Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

[hottiedeafboi]

God created everything and man will never find completrly how things are created. We are so finite in many ways and God is Infinite. Nothing wrong with science, but depend how man use science either slap God in the face or acknowledge the is Living God who created. Even some said there isn't any God or god. Even Pharoah depend on his god of nile, stars moon and sun. Same one oppose Moses. Even Paul in new testament point out true God which many greeks worshipped all man made god. Some received some try to stone him. Its been going on over thousands of years. Human wouldntlet go of their pride and admit that God actually did created everything as start of atom,gases and etc. About God there and we here, no, He is omnipresence, meaning God is everywhere, only lake or river is btween Heaven and earth, only can cross the bridge is the cross. People have choices, either accept His awesome gift or reject. He is a Creator of all and all, and nothing missed. Smile

 

[RedFox]

You mention the possibility of the physical universe being eternal--however, is that indeed what the scientific evidence is pointing to? The understanding I had was that it did have a specific time at which it started.

From within the universe, it looks like it had a beginning. If time began with the universe, it could be said that the universe had existed for all of time, but still had a beginning anyway in a similar way one can't go further north than the north pole. Eternal isn't the right word for this all-timeness.

Anyway, you do start getting a problem with the infinite regression again if you postulate that something else made the universe, because then something had to make whatever made THAT stuff.

What if that creator of the creator turns out to be eternal? What if there is an eternal thing at some finite number into the regression? The god believers propose is a case of this where the number is one step away from the universe. Nobody has evidence for any of those things except for the universe.

I don't see God as being restricted to being outside the universe. But there can still be a barrier that we cannot necessarily cross, that we can.

Where we get into problems with detecting it scientifically is that I'm not sure we have the capabilities to detect what the barrier is, and when it's being crossed. I remember you and I had a discussion about one of my stories, though, where I conjectured on what could happen if we discovered such an interface.

This god is in a realm outside the universe or somehow defines such a realm. Won't seeing Jesus do miracles or transfigure or Moses seeing the burning-but-not-really-burning bush be a detection of a crossing or merely seeing the results of crossings?

What the God-of-the-gaps argument, as I understand it, seems to say is that God is responsible for anything we cannot explain, and kind of confined there. That's not the same tack I take...I see Him as the author of the explainable scientific processes as well. While at times He may intervene in ways that normally wouldn't happen, I also think that some of His intentions were designed right into the make of the universe itself. My personal thought is that while evolution was going on, that all the way down to the quantum level He knew what He wanted to happen and had designed this universe to end up producing that result from the start. (We'll discuss other universes shortly. )

How about making a new version of the god of the gaps that has a god that set up natural processes and control what is currently not explained. What would be good names for those two versions?

However, the one thing the God-of-the-gaps argument has going for it is that it does point out our inability to prove OR disprove the existence of God when we don't have full knowledge of all that happened, or all of the variables. So if one is dealing strictly with science, the final conclusion one comes to is agnosticism. That is, with nothing else brought in.

Certain cases of gods can be disproved if it is held that gods can't have self contradictionary characteristics or make physical entities violate physics without introducing a temperory mini-sub-universe that allows the different physics to be done in it.

I never have had a problem with admitting that my final choice in what I believe is due to faith. But I also don't accept the idea that science precludes God's existence.

Science does not preclude the existence of every sort of god because a god can be constructed to be unfalsifiable. However, all unfalsifiable things have equal validity because there is no way to see which ones are better, more true or real than other ones.

Did I ever mention that another of my story ideas deals with the idea of another universe, that works slightly differently from ours but mostly similar? I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a Level II or IV though...that was not the clearest of explanations in that article.

That's interesting.

 

[Rose Immortal]

From within the universe, it looks like it had a beginning. If time began with the universe, it could be said that the universe had existed for all of time, but still had a beginning anyway in a similar way one can't go further north than the north pole. Eternal isn't the right word for this all-timeness.

And according to this idea, anything external to the universe would still be in a state of "all-timeness" as you call it? I'm still trying to sort out the distinction you're drawing between eternity and all-timeness, though...

What if that creator of the creator turns out to be eternal? What if there is an eternal thing at some finite number into the regression? The god believers propose is a case of this where the number is one step away from the universe. Nobody has evidence for any of those things except for the universe.

One of the troubles I brought up with this in an earlier thread is the idea of subdividing an infinite being completely...and that might actually be the key on the theological end (not the scientific one because of our lack of ability to measure it) to stop the infinite regression and confirm that the God we worship is indeed one step away. I'm not sure a total division could be made...how does one completely divide an infinite thing? The mathematics would have to get pretty weird there. What do you get? Two infinities? Then again, for there to be two, it seems that would negate the very idea of a thing being infinite.

This makes the idea of a Trinity seem more reasonable than it would appear on first glance. Any extension of an infinite God would still be connected TO that God and part of Him even if what we see is a distinct identity.

This god is in a realm outside the universe or somehow defines such a realm. Won't seeing Jesus do miracles or transfigure or Moses seeing the burning-but-not-really-burning bush be a detection of a crossing or merely seeing the results of crossings?

BTW, please do forgive the horrid typo I made in my original post...I saw it when you quoted it.

The case of Jesus is particularly interesting considering that His incarnation in and of itself, and subsequent death and resurrection, is considered to be THE biggest intervention of God into the physical universe since its creation. Going to my "lake" metaphor, a simplistic comparison would be if you didn't just poke the surface with your finger to make ripples--but actually held your hand in on a sustained basis and interacted over time with what was under the surface. Moses' encounter with the burning bush was more than an encounter with a physics-defying fire, but rather an encounter with an actual manifestation of God that was sustained over however long it took for Him to convey a message to Moses. The potential for odd occurrences, some physics-defying, in the areas where God is intervening that directly would make sense...not to mention it's pretty effective for getting one's attention.

I imagine there are other cases where rather than seeing something sustained over a long time that's that obvious and visible, that we might just come across the results of an intervention. Miraculous healings may be one such instance. Other things, I suspect, are quantum-level interventions, things we may not even be aware of for generations until the cumulative effects pile up sufficiently. That's more the kind of thing I see when I consider how I believe God guided the evolutionary process, the star and planet-formation process, and other things that took place over a huge span of time. So in some of those cases we may be seeing aftereffects of a particular intervention.

I'm not exactly sure how to frame a response in the exact terms of your question, but I hope that helps suggest something.

How about making a new version of the god of the gaps that has a god that set up natural processes and control what is currently not explained. What would be good names for those two versions?

Not sure...I'm not gonna volunteer my name on here, so naming one after me is out.

Certain cases of gods can be disproved if it is held that gods can't have self contradictionary characteristics or make physical entities violate physics without introducing a temperory mini-sub-universe that allows the different physics to be done in it.

What kind of sub-universe are you talking about, exactly?

Also, what about the implications of quantum mechanics? If the actions of subatomic particles are probabilistic, then that opens up some potential ways of intervention by God (see what I was talking about with evolution/planet creation)...why DID a particular particle go this way as opposed to that one? The cumulative effect of these events can ultimately have some pretty sweeping effects.

Science does not preclude the existence of every sort of god because a god can be constructed to be unfalsifiable. However, all unfalsifiable things have equal validity because there is no way to see which ones are better, more true or real than other ones.

At least under strict science--faith is a different matter and that's why ultimately everyone's belief comes down to faith...even an atheistic belief.

That's interesting.

My mind works in really weird ways.

 

[netrox]

The bush burning is very likely came from Dictamnus, a plant with oily substance that can ignite into flame without harming the leaves in a very hot weather. Once ignited, it creates a flash.

 

[Reba]

The bush burning is very likely came from Dictamnus, a plant with oily substance that can ignite into flame without harming the leaves in a very hot weather. Once ignited, it creates a flash.

"Moses' encounter with the burning bush was more than an encounter with a physics-defying fire, but rather an encounter with an actual manifestation of God that was sustained over however long it took for Him to convey a message to Moses."

That's not just a "flash" of fire.

Also, if that was just one bush of a species that commonly ignited into flame, why would it be significant for Moses to mention THE burning bush that he experienced?

Exodus 3:3
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

If that was a common occurrence, it seems that during the many years that Moses lived in that area he wouldn't have been surprised by the flaming bush, and wouldn't need to "turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt."

 

[Rose Immortal]

Right. Again, this goes to my point that ancient people weren't stupid. A lot of times I see this assumption that they had no clue about the world whatsoever...and maybe they couldn't quote you the periodic table, but I think they had a pretty good handle on what was normal and what wasn't.

 

[MorriganTait]

"Moses' encounter with the burning bush was more than an encounter with a physics-defying fire, but rather an encounter with an actual manifestation of God that was sustained over however long it took for Him to convey a message to Moses."

That's not just a "flash" of fire.

For myself, I am indifferent as to the validity of an actual burning bush - it's really not the important thing here. What's important is God's call to Moses, and the message he conveyed which has changed the lives of countless millions of people.

I know myself that God's call is sometimes as clear as a message on the side of the Goodyear Blimp hovering over your house, and sometimes it's just a tugging feeling you have in your heart. No one can prove or disprove God's call to anyone else, and it isn't really meant to be that kind of thing. When God speaks to your heart, it's only you that really needs to get the message. I am of the opinion that God will reach you where you are if he's got something important you need to know.

 

[Endymion]

What if that creator of the creator turns out to be eternal? What if there is an eternal thing at some finite number into the regression? The god believers propose is a case of this where the number is one step away from the universe. Nobody has evidence for any of those things except for the universe.

On an unrelated tangent, what if the creator was created through a logical process equivalent to: log(1/2 + 2/3 + 3/4 + . . . 99/100) ? The product of the numbers is zero (or close enough), but the result is 1 (or, creation).

It seems very quirky, and I don't think I'm making any sense. It does make for some beautiful mathematics, though.

 

[netrox]

If that was a common occurrence, it seems that during the many years that Moses lived in that area he wouldn't have been surprised by the flaming bush, and wouldn't need to "turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt."

What I was trying to point out was that the authors of OT likely witnessed the burning bush and considered it a miracle so they incorporated the burning bush into the Moses story. That is where they got the "burning bush without leaves being burned" idea. That plant was common where Moses resided.

Also, at that time, many people practiced pagan rituals and magic was a common practice. We can look at people doing the voodoo magic and see how people believed they were possessed. They also resorted to healing as well. In the New Testament, Jesus called out demons in people who were believed to be possessed. He also resurrected a dead man and made the blind see with his spit.

 

[RedFox]

And according to this idea, anything external to the universe would still be in a state of "all-timeness" as you call it? I'm still trying to sort out the distinction you're drawing between eternity and all-timeness, though...

By all-timeness, I mean that the object or universe existed for as long as there was time. Before the big bang, the time dimension of the universe didn't have meaning. Maybe if the universe is in an external realm, the external realm could have its own time, metatime, but we don't know of any signs of this.

One of the troubles I brought up with this in an earlier thread is the idea of subdividing an infinite being completely...

The creators of creators may not be subdivisions of an infinite being, but seperate beings.

This makes the idea of a Trinity seem more reasonable than it would appear on first glance. Any extension of an infinite God would still be connected TO that God and part of Him even if what we see is a distinct identity.

Interesting thought on how the Trinity concept would work.

What kind of sub-universe are you talking about, exactly?

I was talking about creating a bubble of spacetime with different properties. The M-theory has all sorts of membranes with many sorts of geometries in the 11th dimension, moving around, crashing into each other and making big bangs. That's one sort of parallel universe.

Interview about this

Also, what about the implications of quantum mechanics? If the actions of subatomic particles are probabilistic, then that opens up some potential ways of intervention by God (see what I was talking about with evolution/planet creation)...why DID a particular particle go this way as opposed to that one? The cumulative effect of these events can ultimately have some pretty sweeping effects.

Another sort of parallel universe would be universes that branch off over time with an universe for each possible outcome of quantum events.

At least under strict science--faith is a different matter and that's why ultimately everyone's belief comes down to faith...even an atheistic belief.

Lots of people define atheism as lacking belief in any gods, so it's not a belief with that defination. Saying that it takes faith to have no belief in a god would mean that believers in the Christian god also have a lot of faith to not believe in the countless other gods humans have ever believed in and the countless other possible gods that may be made up in the future or somewhere else like on other planets.

 

[Rose Immortal]

The creators of creators may not be subdivisions of an infinite being, but seperate beings.

That would require a whole different definition of a god, one more along the lines of polytheistic religions like Hindu or Native American traditions. What you get into there, and what I don't personally accept, is the idea of a god that is anything less than infinite in power and ability, as well as other traits like wisdom and love.

I was talking about creating a bubble of spacetime with different properties. The M-theory has all sorts of membranes with many sorts of geometries in the 11th dimension, moving around, crashing into each other and making big bangs. That's one sort of parallel universe.

Interview about this

Interesting...but I don't know that there's ever been anything that proves string theory.

If it were true, then maybe The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe isn't so far off-base after all...

Another sort of parallel universe would be universes that branch off over time with an universe for each possible outcome of quantum events.

I've heard that as one description of quantum theory, but is that proven or one of the theories?

Lots of people define atheism as lacking belief in any gods, so it's not a belief with that defination. Saying that it takes faith to have no belief in a god would mean that believers in the Christian god also have a lot of faith to not believe in the countless other gods humans have ever believed in and the countless other possible gods that may be made up in the future or somewhere else like on other planets.

It does indeed require faith of the Christian to not accept other gods humans have described--so my point stands.

 

[Teresh]

It does indeed require faith of the Christian to not accept other gods humans have described--so my point stands.

And yet you can't seem to agree if there's one God or four. (Or five, if you're particularly adventurous.)

 

[RedFox]

That would require a whole different definition of a god, one more along the lines of polytheistic religions like Hindu or Native American traditions. What you get into there, and what I don't personally accept, is the idea of a god that is anything less than infinite in power and ability, as well as other traits like wisdom and love.

Interesting...but I don't know that there's ever been anything that proves string theory.

Here's stuff on string theory.

Since the influence of quantum effects upon gravity only become significant at distances many orders of magnitude smaller than human beings have the technology to observe (or at roughly the Planck length, about 10-35 meters), string theory, or any other candidate theory of quantum gravity, will be very difficult to test experimentally. Eventually, scientists may be able to test string theory by observing cosmological phenomena which may be sensitive to string physics.

I've heard that as one description of quantum theory, but is that proven or one of the theories?

Here, it says that there is mathematical equivalence between the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds one because they give the same results, but the Copenhagen one uses more maths. But there's this:

However, this algorithmic equivalence may not be true on a cosmological scale. It has been proposed that in a world with infinite alternate universes, the universes which collapse would exist for a shorter time than universes which expand, and that would cause detectable probability differences between many-worlds and the Copenhagen interpretation.

This is interesting:

One might argue that postulating the existence of many worlds is some kind of axiomatic assumption, but the concept of quantum superpositions is a common indispensable part of all interpretations of quantum theory, as is most clearly illustrated in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Everett's theory just considers it a real phenomenon in nature and applies it to macroscopic systems in the same way as to microscopic systems.

It does indeed require faith of the Christian to not accept other gods humans have described--so my point stands.

It is having no options regarding the gods. ITS did a survey at RIT about the internet services like email and connectivity they provide on campus. Their survey asked people to rate different services and included a no option option. If somebody heard of a service, but never used it or never heard of a service, the no option selection could be appropriate.

The conception of atheism I am thinking about is like selecting no option for gods one doesn't worship and those one haven't heard of rather than giving a rating. I think of faith as having an option with no justification or evidence. Having no unjustified options about gods is having no faith about them, which includes having no faith about their nonexistence. Here's a page on this.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Reading the stuff about string theory, something really stuck out--the idea that at this point it is non-falsifiable and relying on pre-Baconian methods to justify it. Why on Earth would scientists be allowed to deviate from their methods with regard to that theory? Even if the theory true, that's quite an anomaly in scientific practice.

It is having no options regarding the gods. ITS did a survey at RIT about the internet services like email and connectivity they provide on campus. Their survey asked people to rate different services and included a no option option. If somebody heard of a service, but never used it or never heard of a service, the no option selection could be appropriate.

The conception of atheism I am thinking about is like selecting no option for gods one doesn't worship and those one haven't heard of rather than giving a rating. I think of faith as having an option with no justification or evidence. Having no unjustified options about gods is having no faith about them, which includes having no faith about their nonexistence. Here's a page on this.

I took a look at that, and the problem I see with that kind of reasoning is that kind of shifting of the burden of proof really comes off as a denial of responsibility for the integrity of one's own logic. Is letting a matter as large as how you believe about the universe rest on another person's logic the best idea? What if one has chosen a poor representative of the other side to debate with, for instance? What if one has a bias that causes other factors to enter in besides the person's pure logic (such as personal antipathy towards those with the opposite view...which you personally don't seem to have, but some do)? And why does the treatment of this differ from, say, the treatment of string theory or of the many-worlds interpretation, where if it is non-falsifiable, you can't say whether it's true OR false through scientific means?

 

[RedFox]

Reading the stuff about string theory, something really stuck out--the idea that at this point it is non-falsifiable and relying on pre-Baconian methods to justify it. Why on Earth would scientists be allowed to deviate from their methods with regard to that theory? Even if the theory true, that's quite an anomaly in scientific practice.

Yes, it's not falsifiable yet. What they're trying to do is find how it can be falsifiable. There are other ideas like loop quantum gravity.

I took a look at that, and the problem I see with that kind of reasoning is that kind of shifting of the burden of proof really comes off as a denial of responsibility for the integrity of one's own logic. Is letting a matter as large as how you believe about the universe rest on another person's logic the best idea? What if one has chosen a poor representative of the other side to debate with, for instance? What if one has a bias that causes other factors to enter in besides the person's pure logic (such as personal antipathy towards those with the opposite view...which you personally don't seem to have, but some do)? And why does the treatment of this differ from, say, the treatment of string theory or of the many-worlds interpretation, where if it is non-falsifiable, you can't say whether it's true OR false through scientific means?

Atheists, with the defination I use, have no options about gods. So they are not making any claims about reality. Theists make claims about reality by saying there is a god or gods that the universe was made in a divine manner. So they must support that. The atheists lots of people think of when they see the word atheist are the strong or positve atheists who do make claims.

It's ok to use other people logic once you've checked out the logic to see if it was good. If the other person was a poor representative, why did that person agree to join the debate anyway? Yeah some people don't like the other sides and block out everything, including reasonable claims, from them.

The stuff with the string theory and many worlds is being worked on because there are people who think that they can find a way to make them falisifiable.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Yes, it's not falsifiable yet. What they're trying to do is find how it can be falsifiable. There are other ideas like loop quantum gravity.

The stuff with the string theory and many worlds is being worked on because there are people who think that they can find a way to make them falisifiable.

The question is then, at what point is there a cutoff--when do you say, "You've had so long to find a way to falsify this theory--it's now off the table"? Where do you draw that line? Just when people happen to get fed up, or is it something else? I ask because if there is no line, then at some point some ungrounded scientific theory could be adopted essentially on faith, which natural science does not do.

Atheists, with the defination I use, have no options about gods. So they are not making any claims about reality. Theists make claims about reality by saying there is a god or gods that the universe was made in a divine manner. So they must support that. The atheists lots of people think of when they see the word atheist are the strong or positve atheists who do make claims.

The strong/positive atheist to your mind is someone like Nietzsche, right? Unless I'm misquoting, he just said outright "God is dead".

Where I'm having a disconnect is seeing what you mean by "no options". It would seem to me that not making claims, not holding a clear stance, is no different from agnosticism.

Let me put this in terms that make sense to me and let's see if you follow. In statistical terms, you get this kind of setup.

Hypothesis: There is a God.

Null hypothesis: There is no God.

The conclusion you SEEM to be going for is basically that you fail to reject the null hypothesis--basically, you can't prove it to a certain level of significance, not that it is categorically, 100% false.

Of course, if you've seen what the whole "level of significance" concept is, then you know that's a certain probability that your finding is in error (Type 1 error--incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis, or a "false positive"). Even if you have a finding to that level of significance, you still have that certain degree of probability.

What you with your finding (IF you're using this kind of logic) still have is the probability of a Type 2 error...incorrect acceptance of the null hypothesis (false negative). You're still playing the odds (and don't open THAT can of worms or you potentially get into Pascal's Wager! ).

How does this probabilistic approach differ from agnosticism?

Or are you using something else entirely?

It's ok to use other people logic once you've checked out the logic to see if it was good. If the other person was a poor representative, why did that person agree to join the debate anyway? Yeah some people don't like the other sides and block out everything, including reasonable claims, from them.

Sometimes the person doesn't know they ARE a poor representative (sometimes even the other debaters don't know this), or is good in some aspects but not in others--and then the debate wanders outside that box. My point with that was, if you don't realize you're dealing with a poor representative, it's easy to build that person up as an accurate representative of the sample and not inquire further. It's not like building a "straw man" on purpose, but it has the same destructive results...well, minus SOME of the hurt feelings from an intentional "straw man".

I know better than to say I'm always the best representative. I think sometimes I have a good idea about things, but at other times I'm out of my depth and I know it. For instance I feel like I understand physics on a conceptual level but I don't have the first clue about the math that drives it beyond a high school course and 1 semester of college chemistry. There are even religious areas where I know I still need research...Old Testament theology is one I still want to study in greater depth.

But I try to DECLARE it when I know that to be the case, lest anybody walk away thinking that since I couldn't answer their Old Testament debate point, that there isn't SOMEBODY out there who could.

 

[RedFox]

The question is then, at what point is there a cutoff--when do you say, "You've had so long to find a way to falsify this theory--it's now off the table"? Where do you draw that line? Just when people happen to get fed up, or is it something else? I ask because if there is no line, then at some point some ungrounded scientific theory could be adopted essentially on faith, which natural science does not do.

The cutoff is when the supports of the unfalsifiable theory get old and die.

The strong/positive atheist to your mind is someone like Nietzsche, right? Unless I'm misquoting, he just said outright "God is dead".

Yeah, strong or positive atheists are the ones who make claims that there actually are no gods.

Where I'm having a disconnect is seeing what you mean by "no options". It would seem to me that not making claims, not holding a clear stance, is no different from agnosticism.

The way I see it, weak or negative atheism means not making positive claims like "There are no gods," but merely having no beliefs in such things. Agnosticism is about a different issue with the definitions I use. It is saying that there is no way to find if any gods exist or not; it is unknowable. Not thinking about religious stuff is being irreligious.

Let me put this in terms that make sense to me and let's see if you follow. In statistical terms, you get this kind of setup.

Hypothesis: There is a God.

Null hypothesis: There is no God.

The conclusion you SEEM to be going for is basically that you fail to reject the null hypothesis--basically, you can't prove it to a certain level of significance, not that it is categorically, 100% false.

Weak atheists do not claim either of the above statements as true.

How does this probabilistic approach differ from agnosticism?

Or are you using something else entirely?

Yeah, I am using another system of definitons. Theism claims that the first statement is true. Strong atheism claims that the second one is true. Weak atheism does not claim either statement as true. Agnosticism is saying that the truth value of either statement is unknowable. I know someone who is an agnostic Christian. He claims that the first statement is true, making him a theist, but says that the truth value is unknowable, leaving it up to faith, which makes him an agnostic. Likewise, there are agnostic atheists.

It's not like building a "straw man" on purpose, but it has the same destructive results...well, minus SOME of the hurt feelings from an intentional "straw man".

Yeah, we need to be careful about that.

I know better than to say I'm always the best representative. I think sometimes I have a good idea about things, but at other times I'm out of my depth and I know it. For instance I feel like I understand physics on a conceptual level but I don't have the first clue about the math that drives it beyond a high school course and 1 semester of college chemistry. There are even religious areas where I know I still need research...Old Testament theology is one I still want to study in greater depth.

Yeah, it's good not to lead the blind while being blind about the topic.

But I try to DECLARE it when I know that to be the case, lest anybody walk away thinking that since I couldn't answer their Old Testament debate point, that there isn't SOMEBODY out there who could.

Ok that's good.

 

[RedFox]

Hypothesis: There is a God.

Null hypothesis: There is no God.

The conclusion you SEEM to be going for is basically that you fail to reject the null hypothesis--basically, you can't prove it to a certain level of significance, not that it is categorically, 100% false.

Of course, if you've seen what the whole "level of significance" concept is, then you know that's a certain probability that your finding is in error (Type 1 error--incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis, or a "false positive"). Even if you have a finding to that level of significance, you still have that certain degree of probability.

What you with your finding (IF you're using this kind of logic) still have is the probability of a Type 2 error...incorrect acceptance of the null hypothesis (false negative). You're still playing the odds (and don't open THAT can of worms or you potentially get into Pascal's Wager! ).

How does this probabilistic approach differ from agnosticism?

I already answered the last question. Last week, I learned about hypothesis testing in statistics class.

Here, it says "The hypothesis must be stated in mathematical/statistical terms that make it possible to calculate the probability of possible samples assuming the hypothesis is correct." How would that be done with something like a god?

Here, it says "Although it was originally proposed to be any hypothesis, in practice it has come to be identified with the "nil hypothesis", which states that "there is no phenomenon", and that the results in question could have arisen through chance." What if somebody makes a null hypothesis that the number of possible universes that has both intelligent life and was not designed by a god, is zero?

The page also says "A null hypothesis is only useful if it is possible to calculate the probability of observing a data set with particular parameters from it." If the god is a nonphysical entity, how can it be observed to get data? With no data, no probabilities can be calculated then the hypothesises are useless.

In this section, it says that it is better to have "estimates of magnitudes of effects, with standard errors" for somethings than hypothesis testing.

 

[Rose Immortal]

I am gonna have to get back to you in 2 weeks. School has gotten HORRIBLE for me. By this time in 2 weeks, I'll be done with my classes...