Religion In A Nutshell

I agree !

veya wrote:According to Quill the barber does not exist

Nonsense.  You've merely set up a (definitionally) self-defeating proposition.

What I am saying is much simpler than that.  To make a proven claim, you must have evidence.  No evidence --> not proven --> null hypothesis confirmed.

I have never heard such ridiculous arguments around athiesm and the existance of a god or gods

As an athiest I simple do not believe any Gods exists and this is based off propositions that Gods do exist. These propositions do not have evidence. Thus I do not believe they exist.

Its not down then for me to disprove, something that has not been proven to exist. Thus the onus will always be on the person proposing whether that God or gods exist.

So the absurd view being made on athiesm, when they are not proposing that Gods do not exist. They simple believe that none do exist, as there is no evidence put forward by the multiple different beliefs of believers, to prove there claim to one existing.

Its the same reasoning with Ghosts. I do not believe Ghosts exist. I do not need to disprove they do not exist, when I am not making a proposition. Its simple my belief they do not exist and that to me, there is no evidence that they do. Hence someone who does believe they exist, requires providing evidence to prove that they do exist. Otherwise my view remains that they do not exist. As there is no evidence that they do exist.

Now does this mean i could end up being proven wrong in my athiesm of gods or ghosts? Of course I could be proven wrong, but that is down to those who believe, to prove I am then wrong. Hence to say athiests have to disprove something that thiests cannot prove exists themselves, is then hence absurd.

So I am not thus making a factual statement as Veya wrongly lays claim to make in regards to athiesm. Claiming that this means I am proposing its impossible for god/gods to exist.

I have no doctrine or belief on this. I do not believe the countless proposed views on a god existing, as they all lack any evidence. That then does not mean I am making a proposition to the view to disprove a God exists. It would be like claiming I would have to disprove that Alexander the Great was not a homosexual, as I do not believe he was a homosexual. I am not proposing that he was and its others proposing this, based off how they have read something. Its not stated he was homosexual and thus I do not need to disprove something, that has not been proven. I simple disbelieve that he was.

Hence the views being proposed on athiest and athiesm are simple horsehit, to make it sound like a religion. Its not and its not based on any claim to factual statements, but a disbelief in claims made that a god does exist.

So Lord Foul, if you say there IS a god, and I do not believe you, to then claim abscence of evidence. Means you have no evidence to prove your proposition. Hence I no longer have to bother myself with your proposition. It remains unproven and thus have no need to give it any consideration or the time of day.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:According to Quill the barber does not exist

Nonsense.  You've merely set up a (definitionally) self-defeating proposition.

What I am saying is much simpler than that.  To make a proven claim, you must have evidence.  No evidence --> not proven --> null hypothesis confirmed.

there is no such thing as a Null Hypothesis 
If you want to Claim there is you must have evidence!!!!

Back to you  

ANY and EVERY Hypothesis needs evidence

Phildidge wrote:I have never heard such ridiculous arguments around athiesm and the existance of a god or gods

As an athiest I simple do not believe any Gods exists and this is based off propositions that Gods do exist. These propositions do not have evidence. Thus I do not believe they exist.

Its not down then for me to disprove, something that has not been proven to exist. Thus the onus will always be on the person proposing whether that God or gods exist.

So the absurd view being made on athiesm, when they are not proposing that Gods do not exist. They simple believe that none do exist, as there is no evidence put forward by the multiple different beliefs of believers, to prove there claim to one existing.

Its the same reasoning with Ghosts. I do not believe Ghosts exist. I do not need to disprove they do not exist, when I am not making a proposition. Its simple my belief they do not exist and that to me, there is no evidence that they do. Hence someone who does believe they exist, requires providing evidence to prove that they do exist. Otherwise my view remains that they do not exist. As there is no evidence that they do exist.

Now does this mean i could end up being proven wrong in my athiesm of gods or ghosts? Of course I could be proven wrong, but that is down to those who believe, to prove I am then wrong. Hence to say athiests have to disprove something that thiests cannot prove exists themselves, is then hence absurd.

So I am not thus making a factual statement as Veya wrongly lays claim to make in regards to athiesm. Claiming that this means I am proposing its impossible for god/gods to exist.

I have no doctrine or belief on this. I do not believe the countless proposed views on a god existing, as they all lack any evidence. That then does not mean I am making a proposition to the view to disprove a God exists. It would be like claiming I would have to disprove that Alexander the Great was not a homosexual, as I do not believe he was a homosexual. I am not proposing that he was and its others proposing this, based off how they have read something. Its not stated he was homosexual and thus I do not need to disprove something, that has not been proven. I simple disbelieve that he was.

Hence the views being proposed on athiest and athiesm are simple horsehit, to make it sound like a religion. Its not and its not based on any claim to factual statements, but a disbelief in claims made that a god does exist.

So Lord Foul, if you say there IS a god, and I do not believe you, to then claim abscence of evidence. Means you have no evidence to prove your proposition. Hence I no longer have to bother myself with your proposition. It remains unproven and thus have no need to give it any consideration or the time of day.

No one is saying a God(s) is Proven or one Definitely exists. 
Someone is Saying YOU DON'T KNOW 
you say "You know there is Nothing", so PROVE IT !!!

Because Currently there NO ATHEIST on this forum has been able to put forward a single hypothesis to support their claims of an 'Atheist reality'.. Because All any of you has done is swap priest robes for lab coats 
If that is not true, STATE your hypothesis !!!

the 2 people that Do understand Science both clearly state they are not atheists because scientifically there is no reason to be.

nicko wrote:I agree !

I actually think we agree on a lot spiritually/religiously 

another statement I am pretty much positive you agree with is 

"IF Humans have souls (we don't know for sure they do)  then animals also have souls , and probably all life"

Original Quill wrote:
Nonsense.  You've merely set up a (definitionally) self-defeating proposition.

What I am saying is much simpler than that.  To make a proven claim, you must have evidence.  No evidence --> not proven --> null hypothesis confirmed.

veya_victaous wrote:there is no such thing as a Null Hypothesis 

That's like saying there is no such thing as the word "No" or "Negative".

veya wrote:ANY and EVERY Hypothesis needs evidence...

...or it fails.

veya_victaous wrote:

Phildidge wrote:I have never heard such ridiculous arguments around athiesm and the existance of a god or gods

As an athiest I simple do not believe any Gods exists and this is based off propositions that Gods do exist. These propositions do not have evidence. Thus I do not believe they exist.

Its not down then for me to disprove, something that has not been proven to exist. Thus the onus will always be on the person proposing whether that God or gods exist.

So the absurd view being made on athiesm, when they are not proposing that Gods do not exist. They simple believe that none do exist, as there is no evidence put forward by the multiple different beliefs of believers, to prove there claim to one existing.

Its the same reasoning with Ghosts. I do not believe Ghosts exist. I do not need to disprove they do not exist, when I am not making a proposition. Its simple my belief they do not exist and that to me, there is no evidence that they do. Hence someone who does believe they exist, requires providing evidence to prove that they do exist. Otherwise my view remains that they do not exist. As there is no evidence that they do exist.

Now does this mean i could end up being proven wrong in my athiesm of gods or ghosts? Of course I could be proven wrong, but that is down to those who believe, to prove I am then wrong. Hence to say athiests have to disprove something that thiests cannot prove exists themselves, is then hence absurd.

So I am not thus making a factual statement as Veya wrongly lays claim to make in regards to athiesm. Claiming that this means I am proposing its impossible for god/gods to exist.

I have no doctrine or belief on this. I do not believe the countless proposed views on a god existing, as they all lack any evidence. That then does not mean I am making a proposition to the view to disprove a God exists. It would be like claiming I would have to disprove that Alexander the Great was not a homosexual, as I do not believe he was a homosexual. I am not proposing that he was and its others proposing this, based off how they have read something. Its not stated he was homosexual and thus I do not need to disprove something, that has not been proven. I simple disbelieve that he was.

Hence the views being proposed on athiest and athiesm are simple horsehit, to make it sound like a religion. Its not and its not based on any claim to factual statements, but a disbelief in claims made that a god does exist.

So Lord Foul, if you say there IS a god, and I do not believe you, to then claim abscence of evidence. Means you have no evidence to prove your proposition. Hence I no longer have to bother myself with your proposition. It remains unproven and thus have no need to give it any consideration or the time of day.

No one is saying a God(s) is Proven or one Definitely exists. 
Someone is Saying YOU DON'T KNOW 
you say "You know there is Nothing", so PROVE IT !!!

Because Currently there NO ATHEIST on this forum has been able to put forward a single hypothesis to support their claims of an 'Atheist reality'.. Because All any of you has done is swap priest robes for lab coats 
If that is not true, STATE your hypothesis !!!

the 2 people that Do understand Science both clearly state they are not atheists because scientifically there is no reason to be.

That made zero understanding to what I just said

What do you mean athiest reality?

I just did, in that my reality is I do not believe gods exist, as so far nobody has been able to prove any exist

Hence they remain unproven and always have done

There is no reason to be a believe in gods, scientifically either, hence the absurd reasoning you claim

Hence it works both ways, the point Lord Foul made

As science could one day prove scienitifcally that no god exists

Or did you not think of that?

Once people scienitifcally believed in psude scienitific racism

This has been disproven by science, like a great many things in history have disproved previous claims

Hence it works both ways and there is no reason for scienitists to be believers.

I have easily supported my claim, you simple could not grasp it

So how does Thor or Zeus exist?

Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence of a Sun God, that you believe in called Ra?

Out of the numereous gods that have been beleived or are now believed, which ones are you open to existing?

If you do not believe in many, then your position is little different than mine.

I simple just disbelieve more claims to god than you.

Original Quill wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Nonsense.  You've merely set up a (definitionally) self-defeating proposition.

What I am saying is much simpler than that.  To make a proven claim, you must have evidence.  No evidence --> not proven --> null hypothesis confirmed.

veya_victaous wrote:there is no such thing as a Null Hypothesis 

That's like saying there is no such thing as the word "No" or "Negative".

veya wrote:ANY and EVERY Hypothesis needs evidence...

...or it fails.

there is No such thing as a Null Hypothesis
there is no such thing a Default Hypothesis 
saying something equals Zero is a Hypothesis 
saying something equals a Negative is a Hypothesis

ANY and EVERY Hypothesis needs evidence...

AND Yours fails because YOU have still not presented any evidence

I don't believe in Ra dumbass, never even remotely suggested I did.
you cannot follow the conversation at all you are so stupid


I only need to Claim 3 Things to be true to Hold my hypothesis as Plausible 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

1.
Do you say the Sun does not exist?

2.
do You deny the Sun is most important source of energy for life on Earth?

3.
DO you deny "The energy of this sunlight supports almost all life^[c] on Earth by photosynthesis,^[48] and drives Earth's climate and weather."?


I Make No more claims About the Sun than What is on Wikipedia.... Because Unlike YOU I can Support my Hypothesis with Factual Information Supported By Science 


Now Put up or Shut Up 

veya_victaous wrote:I don't believe in Ra dumbass, never even remotely suggested I did.
you cannot follow the conversation at all you are so stupid


I only need to Claim 3 Things to be true to Hold my hypothesis as Plausible



1.
Do you say the Sun does not exist?

2.
do You deny the Sun is most important source of energy for life on Earth?

3.
DO you deny "The energy of this sunlight supports almost all life[c] on Earth by photosynthesis,[48] and drives Earth's climate and weather."?


I Make No more claims About the Sun than What is on Wikipedia.... Because Unlike YOU I can Support my Hypothesis with Factual Information Supported By Science


Now Put up or Shut Up  

And the abuse starts, because he simple cannot graspt there is no reason to believe a God exist

1) Which sun are we talking about?

2) And also has the energy to destroy all life on earth. Which again goes to the view, you have no idea, and the very fact living organisms, do not need to the sun to exist, nullifies your argument. This being your argument is in centered on the earth and not countless universes. Science has the possibility of sustaining life in the future without a sun. So who is to say life does not already exist elsehwere without the need of a star

3) So the sun is simple an energy source, which does not then mean its a god, as it was created from a reaction that happened in the Universe. So required something else to exist. This does not even remotely prove that it could be a living sensient being. Just saying something exists, when humans can exist and provide life to others, as we already do, does not make then humans as gods either.

So there is no hypothesis you are proposing here, as you have not even proposed a test for your claim. Or any predictions for carrying out any such test. You simple claim the sun, the one in our Universe is a god, not based on any scienitifc reasoning. You are just simple one in a long line of history that has made a claim to the sun being a god.

Its clearly then not a hypothesis you are proposing.

The sun is in effect chaos and its a combination of factors that allow life to exist on this planet and only for a set number of time. Meaning chance has allowed for life to exist, as for example we cannot exist without water either. Is now water a God to you?

I see though you avoided my points, so here they are again

What do you mean athiest reality?

I just did, in that my reality is I do not believe gods exist, as so far nobody has been able to prove any exist

Hence they remain unproven and always have done

There is no reason to be a believe in gods, scientifically either, hence the absurd reasoning you claim

Hence it works both ways, the point Lord Foul made 

As science could one day prove scienitifcally that no god exists

Or did you not think of that?

Once people scienitifcally believed in psude scienitific racism

This has been disproven by science, like a great many things in history have disproved previous claims

Hence it works both ways and there is no reason for scienitists to be believers.

I have easily supported my claim, you simple could not grasp it

So how does Thor or Zeus exist?

Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence of a Sun God, that you believe in called Ra?

Out of the numereous gods that have been beleived or are now believed, which ones are you open to existing?

If you do not believe in many, then your position is little different than mine.

I simple just disbelieve more claims to god than you.

I am not talking about space or any reality, but a method. The scientific method comes from philosophical positivism.

In order for one to posit something, there must be proof. In order to prove something you have posited, the proof must be conclusive. Even then, proof is always corrigible.

The idea of a god fails because no one has brought forward any proof of a god. The lack of proof does not create any other conclusion. Lack of proof is simply a nullity. One doesn't prove a nullity...it is a logical state. One can only confirm a nullity.

I think I always find myself more in Veya’s camp, on this subject.

eddie wrote:I think I always find myself more in Veya’s camp, on this subject.

You don't need proof either? That's cool. The whole concept of "faith" was invented to avoid the issue of substantiation. Lot's of people run with you guys.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I think I always find myself more in Veya’s camp, on this subject.

You don't need proof either?  That's cool.  The whole concept of "faith" was invented to avoid the issue of substantiation.  Lot's of people run with you guys.

You have made many claims without proof. Remember?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You don't need proof either?  That's cool.  The whole concept of "faith" was invented to avoid the issue of substantiation.  Lot's of people run with you guys.

You have made many claims without proof. Remember?

O'rrors!  Moi?  As the Canadians say, I dute it Alice...

Also, tu quoque fallacy.

eddie wrote:I think I always find myself more in Veya’s camp, on this subject.

You mean the unscientific camp?

Where he does not understand what a hypothesis is?

Phildidge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I don't believe in Ra dumbass, never even remotely suggested I did.
you cannot follow the conversation at all you are so stupid


I only need to Claim 3 Things to be true to Hold my hypothesis as Plausible



1.
Do you say the Sun does not exist?

2.
do You deny the Sun is most important source of energy for life on Earth?

3.
DO you deny "The energy of this sunlight supports almost all life[c] on Earth by photosynthesis,[48] and drives Earth's climate and weather."?


I Make No more claims About the Sun than What is on Wikipedia.... Because Unlike YOU I can Support my Hypothesis with Factual Information Supported By Science


Now Put up or Shut Up  

And the abuse starts, because he simple cannot graspt there is no reason to believe a God exist

1) Which sun are we talking about?

2) And also has the energy to destroy all life on earth. Which again goes to the view, you have no idea, and the very fact living organisms, do not need to the sun to exist, nullifies your argument. This being your argument is in centered on the earth and not countless universes. Science has the possibility of sustaining life in the future without a sun. So who is to say life does not already exist elsehwere without the need of a star

3) So the sun is simple an energy source, which does not then mean its a god, as it was created from a reaction that happened in the Universe. So required something else to exist. This does not even remotely prove that it could be a living sensient being. Just saying something exists, when humans can exist and provide life to others, as we already do, does not make then humans as gods either.

So there is no hypothesis you are proposing here, as you have not even proposed a test for your claim. Or any predictions for carrying out any such test. You simple claim the sun, the one in our Universe is a god, not based on any scienitifc reasoning. You are just simple one in a long line of history that has made a claim to the sun being a god.

Its clearly then not a hypothesis you are proposing.

The sun is in effect chaos and its a combination of factors that allow life to exist on this planet and only for a set number of time. Meaning chance has allowed for life to exist, as for example we cannot exist without water either. Is now water a God to you?

I see though you avoided my points, so here they are again

What do you mean athiest reality?

I just did, in that my reality is I do not believe gods exist, as so far nobody has been able to prove any exist

Hence they remain unproven and always have done

There is no reason to be a believe in gods, scientifically either, hence the absurd reasoning you claim

Hence it works both ways, the point Lord Foul made 

As science could one day prove scienitifcally that no god exists

Or did you not think of that?

Once people scienitifcally believed in psude scienitific racism

This has been disproven by science, like a great many things in history have disproved previous claims

Hence it works both ways and there is no reason for scienitists to be believers.

I have easily supported my claim, you simple could not grasp it

So how does Thor or Zeus exist?

Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence of a Sun God, that you believe in called Ra?

Out of the numereous gods that have been beleived or are now believed, which ones are you open to existing?

If you do not believe in many, then your position is little different than mine.

I simple just disbelieve more claims to god than you.

Show that otherwise I am Banning you

If you want to Ruin threads by just posting Lies and Shit you are not worth having here

veya wrote:Show that otherwise I am Banning you

Never mind him.  I ran across this and thot you might find it interesting.

Thought Co. wrote:How to State a Null Hypothesis
There are two ways to state a null hypothesis. One is to state it as a declarative sentence, and the other is to present it as a mathematical statement.

For example, say a researcher suspects that exercise is correlated to weight loss, assuming a diet remains unchanged. The average length of time to achieve a certain weight loss is an average of 6 weeks when a person works out five times a week. The researcher wants to test whether weight loss takes longer if the number of workouts is reduced to three times a week.

The first step to writing the null hypothesis is to find the (alternate) hypothesis. In a word problem like this, you're looking for what you expect as the outcome of the experiment. In this case, the hypothesis is "I expect weight loss to take longer than 6 weeks."


This can be written mathematically as: H1: μ > 6

In this example, μ is the average.

Now, the null hypothesis is what you expect if this hypothesis does not happen. In this case, if weight loss isn't achieved in greater than 6 weeks, then it must occur at a time equal to or less than 6 weeks.

H0: μ ≤ 6

The other way to state the null hypothesis is to make no assumption about the outcome of the experiment. In this case, the null hypothesis is simply that the treatment or change will have no effect on the outcome of the experiment. For this example, it would be that reducing the number of workouts would not affect time to achieve weight loss:

H0: μ = 6

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-null-hypothesis-and-examples-605436

And all 3 things you posted are WRONG factually WRONG 

if you wish to dispute POST evidence to support 

Because AGAIN 
You have Not posted ANYTHING to support any of your claims

@quill 

But you are not doing that 
from Your post 

The first step to writing the null hypothesis is to find the (alternate) hypothesis

So you need to define a Alternate Hypothesis for God(s) and to do that You need to Define What a God is?

p.s. Definitions from Documents that are proven incorrect (e.g. the bible) are already invalidated


This is where You get the 'the Sun is a god' Hypothesis (not 'the sun god' Hypothesis that the Dumbass can't get his head around) 
As I Posted to Les,  
Logically this needs to start by defining the 'functions of god(s)' in order to define what are 'god(s)'
when we start doing that If we then look at the Universe Honestly without the Chains of Dogma 
there is an existing entity that preforms a large number of those functions (the Sun/stars)

And before someone says but the Sun is already a thing, I say Yes it is already a thing a Literal Giant Ball of Cosmic energy 
a.k.a something that sounds a lot more what a we would expect a 'real god'/divinity to look like than an 'Old man in Robes'.

veya_victaous wrote:

Phildidge wrote:


And the abuse starts, because he simple cannot graspt there is no reason to believe a God exist

1) Which sun are we talking about?

2) And also has the energy to destroy all life on earth. Which again goes to the view, you have no idea, and the very fact living organisms, do not need to the sun to exist, nullifies your argument. This being your argument is in centered on the earth and not countless universes. Science has the possibility of sustaining life in the future without a sun. So who is to say life does not already exist elsehwere without the need of a star

3) So the sun is simple an energy source, which does not then mean its a god, as it was created from a reaction that happened in the Universe. So required something else to exist. This does not even remotely prove that it could be a living sensient being. Just saying something exists, when humans can exist and provide life to others, as we already do, does not make then humans as gods either.

So there is no hypothesis you are proposing here, as you have not even proposed a test for your claim. Or any predictions for carrying out any such test. You simple claim the sun, the one in our Universe is a god, not based on any scienitifc reasoning. You are just simple one in a long line of history that has made a claim to the sun being a god.

Its clearly then not a hypothesis you are proposing.

The sun is in effect chaos and its a combination of factors that allow life to exist on this planet and only for a set number of time. Meaning chance has allowed for life to exist, as for example we cannot exist without water either. Is now water a God to you?

I see though you avoided my points, so here they are again

What do you mean athiest reality?

I just did, in that my reality is I do not believe gods exist, as so far nobody has been able to prove any exist

Hence they remain unproven and always have done

There is no reason to be a believe in gods, scientifically either, hence the absurd reasoning you claim

Hence it works both ways, the point Lord Foul made 

As science could one day prove scienitifcally that no god exists

Or did you not think of that?

Once people scienitifcally believed in psude scienitific racism

This has been disproven by science, like a great many things in history have disproved previous claims

Hence it works both ways and there is no reason for scienitists to be believers.

I have easily supported my claim, you simple could not grasp it

So how does Thor or Zeus exist?

Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence of a Sun God, that you believe in called Ra?

Out of the numereous gods that have been beleived or are now believed, which ones are you open to existing?

If you do not believe in many, then your position is little different than mine.

I simple just disbelieve more claims to god than you.

Show that otherwise I am Banning you

If you want to Ruin threads by just posting Lies and Shit you are not worth having here

Oh grow up, there is no rule here on what I just said

You believe the sun is a God

People have been calling the sun a god in various forms for thousands of years and one of those names is Ra

In other words, you are simple like others, who have seen the sun as a God who called it Ra

Grow up, you are just pissed, because I proved you are unscientific

In that you did not even know what the methods of a  hypothesis is

All you did was make statements without any testable methods, or even predicitions for this test

Hence what you posted was not a hypothesis, but a claim, based on beliefs, not science.

Or the fact that everyone, is athiest in regards to to the Gods they do not believe in

So I am not ruining any thread, and you do this everytime, you are shown up to be wrong

So go ahead and ban me, I will simple email the other mods and have your temper tantrum over ruled

veya wrote:@quill

But you are not doing that
from Your post

The first step to writing the null hypothesis is to find the (alternate) hypothesis

So you need to define a Alternate Hypothesis for God(s) and to do that You need to Define What a God is?

Why am I not doing that?  Because I was jumping straight to the ultimate point.

The alternate) hypothesis that we have been using is: e.g. Hypothesis: there is a god.  When there is no evidence in substantiation, we must opt for the null hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is only the 'no' to the alternate hypothesis.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:@quill

But you are not doing that
from Your post

The first step to writing the null hypothesis is to find the (alternate) hypothesis

So you need to define a Alternate Hypothesis for God(s) and to do that You need to Define What a God is?

Why am I not doing that?  Because I was jumping straight to the ultimate point.

The alternate) hypothesis that we have been using is: e.g. Hypothesis: there is a god.  When there is no evidence in substantiation, we must opt for the null hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is only the 'no' to the alternate hypothesis.

Because a Null hypothesis only works on your alternate Hypothesis 

What is your alternative to 'There is No God(s)' ?  You need to have Both sides to create a Null Hypothesis.
So that is the Null Hypothesis you want to write , So you need to find an Affirmative Hypothesis

The first step to writing the null hypothesis is to find the (alternate) hypothesis

EVEN then all You can Say is this SPECIFIC hypothesis is untrue 

To form a Null hypothesis for All God(s) imaginable you need to to Create an Affirmative Hypothesis that cover all God(s) imaginable 

And In Science you 100% cannot 'jump Straight to the point' again Totally at odds with everything the scientific methodology stands for. You need to Methodically go through the process to reach the outcome.... to 'jump Straight to the point' is called Guessing

@quill 
let me walk you through My Scientific Methodology Journey from 'Atheist Agnostic' born and raised to just Agnostic.
I started because I was bored of arguing with Christians since they just Stupidly Parrot shit without thinking So I decided to 'devils advocate' some ideas to argue with Atheist that I assumed would be Thinking people (I was wrong, most are just Stupid parrots like  Christians.. read didge's post as an example) 


SO then what is the statement I am looking at? for me it was simply 'God(s) exist'

the proof of that statement requires 2 elements: one 'that it is a god' and two 'that it exists' 

So normally A religious Person (or an Atheist that is still brainwashed) has a God in mind that they want to prove(or disprove using it as the alternative to their Null). So they approach the solution starting with the God part already defined and then move on to trying to prove it exists.

But I don't have any particular god(s) in mind, it doesn't matter to me which specific god(s) end up being plausible since I don't worship any. So I approach the solution the other way, I start with something that Exists and now have to show it could be god. 

So My Hypothesis to meet the statement 'God(s) Exist' is the proposition 'the sun is a god' .. So how does this meet the requirements?

does the sun exists?
that is pretty much indisputable, so it meets one of the requirements it Exists 

does it qualify as a god?
this is open to debate, I have supplied my requirements to qualify as a 'God' and the Sun does meet and exceed those requirements. I am happy for someone else to supply a Definition for 'god(s)' and debate that too.

Keep in mind that any definition/requirement for a god(s) or a 'god(s) functions' must be quantifiable in order for Science to use it in a Hypothesis. So any Morals, afterlife stuff, etc we can't objectively measure so we can't really use them.

Also it is disingenuous to Start with something You know to be untrue

veya wrote:does it qualify as a god?
this is open to debate, I have supplied my requirements to qualify as a 'God' and the Sun does meet and exceed those requirements. I am happy for someone else to supply a Definition for 'god(s)' and debate that too.

I start at the null hypothesis, because that is what I had at birth.  My requirements are that s/he is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.  There has as yet been no finding; we are thus still at the null hypothesis.

lol, so Veya decided to argue with athiests and when an athiest proved him wrong and that he cannot formulate a Hypothesis. He runs away after threatening me with a ban. Because he simple could not answer my points

Priceless

As I said, everyone is an athiest to a certain degree

I simple disbelieve in more gods, than they do

To make a claim that the Sun is a God requires testable methods and predictions

Simple claiming it could be a god, has about as much validity, as Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse

So your claim that it meets requirments, does not meet any requirements that have been set. As you have decided what they are and not what has been decided by everyone.

I mean anyone can set requirements , to then manke a claim that humans are gods.  Its an absurd and illogical unscientific claim. That as seen, has no bases in science. It again has to be an agreed upon requirements set scientifically. That set this apart from everything else..Which makes it completely subjective.

For example

Living sentient being
Controllable powers
Range of powers (for example, stop and change time, in other words, what are these powers?)
Can these powers create and sustain life on their own?
Immortal
Ultimately high Levels of intelligence

Of course this is just an example, but the above could be a framework, which there is no way you can make testable methods on this to work out predictions based off this.

So the only person showing himself up to be a complete idiot Veya, is you here.

So let me embarress you further as to what is the method of a hypothesis

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

Make an observation.

Ask a question.

Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.

Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.

Test the prediction.

Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

As seen your claim, falls at the third hurdle and is thus not a hypoethsis, but a claim, without scientific foundation

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:does it qualify as a god?
this is open to debate, I have supplied my requirements to qualify as a 'God' and the Sun does meet and exceed those requirements. I am happy for someone else to supply a Definition for 'god(s)' and debate that too.

I start at the null hypothesis, because that is what I had at birth.  My requirements are that s/he is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.  There has as yet been no finding; we are thus still at the null hypothesis.

Ok so you are only looking at the Abrahamic god?

because most gods defined by man are none of those things 
Thor, Odin, Zeus, Athena, Hades, Rainbow serpent etc
are all not that, so can you support how you have that requirement?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You don't need proof either?  That's cool.  The whole concept of "faith" was invented to avoid the issue of substantiation.  Lot's of people run with you guys.

You have made many claims without proof. Remember?

Make an observation.

As a Mortal Life-form I would be a Completely deluded Self Absorbed Moron to not acknowledge whatever is responsible for Life's existence/evolution is as good as 'divine',  something that is for all practical intents and purposes a God. 

Ask a question.

What has been responsible for Life's existence/evolution?

Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.

The Sun is 'divine' as it is responsible for Life's existence/evolution, this can be tested by allowing or removing access to Sun light. as well as analysis of the geological fossil record.  
 

Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.

the Sun will 'feed' the bottom of the food chain Sustaining the Entire Chain by being the foundation of which the chain exists. All Complex Life will either feed on other life forms or from the Sun's radiation 

Test the prediction.


Photosynthesis exists and plants which feed on solar radiation form the bottom of the food chain.

Living sentient being
Controllable powers
Range of powers (for example, stop and change time, in other words, what are these powers?)
Can these powers create and sustain life on their own?
Immortal
Ultimately high Levels of intelligence

The Great God known often as 'the world tree' common to many Native European religions   

Not sentient 
not controllable 
no great range of powers 
mortal 
non-intellect 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil


I don't have to Define things to My Argument 
Since my Argument is already built around conditions already defined by others as to what are functions of god(s)

veya_victaous wrote:

Living sentient being
Controllable powers
Range of powers (for example, stop and change time, in other words, what are these powers?)
Can these powers create and sustain life on their own?
Immortal
Ultimately high Levels of intelligence

The Great God known often as 'the world tree' common to many Native European religions   

Not sentient 
not controllable 
no great range of powers 
mortal 
non-intellect 




I don't have to Define things to My Argument 
Since my Argument is already built around conditions already defined by others as to what are functions of god(s)

Yes you do have to define it scientifically, as otherwise your hypoethsis is utterly baseless.

Your previous post was laughable at best. As in no way was it a testable hypoethsis as to what proves what a God is

It simple is a claim and not a truthful claim based on life

As its not just the sun that is solely responsible for life on earth

There is many factors and more so the earth, that creates the ability to have life on earth. So much so that it protects this planet from harmful rays from the sun, that would kill all life on this planet. Hence you are barking up the wrong entire tree. Its why life does not now exist on Mars and no other planet within the sphere of our sun. That proves to you, that it is precise conditions that enable life on this one planet and not the rest. Even though its very evident that life could have one day previously existed on Mars

So your hypothesis is not anything of the sort, as in no way does it test that the sun is a God

Best you try again, and if you think I am wrong, then simple post your hypoethsis to countless scientists and watch them rip apart your poor claim. As that is what they would utterly do

So the first thing you have to do is making a reasoning based on what a god is.

Hence your list above could apply to water, wind etc

Does that now make them gods to you?

DOh
dumbies back
Water wind etc are caused by the sun
without it all liquid is frozen
wind is caused by the shifting water vapor that also only exists because we are in the Goldilocks zone of the sin

the earths matter only congealed and formed a planet in this spot because of the sun, the sun has been forming the solar system since the solar system begun. everything in it is a product of the sun or 'caught' by the sun where is came from other suns. Multiple elements that make our bodies can only be created by suns, dispersed into the universe upon their death, they are Jesus like in that way.

And I did make a reasoning what a god is and found a entity that meets that. the sun is more powerful than Thor, it vastly eclipses his 'functions'

So it is Up to YOU to show what a god is? and why mine isn't one
since my god is visible with the naked eyes and it's functions are proven

veya_victaous wrote:DOh
dumbies back
Water wind etc are caused by the sun
without it all liquid is frozen
wind is caused by the shifting water vapor that also only exists because we are in the Goldilocks zone of the sin

the earths matter only congealed and formed a planet in this spot because of the sun, the sun has been forming the solar system since the solar system begun. everything in it is a product of the sun or 'caught' by the sun where is came from other suns. Multiple elements that make our bodies can only be created by suns, dispersed into the universe upon their death, they are Jesus like in that way.

Sorry, water in the Universe is caused by the sun?

Really?

Again many things help sustain this planet, which in no way proves that the Sun is a god

Its also a minor sun compared to many others.

You are simple again not presenting any scientific tests for a hypoethsis for the sun to be a god. As again you cannot scientifically set the boundaries of what a God is. Let alone create any tests, to then find achievable answers.

So its not up to me what to show a God is, as its you are trying to prove the sun is a god and have failed to provide any scienitific reasoning

Its why if you presented your view to scientists, they would laugh at you and we both know that

The sun is simple a form of energy, that even scientists are working on creating a working miniture sun, for use in energy.

Hardly makes for being a god, when then humans can create one.

If Water is caused by the Sun, why are Middle East Countries suffering drought when they have more Sun than anywhere else ?

nicko wrote:If Water is caused by the Sun,  why are Middle East Countries suffering drought when they have more Sun than anywhere else ?

I think he meant that without the Sun there would be ice instead of water.

No ice in Oman

nicko wrote:If Water is caused by the Sun,  why are Middle East Countries suffering drought when they have more Sun than anywhere else ?

Because they lack the constituent properties of water: hydrogen and oxygen. Water is the chemical substance with chemical formula H2O; one molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms, molecularly bonded to a single oxygen atom.

nicko wrote:If Water is caused by the Sun,  why are Middle East Countries suffering drought when they have more Sun than anywhere else ?

because the scale of the suns power is vaster then our earth
it keeps our planet at a temperature where water can exist in liquid form
on other planets it is ice or steam/gas, or the hydrogen and oxygen exist but in molecules other than water.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/

The study pushes back the clock on the origin of Earth's water by hundreds of millions of years, to around 4.6 billion years ago, when all the worlds of the inner solar system were still forming.

that sounds like a time one could hypothesis is 'god creating earth'
and what was causing this 'forming of worlds'?
the Sun, through it's gravity planets were formed.
it caught and combined the space 'debris' that allow it to spin earth into existence
Including the atoms that become water in the right conditions, those conditions are heavily reliant on Sun.
the condition are referred to as the Goldilocks zone and are literally a scale based on the size/power of the sun/star and the distance away from it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

Where did the water come from to this planet Veya?

Did the sun in this system create that?

Nope

Thus life would not exist without water

Thus, is water a God to you?

Here you go Veya. One of my favorite programs. "Young Sheldon", a spin off of "The Big Bang Theory"

Sheldon is an athiest and makes a far more convincing argument scienitifcally that there could be a God.

Enjoy

Statistics?  To prove a god exists?  What are the odds that would happen all by itself?  Don't buy a lottery ticket with that reasoning.  The odds are equal to those that it wouldn't happen....50-50.

Hmmm...  There are an infinite number of moons in the universe.  One must be made of green cheese.  Ergo: the moon is made of green cheese!

Read this:

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:If Water is caused by the Sun,  why are Middle East Countries suffering drought when they have more Sun than anywhere else ?

I think he meant that without the Sun there would be ice instead of water.

We'd have to boil it all up in special The Sun has Turned the Water to Ice kettles.

Thor wrote:Where did the water come from to this planet Veya?

Did the sun in this system create that?

Nope

Thus life would not exist without water

Thus, is water a God to you?

Is Water a Single Entity? Can you point to it as an Object and say 'that is a Water' NOT 'this is some water'  
Water is just Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms held at temperature to be water by in nature almost always by the SUN (or other star which I do imply is also a god)

Did the Water Actually Exist as Water without the Sun ? No it didn't it was 2 separate elements in the rare cases when they were fused in to a molecule they were ICE not water.  that Had formed in the debris that had been accumulated By the SUN !!!! 


 with that Young Sheldon Nonsense 
that Gravity SHIT is just made up by the show IT'S NOT TRUE.
that's not how gravity works it is a relative force no absolute!! so the Sentence he said doesn't even make Sense!!!
Gravity strength is Relative to the Mass of the Object it is NOT a constant that 'if it were bit stronger or weaker' would do anything because that's Not what it is!
No wonder your so Deluded. You don't have a fucking clue about Science and what is real 

You are too stupid, I don't know why I bother 
and I'm not going to Anymore 

If Quill or some with a brain want to continue fine 
But You can STFU

And here we go again back to insults

I see you have dropped your ridiculous unscientific claim to the sun being a god

I see the video, which was to take the piss out of you clearly worked

Triggered

Now as you clearly have no intent to debate this properlly and just insult

You are done here

Drop Kick Me, Jesus, Through The Goalposts Of Life

HoratioTarr wrote:Drop Kick Me, Jesus, Through The Goalposts Of Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5Y1OuQIxo

That's one I like to sing at karaoke.