which the samples were drawn, is zero.
If the difference between the means of the samples is among those that
would occur rarely by chance when the null hypothesis is true, the
null hypothesis is rejected and the investigator describes the results
as statistically significant. "
In this case the Hypothesis that is being tested is: "God exists", and
the statistsics that go to support that assertion.
The null hypothesis states that the supplied statistics are a result
of chance, and no such case is proven. (I.e.: God does not exist)
As no statistics have been supplied to date, the null hypothesis
stands.
Extraordinary evidence must be supplied for the extraordinary claim
that there is a God, or Gods.
If I make the claim that you have an invisible leprechaun with an
invisible nuclear generator and a bunch of daisies hovering right in
front of your face, I expect that your null hypothesis would be that
their isn't and that I am delusional, unless I could come up with some
pretty good evidence that I am correct.
It's similar with fantastic Gods that exhibit the 'shyness effect'.
When tested, there is no evidence of them whatsoever.
Why isn't the null hypothesis "No gods exist." It is an assertion
just like the alternative ("Gods do exist"). In fact it seems like a
reasonable thing to conclude, so it would be a good candidate for such
a statistical test. (As a general principle of statistical testing
you shouldn't go around testing propositions you do not think are true
or have no reason to believe are true lest you get some random
correlation through pure chance between things "proving" an assertion
that isn't really true.) Of course you have all the same problems
with defining "God" in the test as you would with the alternatives as
well as the issue of what is a legitimate criterion for determining a
success or failure in the testing process. But assuming you have an
explanation for all of that, you could just as well switch hypotheses,
anyway.
For instance, you could test whether or not the coke machine is
overfilling the bottles. (You could cut costs if it were.) Your null
is that the coke bottles are being filled to greater than X (some
level). If you can prove that they are not being overfilled, then you
will do nothing. Otherwise, you will adjust the settings to fill less
until you can definitely show you are not overfilling. In this way
you are being both fair and frugal. On the other hand, you might be a
regulator making sure that the bottles are adequately filled. By law,
the manufacturer must show that he fills the bottles to at least X.
So you decide that unless, you can reject the null of "They are filled
less than X", you will fine the manufacturer. Since the level to
which bottles are filled is any real number within some range, the
probability that they be filled to exactly X is zero. So, in this
case one man's null hypothesis is another's alternative, depending on
what they are testing and why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 09:18:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:08:03 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
:
<my stuff snipped in the inerests of readability>
:
Why isn't the null hypothesis "No gods exist." It is an assertion
I must not have been clear enough.
The null hypothesis *is* that "No gods exist".
just like the alternative ("Gods do exist"). In fact it seems like a
reasonable thing to conclude, so it would be a good candidate for such
a statistical test. (As a general principle of statistical testing
you shouldn't go around testing propositions you do not think are true
or have no reason to believe are true lest you get some random
correlation through pure chance between things "proving" an assertion
that isn't really true.) Of course you have all the same problems
with defining "God" in the test as you would with the alternatives as
well as the issue of what is a legitimate criterion for determining a
success or failure in the testing process. But assuming you have an
explanation for all of that, you could just as well switch hypotheses,
anyway.
For instance, you could test whether or not the coke machine is
overfilling the bottles. (You could cut costs if it were.) Your null
is that the coke bottles are being filled to greater than X (some
level). If you can prove that they are not being overfilled, then you
will do nothing. Otherwise, you will adjust the settings to fill less
until you can definitely show you are not overfilling. In this way
you are being both fair and frugal. On the other hand, you might be a
regulator making sure that the bottles are adequately filled. By law,
the manufacturer must show that he fills the bottles to at least X.
So you decide that unless, you can reject the null of "They are filled
less than X", you will fine the manufacturer. Since the level to
which bottles are filled is any real number within some range, the
probability that they be filled to exactly X is zero. So, in this
case one man's null hypothesis is another's alternative, depending on
what they are testing and why.
I don't agree.
The null hypothesis in the 'hypothetical' example would be that the
bottles are being filled properly, no matter who was asking.
Is testing would reveal this not to be true, too high or too low, then
the null would be rejected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 10:10:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:48:04 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:08:03 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
:
<my stuff snipped in the inerests of readability>
:
Why isn't the null hypothesis "No gods exist." It is an assertion
I must not have been clear enough.
The null hypothesis *is* that "No gods exist".
Yes, your right. As you assume below, I should be saying that the
null hypothesis could just as easily be that God exists rather than
that no gods exist.
just like the alternative ("Gods do exist"). In fact it seems like a
reasonable thing to conclude, so it would be a good candidate for such
a statistical test. (As a general principle of statistical testing
you shouldn't go around testing propositions you do not think are true
or have no reason to believe are true lest you get some random
correlation through pure chance between things "proving" an assertion
that isn't really true.) Of course you have all the same problems
with defining "God" in the test as you would with the alternatives as
well as the issue of what is a legitimate criterion for determining a
success or failure in the testing process. But assuming you have an
explanation for all of that, you could just as well switch hypotheses,
anyway.
For instance, you could test whether or not the coke machine is
overfilling the bottles. (You could cut costs if it were.) Your null
is that the coke bottles are being filled to greater than X (some
level). If you can prove that they are not being overfilled, then you
will do nothing. Otherwise, you will adjust the settings to fill less
until you can definitely show you are not overfilling. In this way
you are being both fair and frugal. On the other hand, you might be a
regulator making sure that the bottles are adequately filled. By law,
the manufacturer must show that he fills the bottles to at least X.
So you decide that unless, you can reject the null of "They are filled
less than X", you will fine the manufacturer. Since the level to
which bottles are filled is any real number within some range, the
probability that they be filled to exactly X is zero. So, in this
case one man's null hypothesis is another's alternative, depending on
what they are testing and why.
I don't agree.
The null hypothesis in the 'hypothetical' example would be that the
bottles are being filled properly, no matter who was asking.
Is testing would reveal this not to be true, too high or too low, then
the null would be rejected.
What I am saying is that it is completely arbitrary as to what the
null hypothesis is. Such a thing is only determined by the set-up of
the test in the first place. A Christian could just as easily say
that since most people believe in deities now and in the history of
mankind, perhaps the ongoing assumption should be that they exist,
unless proven otherwise.
Your choice of hypothesis shouldn't really affect what the data
indicates. Yet the subtle aspect of all of this is that how we must
choose hypotheses suddenly determines the nature of what the data must
be interpretted to indicate. There should be a general symmetry -- if
the data indicates that the coke bottles are being overfilled, it
should generally do so whether you set that as the null or its
negation as the null.
How does one objectively determine what the null hypothesis ought to
be over, say, its negation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 11:38:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:10:52 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:48:04 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:08:03 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
:
<my stuff snipped in the inerests of readability>
:
Why isn't the null hypothesis "No gods exist." It is an assertion
I must not have been clear enough.
The null hypothesis *is* that "No gods exist".
Yes, your right. As you assume below, I should be saying that the
null hypothesis could just as easily be that God exists rather than
that no gods exist.
just like the alternative ("Gods do exist"). In fact it seems like a
reasonable thing to conclude, so it would be a good candidate for such
a statistical test. (As a general principle of statistical testing
you shouldn't go around testing propositions you do not think are true
or have no reason to believe are true lest you get some random
correlation through pure chance between things "proving" an assertion
that isn't really true.) Of course you have all the same problems
with defining "God" in the test as you would with the alternatives as
well as the issue of what is a legitimate criterion for determining a
success or failure in the testing process. But assuming you have an
explanation for all of that, you could just as well switch hypotheses,
anyway.
For instance, you could test whether or not the coke machine is
overfilling the bottles. (You could cut costs if it were.) Your null
is that the coke bottles are being filled to greater than X (some
level). If you can prove that they are not being overfilled, then you
will do nothing. Otherwise, you will adjust the settings to fill less
until you can definitely show you are not overfilling. In this way
you are being both fair and frugal. On the other hand, you might be a
regulator making sure that the bottles are adequately filled. By law,
the manufacturer must show that he fills the bottles to at least X.
So you decide that unless, you can reject the null of "They are filled
less than X", you will fine the manufacturer. Since the level to
which bottles are filled is any real number within some range, the
probability that they be filled to exactly X is zero. So, in this
case one man's null hypothesis is another's alternative, depending on
what they are testing and why.
I don't agree.
The null hypothesis in the 'hypothetical' example would be that the
bottles are being filled properly, no matter who was asking.
Is testing would reveal this not to be true, too high or too low, then
the null would be rejected.
What I am saying is that it is completely arbitrary as to what the
null hypothesis is. Such a thing is only determined by the set-up of
the test in the first place. A Christian could just as easily say
that since most people believe in deities now and in the history of
mankind, perhaps the ongoing assumption should be that they exist,
unless proven otherwise.
Your choice of hypothesis shouldn't really affect what the data
indicates. Yet the subtle aspect of all of this is that how we must
choose hypotheses suddenly determines the nature of what the data must
be interpretted to indicate. There should be a general symmetry -- if
the data indicates that the coke bottles are being overfilled, it
should generally do so whether you set that as the null or its
negation as the null.
How does one objectively determine what the null hypothesis ought to
be over, say, its negation?
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it.
" ...if the data indicates (sic) that the coke bottles are being
overfilled, ..."
I agree that if the data indicate that the bottles are being
overfilled, that should be the null hypothesis. (That the machine is
not operating as it should)
That is the same as saying that before those data were collected, the
null hypothesis was that all was going well, but now the data indicate
that that hopethesis is false, and must be supplanted by another one
that is consistent with the data. (That the machine is stuffed)
Your assertion "There should be a general symmetry" is an opinion
which I don't happen to share.
One's assertions should be backed up by at least one fact.
If there were an example of the coke machine overfilling one bottle, I
would immediately drop the hypothesis that the machine was working
properly.
If there were one verifiable example of a god, then I would drop
atheism completely.
Other atheists profess similar feelings.
I don't know of any theists who are willing to do the reverse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
26 Jan 2004 12:57:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:08:52 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
:
:
If there were one verifiable example of a god, then I would drop
atheism completely.
Other atheists profess similar feelings.
I don't know of any theists who are willing to do the reverse.
I withdraw that ultimate statement.
I remember the current Dalai Lama suggesting that if rationalism were
to prove it neccessary, then Buddhism would have to change.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
26 Jan 2004 01:06:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:08:52 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:10:52 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:48:04 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:08:03 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
:
<my stuff snipped in the inerests of readability>
:
Why isn't the null hypothesis "No gods exist." It is an assertion
I must not have been clear enough.
The null hypothesis *is* that "No gods exist".
Yes, your right. As you assume below, I should be saying that the
null hypothesis could just as easily be that God exists rather than
that no gods exist.
just like the alternative ("Gods do exist"). In fact it seems like a
reasonable thing to conclude, so it would be a good candidate for such
a statistical test. (As a general principle of statistical testing
you shouldn't go around testing propositions you do not think are true
or have no reason to believe are true lest you get some random
correlation through pure chance between things "proving" an assertion
that isn't really true.) Of course you have all the same problems
with defining "God" in the test as you would with the alternatives as
well as the issue of what is a legitimate criterion for determining a
success or failure in the testing process. But assuming you have an
explanation for all of that, you could just as well switch hypotheses,
anyway.
For instance, you could test whether or not the coke machine is
overfilling the bottles. (You could cut costs if it were.) Your null
is that the coke bottles are being filled to greater than X (some
level). If you can prove that they are not being overfilled, then you
will do nothing. Otherwise, you will adjust the settings to fill less
until you can definitely show you are not overfilling. In this way
you are being both fair and frugal. On the other hand, you might be a
regulator making sure that the bottles are adequately filled. By law,
the manufacturer must show that he fills the bottles to at least X.
So you decide that unless, you can reject the null of "They are filled
less than X", you will fine the manufacturer. Since the level to
which bottles are filled is any real number within some range, the
probability that they be filled to exactly X is zero. So, in this
case one man's null hypothesis is another's alternative, depending on
what they are testing and why.
I don't agree.
The null hypothesis in the 'hypothetical' example would be that the
bottles are being filled properly, no matter who was asking.
Is testing would reveal this not to be true, too high or too low, then
the null would be rejected.
What I am saying is that it is completely arbitrary as to what the
null hypothesis is. Such a thing is only determined by the set-up of
the test in the first place. A Christian could just as easily say
that since most people believe in deities now and in the history of
mankind, perhaps the ongoing assumption should be that they exist,
unless proven otherwise.
Your choice of hypothesis shouldn't really affect what the data
indicates. Yet the subtle aspect of all of this is that how we must
choose hypotheses suddenly determines the nature of what the data must
be interpretted to indicate. There should be a general symmetry -- if
the data indicates that the coke bottles are being overfilled, it
should generally do so whether you set that as the null or its
negation as the null.
How does one objectively determine what the null hypothesis ought to
be over, say, its negation?
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it.
" ...if the data indicates (sic) that the coke bottles are being
overfilled, ..."
I agree that if the data indicate that the bottles are being
overfilled, that should be the null hypothesis. (That the machine is
not operating as it should)
That is the same as saying that before those data were collected, the
null hypothesis was that all was going well, but now the data indicate
that that hopethesis is false, and must be supplanted by another one
that is consistent with the data. (That the machine is stuffed)
No. I am saying that the null hypothesis is what it is regardless of
what the machine is doing. In fact, if no data has been collected,
and I mean NONE, then you have no reason to believe that the machine
functions at all.
Your assertion "There should be a general symmetry" is an opinion
which I don't happen to share.
It's not an opinion. Your choice of hypotheses and how you go about
analyzing the data is supposed to lead to independently verifiable
conclusions. In other words, the facts don't change just because you
decided to look at the data differently. It must say the same thing
with the same degree of likelihood no matter how you formulate your
test.
One's assertions should be backed up by at least one fact.
If there were an example of the coke machine overfilling one bottle, I
would immediately drop the hypothesis that the machine was working
properly.
If there were one verifiable example of a god, then I would drop
atheism completely.
Other atheists profess similar feelings.
I don't know of any theists who are willing to do the reverse.
Well, that has nothing to do with hypothesis testing and statistical
inference. This point is more of a philosophical/epistemological
assertion. I'm responding to this thread mainly because I am
imagining that you are saying something about statistics. I thought
you were saying that though techinically able to select the negation
of the null as your null hypothesis for your test, one should
nevertheless not do so, and so there is a proper null hypothesis in
any given case of making a statistical inference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
26 Jan 2004 02:54:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:06:49 GMT, Adrian <adurham4@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:08:52 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:10:52 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:48:04 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:08:03 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
:
<my stuff snipped in the inerests of readability>
:
Why isn't the null hypothesis "No gods exist." It is an assertion
I must not have been clear enough.
The null hypothesis *is* that "No gods exist".
Yes, your right. As you assume below, I should be saying that the
null hypothesis could just as easily be that God exists rather than
that no gods exist.
just like the alternative ("Gods do exist"). In fact it seems like a
reasonable thing to conclude, so it would be a good candidate for such
a statistical test. (As a general principle of statistical testing
you shouldn't go around testing propositions you do not think are true
or have no reason to believe are true lest you get some random
correlation through pure chance between things "proving" an assertion
that isn't really true.) Of course you have all the same problems
with defining "God" in the test as you would with the alternatives as
well as the issue of what is a legitimate criterion for determining a
success or failure in the testing process. But assuming you have an
explanation for all of that, you could just as well switch hypotheses,
anyway.
For instance, you could test whether or not the coke machine is
overfilling the bottles. (You could cut costs if it were.) Your null
is that the coke bottles are being filled to greater than X (some
level). If you can prove that they are not being overfilled, then you
will do nothing. Otherwise, you will adjust the settings to fill less
until you can definitely show you are not overfilling. In this way
you are being both fair and frugal. On the other hand, you might be a
regulator making sure that the bottles are adequately filled. By law,
the manufacturer must show that he fills the bottles to at least X.
So you decide that unless, you can reject the null of "They are filled
less than X", you will fine the manufacturer. Since the level to
which bottles are filled is any real number within some range, the
probability that they be filled to exactly X is zero. So, in this
case one man's null hypothesis is another's alternative, depending on
what they are testing and why.
I don't agree.
The null hypothesis in the 'hypothetical' example would be that the
bottles are being filled properly, no matter who was asking.
Is testing would reveal this not to be true, too high or too low, then
the null would be rejected.
What I am saying is that it is completely arbitrary as to what the
null hypothesis is. Such a thing is only determined by the set-up of
the test in the first place. A Christian could just as easily say
that since most people believe in deities now and in the history of
mankind, perhaps the ongoing assumption should be that they exist,
unless proven otherwise.
Your choice of hypothesis shouldn't really affect what the data
indicates. Yet the subtle aspect of all of this is that how we must
choose hypotheses suddenly determines the nature of what the data must
be interpretted to indicate. There should be a general symmetry -- if
the data indicates that the coke bottles are being overfilled, it
should generally do so whether you set that as the null or its
negation as the null.
How does one objectively determine what the null hypothesis ought to
be over, say, its negation?
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it.
" ...if the data indicates (sic) that the coke bottles are being
overfilled, ..."
I agree that if the data indicate that the bottles are being
overfilled, that should be the null hypothesis. (That the machine is
not operating as it should)
That is the same as saying that before those data were collected, the
null hypothesis was that all was going well, but now the data indicate
that that hopethesis is false, and must be supplanted by another one
that is consistent with the data. (That the machine is stuffed)
No. I am saying that the null hypothesis is what it is regardless of
what the machine is doing. In fact, if no data has been collected,
and I mean NONE, then you have no reason to believe that the machine
functions at all.
If no data have been collected, then ipso facto, you don't even know
there IS a machine.
Let's cut the polemic here, and admit that if you can see the machine,
and see it outputting some filled bottles, and know that your
supervisor is not hassling you about bottles being filled out of spec,
then they are data?
That is what I reasonably assumed when you posed the example.
Not that you have *NO* data: "NONE".
Your assertion "There should be a general symmetry" is an opinion
which I don't happen to share.
It's not an opinion. Your choice of hypotheses and how you go about
analyzing the data is supposed to lead to independently verifiable
conclusions. In other words, the facts don't change just because you
decided to look at the data differently. It must say the same thing
with the same degree of likelihood no matter how you formulate your
test.
You are absolutely correct.
If I may lead you away from coke machines, and back to god(s), then
you may understand that there are *NO* data to support the concept
whatsoever.
The data against the concept of individual gods is legion.
So it is not the same thing to suggest that either concept serves as a
null hypothesis.
One's assertions should be backed up by at least one fact.
If there were an example of the coke machine overfilling one bottle, I
would immediately drop the hypothesis that the machine was working
properly.
If there were one verifiable example of a god, then I would drop
atheism completely.
Other atheists profess similar feelings.
I don't know of any theists who are willing to do the reverse.
Well, that has nothing to do with hypothesis testing and statistical
inference. This point is more of a philosophical/epistemological
assertion. I'm responding to this thread mainly because I am
imagining that you are saying something about statistics. I thought
you were saying that though techinically able to select the negation
of the null as your null hypothesis for your test, one should
nevertheless not do so, and so there is a proper null hypothesis in
any given case of making a statistical inference.
Once again, I find myself agreeing with you.
But not all I say is in defence of "hypothesis testing and statistical
inference", and I apologize if I gave the erroneous impression that
that was my intent.
It is my opinion that one *can* rationally select the negation of the
null as the null hypothesis for a test.
But the null hypotheisis should be that claim which demands the least
extraordinary evidence.
David Hume puts it better than I am able.
"One way to support a religion is by appeal to miracles. But Hume
argued that, at minimum, miracles could never give religion much
support. There are several arguments suggested by Hume's essay, all of
which turn on his conception of a miracle: namely, a violation of the
laws of nature by God. One argument claims that it's impossible to
violate the laws of nature. Another claims that human testimony could
never be reliable enough to countermand the evidence we have for the
laws of nature. The weakest and most defensible claims that, due to
the strong evidence we have for the laws of nature, any miracle claim
is in trouble from the get-go, and needs strong supporting evidence to
defeat our initial presumptions. In a slogan, extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence. This point has been most applied to
the question of the resurrection of Jesus, where Hume would no doubt
ask, "Which is more likely -- that a man rose from the dead or that
this testimony is mistaken in some way?" Or, more blandly, "Which is
more likely -- that Uri Geller can really bend spoons with his mind or
that there is some trick going on?"
http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_659.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 10:38:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:10:52 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
Yes, your right. As you assume below, I should be saying that the
null hypothesis could just as easily be that God exists rather than
that no gods exist.
No, you *entirely* miss the point. The null hypothesis is that unless
there is a good reason to think that there's an elephant in the room,
the default presumption is that there isn't. Works the same for gods,
too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
26 Jan 2004 12:58:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:38:56 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:10:52 GMT, Adrian <adurham3@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
Yes, your right. As you assume below, I should be saying that the
null hypothesis could just as easily be that God exists rather than
that no gods exist.
No, you *entirely* miss the point. The null hypothesis is that unless
there is a good reason to think that there's an elephant in the room,
the default presumption is that there isn't. Works the same for gods,
too.
That is about what should be the null hypothesis. That is about how
one draws conclusions. The "null hypothesis" has to do with the more
technical issue of hypothesis testing in statistical inference. There
is a specific procedure one follows in making statistical inferences
that involves formulating a null hypothesis and an alternative
hypothesis. After a quantitative examination of the data, one might
either "fail to reject the null" or "accept the alternative" depending
on what the data indicates.
Now, what I am saying is that there are some guidelines about doing
hypothesis testing (e.g. that one generally should have some a priori
reason for believing the alternative hypothesis might be true, for
instance). However, I do not think that any of this extends to
specifically how one must choose their null or alternative hypothesis,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
25 Jan 2004 08:18:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:26:06 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dek810pir7lqq4e4p3frvsgsr0uds4gg0k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net> wrote:
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore falls on the
prosecution.
They must show evidence to an impartial jury, who will either agree or
disagree that all of the presented evidence is in fact enough proof to
convict the accused of the crime. Evidence can be fingerprints, hair
:
<snip>
:
the impartial jury will decide. Now all we need is an impartial jury and
we
can end this argument forever. We might need a judge also, so we can get
a
ruling on whether or not the eye witness testimony stated in the bible is
admissible, since all of the eye witnesses are dead (or in heaven).
Cheers,
Troy
It's quite plain to me:
Those arguing against the null hypothesis need to provide the proof.
Atheists support the null hypothesis.
Theists need to provide proof against that.
Verifiable counter-examples would suffice.
In all of human existence, they have yet to come up with a single bit
of actual evidence.
The null hypothesis stands until the evidence demands its withdrawal.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just a little fuzzy on the null
hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is not accepted just because it is not rejected. Could
you explain further? I think you may be saying - "We (atheists) came to
the conclusion through available evidence that the biblical god does not
(null) exist, therefore you (theist) must show other evidence to support
that god does exist." Is that close?
No. The null hypothesis is simple: without positive evidence of the
existence of some kind of "God", the default position is that there
is no reason to believe that such a thing exists. Please read Carl
Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World", particularly the chapter entitled
"The Dragon In My Garage" for an in-depth explanation of why this is
the case, but to distill it down to the essentials, claims require
evidence to be accepted, and extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. Sagan gives the example of someone making the
claim that they have an invisible fire-breathing dragon living in
their garage, yet cannot provide any evidence that this is so.
My question to you is, are you going to grant that claim any credence
whatsoever? If not, why would you grant any to "God" claims, which are
even more extraordinary, and have no more supporting evidence than
Sagan's Dragon?
Think about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
29 Jan 2004 12:13:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty.
So?
(snip)
In the case of the god/no god debate,
There is no debate, moron. If you want others to pay attention to your
superstition then you need to provide objective supporting evidence.
Until then, its merely another unsupported assertion.
(snip the rest unread)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Troy" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
29 Jan 2004 06:53:38 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:t09h109rg4h77197gsi0lkng8p72u1r59v@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty.
So?
(snip)
In the case of the god/no god debate,
There is no debate, moron. If you want others to pay attention to your
superstition then you need to provide objective supporting evidence.
Until then, its merely another unsupported assertion.
(snip the rest unread)
Great insight stoney. If you *had* read the rest, you probably would have
figured out that I am an atheist and there wasn't any superstition at all.
It was merely a thought I had regarding *Christians*, who always say "Prove
he doesn't exist!" And I simply wanted to see some discussion on the
subject, since this is a discussion group. Kind of makes you look like the
moron doesn't it?
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
29 Jan 2004 05:28:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:53:38 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <mn7Sb.179295$xy6.846877@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:t09h109rg4h77197gsi0lkng8p72u1r59v@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty.
So?
(snip)
In the case of the god/no god debate,
There is no debate, moron. If you want others to pay attention to your
superstition then you need to provide objective supporting evidence.
Until then, its merely another unsupported assertion.
(snip the rest unread)
Great insight stoney. If you *had* read the rest, you probably would have
figured out that I am an atheist and there wasn't any superstition at all.
It was merely a thought I had regarding *Christians*, who always say "Prove
he doesn't exist!" And I simply wanted to see some discussion on the
subject, since this is a discussion group. Kind of makes you look like the
moron doesn't it?
I don't think so, but you're quite welcome to disagree. (shrug) You
came 'right out the gate' with the same tired theist ***** folks here
have seen ad nauseum. It would have been better, imo, to indicate your
stance/purpose right at the start. People would have been 'on track'
from your opening sentence.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Troy" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
29 Jan 2004 05:56:58 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:ni5j10t21js5qq8v8f5pqc70ksc39farp5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:53:38 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <mn7Sb.179295$xy6.846877@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:t09h109rg4h77197gsi0lkng8p72u1r59v@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>,
Message
ID: <LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered
innocent
until proven guilty.
So?
(snip)
In the case of the god/no god debate,
There is no debate, moron. If you want others to pay attention to your
superstition then you need to provide objective supporting evidence.
Until then, its merely another unsupported assertion.
(snip the rest unread)
Great insight stoney. If you *had* read the rest, you probably would have
figured out that I am an atheist and there wasn't any superstition at
all.
It was merely a thought I had regarding *Christians*, who always say
"Prove
he doesn't exist!" And I simply wanted to see some discussion on the
subject, since this is a discussion group. Kind of makes you look like
the
moron doesn't it?
I don't think so, but you're quite welcome to disagree. (shrug) You
came 'right out the gate' with the same tired theist ***** folks here
have seen ad nauseum. It would have been better, imo, to indicate your
stance/purpose right at the start. People would have been 'on track'
from your opening sentence.
You're probably right. Sometimes I post things ambiguously, simply to get
discussion going. Rather than have people make judgements without
understanding the point that is trying to be discussed. I understand your
frustration. I should show you some of the ridiculous emails my sister has
sent me. The cut/paste she sent me from AIG about how all the animals fit on
Noah's ark kept me laughing for hours.
Thanks,
Troy
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of Proof |
30 Jan 2004 11:07:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:56:58 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <e5hSb.184157$na.301945@attbi_s04> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:ni5j10t21js5qq8v8f5pqc70ksc39farp5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:53:38 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>, Message
ID: <mn7Sb.179295$xy6.846877@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:t09h109rg4h77197gsi0lkng8p72u1r59v@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:16:59 GMT, "Troy" <troyh709@comcast.net>,
Message
ID: <LCUQb.147819$xy6.704080@attbi_s02> wrote in alt.atheism;
In the United States, someone accused of a crime is considered
innocent
until proven guilty.
So?
(snip)
In the case of the god/no god debate,
There is no debate, moron. If you want others to pay attention to your
superstition then you need to provide objective supporting evidence.
Until then, its merely another unsupported assertion.
(snip the rest unread)
Great insight stoney. If you *had* read the rest, you probably would have
figured out that I am an atheist and there wasn't any superstition at
all.
It was merely a thought I had regarding *Christians*, who always say
"Prove
he doesn't exist!" And I simply wanted to see some discussion on the
subject, since this is a discussion group. Kind of makes you look like
the
moron doesn't it?
I don't think so, but you're quite welcome to disagree. (shrug) You
came 'right out the gate' with the same tired theist ***** folks here
have seen ad nauseum. It would have been better, imo, to indicate your
stance/purpose right at the start. People would have been 'on track'
from your opening sentence.
You're probably right. Sometimes I post things ambiguously, simply to get
discussion going. Rather than have people make judgements without
understanding the point that is trying to be discussed.
Being ambiguous, if its done right, can be quite effective. I've found
that, generally, myraid topics can be looked at in several different
ways. Now if the 'avenue' folks meander down isn't the one (facet) you
were intending miscommunication can become quite a mess.
I understand your
frustration. I should show you some of the ridiculous emails my sister has
sent me. The cut/paste she sent me from AIG about how all the animals fit on
Noah's ark kept me laughing for hours.
(shudder) At least she provides you with mirth and merriment... :)
Thanks,
You're very welcome.
Troy
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
