Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Null hypothesis to God

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 12:57:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The universe was created by God, a transcendental willful being.

What is the atheist null hypothesis to this?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 7:21:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 12:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The universe was created by God, a transcendental willful being.

What is the atheist null hypothesis to this?

Is there a statistical model and a data set upon which a null hypothesis can be formulated?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 11:56:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 7:21:36 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/2/2015 12:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The universe was created by God, a transcendental willful being.

What is the atheist null hypothesis to this?

Is there a statistical model and a data set upon which a null hypothesis can be formulated?

Feel free to change the hypothesis any way you want to generate a Null Hypothesis for Atheist.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:11:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 7:21:36 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/2/2015 12:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The universe was created by God, a transcendental willful being.

What is the atheist null hypothesis to this?

Is there a statistical model and a data set upon which a null hypothesis can be formulated?

Of course not, he just doesn't understand analogy. Or much else, really.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 11:06:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 12:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The universe was created by God, a transcendental willful being.

What is the atheist null hypothesis to this?

Do you have a hypothesis? If you have that, defining the null hypothesis is trivial...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 12:56:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Isn't a null hypothesis, in this case, dependent upon the existence of a hypothesis, not a concept.

So, the null hypothesis (in this manner) cannot be made off of a concept (god), but based off a hypothesis (the god hypothesis).

Unless you say what the hypothesis is, then one cannot formulate the null hypothesis (depending on what type of null hypothesis you are talking about).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 1:17:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 12:56:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Isn't a null hypothesis, in this case, dependent upon the existence of a hypothesis, not a concept.

So, the null hypothesis (in this manner) cannot be made off of a concept (god), but based off a hypothesis (the god hypothesis).

Unless you say what the hypothesis is, then one cannot formulate the null hypothesis (depending on what type of null hypothesis you are talking about).

What ever the blanket null hypothesis atheist use so much. I think it goes with a blanket God hypothesis
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:26:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 1:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:56:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Isn't a null hypothesis, in this case, dependent upon the existence of a hypothesis, not a concept.

So, the null hypothesis (in this manner) cannot be made off of a concept (god), but based off a hypothesis (the god hypothesis).

Unless you say what the hypothesis is, then one cannot formulate the null hypothesis (depending on what type of null hypothesis you are talking about).

What ever the blanket null hypothesis atheist use so much. I think it goes with a blanket God hypothesis

A null hypothesis (in a scientific sense) is used with a normal hypothesis.

Let's take the hypothesis that there is a meteor in the atmosphere large enough to kill all life on planet Earth.
The null hypothesis is that there is the absence of such a meteor.

Evidence is then looked for for the existence of this meteor, and, if and when no evidence is found, the null hypothesis is taken as the more likely answer.

The problem is that there must first be a scientific hypothesis and a way to test for said hypothesis in order for a null hypothesis for that topic to even exist. If it is not a hypothesis and/or there is no way to test for it, then it isn't even science yet.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:49:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 4:26:38 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 1:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:56:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Isn't a null hypothesis, in this case, dependent upon the existence of a hypothesis, not a concept.

So, the null hypothesis (in this manner) cannot be made off of a concept (god), but based off a hypothesis (the god hypothesis).

Unless you say what the hypothesis is, then one cannot formulate the null hypothesis (depending on what type of null hypothesis you are talking about).

What ever the blanket null hypothesis atheist use so much. I think it goes with a blanket God hypothesis

A null hypothesis (in a scientific sense) is used with a normal hypothesis.

Let's take the hypothesis that there is a meteor in the atmosphere large enough to kill all life on planet Earth.
The null hypothesis is that there is the absence of such a meteor.

Evidence is then looked for for the existence of this meteor, and, if and when no evidence is found, the null hypothesis is taken as the more likely answer.

The problem is that there must first be a scientific hypothesis and a way to test for said hypothesis in order for a null hypothesis for that topic to even exist. If it is not a hypothesis and/or there is no way to test for it, then it isn't even science yet.

Do atheist know that?
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 4:49:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:26:38 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 1:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:56:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Isn't a null hypothesis, in this case, dependent upon the existence of a hypothesis, not a concept.

So, the null hypothesis (in this manner) cannot be made off of a concept (god), but based off a hypothesis (the god hypothesis).

Unless you say what the hypothesis is, then one cannot formulate the null hypothesis (depending on what type of null hypothesis you are talking about).

What ever the blanket null hypothesis atheist use so much. I think it goes with a blanket God hypothesis

A null hypothesis (in a scientific sense) is used with a normal hypothesis.

Let's take the hypothesis that there is a meteor in the atmosphere large enough to kill all life on planet Earth.
The null hypothesis is that there is the absence of such a meteor.

Evidence is then looked for for the existence of this meteor, and, if and when no evidence is found, the null hypothesis is taken as the more likely answer.

The problem is that there must first be a scientific hypothesis and a way to test for said hypothesis in order for a null hypothesis for that topic to even exist. If it is not a hypothesis and/or there is no way to test for it, then it isn't even science yet.

Do atheist know that?

An atheist just told you. Take a guess dumb***.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:31:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?

A statement containing a null, or zero, difference. It is the null hypothesis which undergoes the testing procedure, whether it is the original claim or not.

How does this relate to the use of the words "null hypothesis" by atheist.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:41:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:31:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?

A statement containing a null, or zero, difference. It is the null hypothesis which undergoes the testing procedure, whether it is the original claim or not.

A statement containing a null or a zero difference? Not necessarily, but that's often the case. However, that's a very imprecise definition of a null hypothesis, and not entirely accurate. I think it's been explained to you enough times that you know that by now.

How does this relate to the use of the words "null hypothesis" by atheist.

I can't make any general conclusions about that, because I've only seen the phrase "null hypothesis" used in response to a theistic belief once before. In that example, it was explained to what they meant (that the default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:48:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:41:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:31:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?

A statement containing a null, or zero, difference. It is the null hypothesis which undergoes the testing procedure, whether it is the original claim or not.

A statement containing a null or a zero difference? Not necessarily, but that's often the case. However, that's a very imprecise definition of a null hypothesis, and not entirely accurate. I think it's been explained to you enough times that you know that by now.

How does this relate to the use of the words "null hypothesis" by atheist.

I can't make any general conclusions about that, because I've only seen the phrase "null hypothesis" used in response to a theistic belief once before. In that example, it was explained to what they meant (that the default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated).

"default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated" and that is a Null Hypothesis?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:03:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:48:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:41:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:31:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?

A statement containing a null, or zero, difference. It is the null hypothesis which undergoes the testing procedure, whether it is the original claim or not.

A statement containing a null or a zero difference? Not necessarily, but that's often the case. However, that's a very imprecise definition of a null hypothesis, and not entirely accurate. I think it's been explained to you enough times that you know that by now.

How does this relate to the use of the words "null hypothesis" by atheist.

I can't make any general conclusions about that, because I've only seen the phrase "null hypothesis" used in response to a theistic belief once before. In that example, it was explained to what they meant (that the default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated).

"default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated" and that is a Null Hypothesis?

No, it's a related concept. Is your entire point that you have found one example of an atheist not using the term "null hypothesis" in a technically accurate way?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 6:03:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:48:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:41:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:31:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?

A statement containing a null, or zero, difference. It is the null hypothesis which undergoes the testing procedure, whether it is the original claim or not.

A statement containing a null or a zero difference? Not necessarily, but that's often the case. However, that's a very imprecise definition of a null hypothesis, and not entirely accurate. I think it's been explained to you enough times that you know that by now.

How does this relate to the use of the words "null hypothesis" by atheist.

I can't make any general conclusions about that, because I've only seen the phrase "null hypothesis" used in response to a theistic belief once before. In that example, it was explained to what they meant (that the default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated).

"default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated" and that is a Null Hypothesis?

No, it's a related concept. Is your entire point that you have found one example of an atheist not using the term "null hypothesis" in a technically accurate way?

Would you say a Null hypothesis is a demonstration that a positive claim is unverified?

I would say yes, and that is not like the related concept [1] either.

[1] default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:43:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 12:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The universe was created by God, a transcendental willful being.

What is the atheist null hypothesis to this?

If "The universe was created by God" is considered the alternative hypothesis, then the null hypothesis must be "the universe was not created by God".

But since "the universe was created" is not even an observation, not null nor alternative hypotheses can be made about it. Moreover, I doubt any claim concerning God could actualy be rejected, and null hypothesis must be refutable by definition.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 10:55:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 6:09:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:03:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:48:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:41:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:31:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:20:26 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

It sounds like no one responded in a way which you could make whatever prepared response you had, so instead of furthering the discussion, you made a blanket statement in an attempt to attack atheists.

Do you still not understand what a null hypothesis is?

A statement containing a null, or zero, difference. It is the null hypothesis which undergoes the testing procedure, whether it is the original claim or not.

A statement containing a null or a zero difference? Not necessarily, but that's often the case. However, that's a very imprecise definition of a null hypothesis, and not entirely accurate. I think it's been explained to you enough times that you know that by now.

How does this relate to the use of the words "null hypothesis" by atheist.

I can't make any general conclusions about that, because I've only seen the phrase "null hypothesis" used in response to a theistic belief once before. In that example, it was explained to what they meant (that the default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated).

"default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated" and that is a Null Hypothesis?

No, it's a related concept. Is your entire point that you have found one example of an atheist not using the term "null hypothesis" in a technically accurate way?

Would you say a Null hypothesis is a demonstration that a positive claim is unverified?

I would say yes, and that is not like the related concept [1] either.

[1] default position is to not accept a positive claim until it is demonstrated

That doesn't even make sense. A null hypothesis doesn't demonstrate anything. A null hypothesis can be demonstrated to be valid or invalid given a statistical accounting of the available evidence.

I answered your question and I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:52:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 12:20:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So there is no athiest null hypothesis. No blanket null hypothesis to theism. Just another word atheist use in arguments with no relation to its actual definition or use.

Bingo, the null hypothesis is a statistical methodology regarding the correlation of data sets. Atheists who claim their position has anything to do with the null hypothesis are just full of it, they don't understand faith, or the null hypothesis.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater