What does a null hypothesis have to do with proving God to the atheists?

Question

Nothing, because the burden of proof lies with the atheists to prove that God does not exist. That is the basis of science, and why we use controls. That is why our court system uses "Innocent until proven guilty" because the prosecutor must rule out all other possibilities to explain that the crime is a result of the defendant.
So, by the scientific method and current understanding, God cannot be disproven by atheists, so God must remain a possible solution. Anyone who says otherwise is doing so on opinion and not logic

Also, this is the basis for the use of controls in scientific experiements

Answer 1

Ok, you've got the basics of logical thought here, but they've been flipped and are in reverse...

The burden of proof is on the believer, not the atheist.

To assume something isn't true (or doesn't exist) until it's proven is logical - THAT is the reasoning behind the court system. Your guilt is assumed to not exist until it's proven true. Similarly, the idea that we can assume god doesn't exist until he's proven true fall along the same lines.

What you're proposing would put the burden of proof on the defendant, so he'd be assumed guilty unless his guilt could be disproven. If you claim that something exists because we can't disprove it, you are committing the fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" or the "appeal to ignorance." It logically NOT valid.

This is exceptionally simple logic, so I hope you understand where you went skewed.


You are also very obviously unfamiliar with science. Science makes an educated guess that's falsifiable and then tries to prove it false. People have been trying to prove gravity, general relativity, evolution, and everything else false for centuries, but can't so we can conclude they're true.

The god hypothesis is not falsifiable simply because there is no way to test it to determine subjectively. Science must ignore the god hypothesis because it's not scientific.

However, there is a scientific explanation for everything god is supposed to have done, there is absolutely no need for one or for such a thing to even exist.


The inability to disprove the existence of a supreme being does mean there is a possibility yes, even Richard Dawkins, Mr. Randi and other prominent atheists acknowledge that possibility... however that doesn't mean it's likely or even on equal footing. In fact God is very, very unlikely, and the god depicted in the bible almost certainly (99.98% chance) doesn't exist...

Plus, using your arguments you'd have to conclude that Thor, Wotan, Vishnu, Dionysus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on are all equally plausible solutions. Anyone who says they're not possible (using your own terrible logic) would be expressing an opinion. See how faulty this is?

However we can prove the bible wrong on a number of things... though it's not that hard. The bible proves itself wrong if you read it straight through or have common sense.

Answer 2

You're very much mistaken about science, in science a hypothesis isn't considered valid unless it can be disproven, and the existance of an all-powerful being can't, because omnipotence lets one do illogical things. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to say the burden of proof is on the one who disbelieves a claim. If I were to claim I created cold fusion just now, would the burden of proof be on the scientific community, or on me?... Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, and I've yet to see any evidence...

Really, while it is fundimentally impossible to disprove the existance of a divine being, one CAN at least weed out some things of the nature of any divine being that did exist. For one, making a universe in-tact when only one planet was special, placing many generations of falsified life on this planet fossilized, and placing streams of photons exactly where they should be in front of stars to act as if the stars had always been there doesn't seem like a logical way in which this divine being might exist. It also doesn't seem logical for such a divine being to be omnibenevolant if he truly gave us free will, as knowing what will happen circumvents any choice other than one that is completely simulated...

I can't accept that you don't realize how fallacious you agrument is though, "Any set of circumstances which can't be disproven must remain as a sollution that should be considered.", just doesn't make sense, as you can't disprove that gravity takes place because of the flying spaghetti monster, you can't disprove that dark matter/energy are the results of mismeasurements from the same spaghetti monster's noodly appendage moving astral bodies as he pleases in unpredicted ways, you can't disprove that I have the ability to fly, can't absolutely disprove the idea that you didn't exist more than 30 seconds ago, you can't, at the moment at least, disprove that I have 23 toes on my left foot, you can't disprove that I have been visited by aliens every night since I was 8, you can't disprove that the government has been using poodles to administer mind control since the 1930s, and you can't disprove that I am capable of setting people on fire with a thought. Should all of these possiblities be heavily considered, or just yours?

PS: You do realize these "scientific controls" you speak of are there to indicate a lack of proof. I can compare, for example large numbers of control cancer patients with certain mindsets and treatment, and compare them to a number of cancer patience which are explicitly prayed for, and find no difference in the numbers. This would SEEM to indicate the lack of existance of a God ansering prayers, but, a divine being could just exempt anyone arogant enough to take part in a study from prayer-granting... This is the problem with omnipotence, you can't disprove it because there is always a loophole when one can literally do ANYTHING.

Answer 3

"Burden of proof" lying on one side and not the other exists in the legal realm, never in science. In the scientific realm, where the scientific method lies, "burden of proof" lies on anyone who proposes a hypothesis. A null hypothesis, though negative, still must be tested because it is a hypothesis. Besides, null hypotheses exist in concert with alternate hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis: There is no god.
Alternate hypothesis: There is a god.

The test: ...?

The breakdown in using the scientific method to prove or disprove god's existenec is that there is no means of testing either hypothesis.

Also, the purpose of using a control is to verify that the "causal" variable actually "caused" the "effected" variable, rather than something else. A control group will prove that it's not inherent in the effected variable, so something must "cause" whatever happened.

So, if you propose that something occured because of god, then the "burden of proof" of god causing the event lies on you. If you are discussing the existence or lack of existence of god, there is no burden of proof because there is no means of testing this assertion. It is not science, then, but a matter of belief. For you, it is religion. For atheists, it is philosophy. For either side to state that they are "right" because the opposing side cannot provide "proof," is scientifically unsound. I could just as easily state that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an accurate presentation of the galaxy and the burden of proving I'm wrong lies on you. Philosophically, we can argue that with any number of schools of thought. Scientifically, it just doesn't work that way.

To put it bluntly, and accurately, god's existence or lack thereof is speculation on everyone's part.

To discuss religion, as opposed to a god, is a different matter. One merely takes assertions in the religious text and tests them. For example, Genesis states that the world and everything in it was created in six days. Evidence proves this hypothesis is untrue. This does not disprove god. This only disproves the creation hypothesis and, if the entire bible is meant to be taken as the word of god, the religion as well.

Answer 4

It seems you fell asleep halfway through logic class. You got the idea of logical proofs, but not how they actually work.

You can't prove 'not' anything. I can't prove that when I ate mushrooms that I was not in the land of Oz. In fact, I can't prove that Oz doesn't exist at all. I mean there is certainly some evidence for Oz. It was in a movie after all. They have pictures!

Of course, our judicial system works that you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that nothing else could've happened, just that the evidence pointing to you as the criminal is beyond reasonable doubt that you could not have done it.

Answer 5

I think that God cannot be "proved" or "disproved" to exist.

I think atheists are by no means trying to prove that God does not exist. They simply do not have belief in God.

I think that theists have their own evidence for God, what they experience personally that cannot be verified by science. For example, the recent studies on prayer's effectiveness--that didn't really make much sense. Evidence of God is subjective (not objective) and shouldn't be held up to scientific scrutiny. Those who experience it and trust it believe, and those who have not do not believe, generally speaking.

So I think the scientific method doesn't really apply here.

Logic-wise, I know it is really annoying when some atheists say this (I'm not one of those atheists though, lol), but theists have "the burden of proof" upon their belief in the existence of God. Really, however, I do not think "proof" is a real issue when it comes to God. For God to be tested and validated by science doesn't make any sense for believers nor for atheists nor for scientists (and believers/atheists who are scientists).

Answer 6

Neither can God be proven by the believer...

Science deals with understanding the universe, how this works, what that does... It's concrete facts...

Religion deals with blind faith in the unmeasureable and unknowable...

The burden of proof does lie with the believer, as he is the one claiming something is true that coannot be proven... You need facts, measureable data, and reproducable experiments...

In the face of none of this being present, an atheist says "Why believe in something you have no proof for, no data for, no inkling of a hint of existance for?"

Atheism isn't an UNbelief in God. It's simply not a blip on our radar...

Here are some links that might help in understanding why you have the burden of proof as a believer:
http://jthughes.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-you-dont-believe-in-flying-pigs-you.html

http://jthughes.blogspot.com/2007/02/reality-of-atheism.html

http://jthughes.blogspot.com/2007/02/proof-of-faith.html

Answer 7

uhm Pascal? You've got it exactly backwards. The onus is on the proponent of the hypothesis. Bertrand Russels famous teapot argument is the classic retort. (if you aren't familiar with it , look it up on Google or Wikipedia...do I have to spoonfeed you??)

If the onus weren't on the believer in the weird thing, then we would have to accept any weird thing anybody claimed, and waste all our time trying to disprove each one. And trust me, there is an infinite supply of weird beliefs out there besides yours in God. By the rules of logic (which you really should learn before posting a question about them) it is not possible to prove something isn't. No matter what "proof" I attempt to offer you...if God really exists, and is all that Christians claim he is...then he could simple appear, or make my proof irrelavent. God ALWAYS has the option of proving his existence to me. So far, he has declined the offer.

(this is why there are SAT's to keep the really stupid people out of university)

Answer 8

I can prove an all-powerful god doesn't exist.

Simply answer this question: can this god make a mountain so large that he cannot destroy it?

If you answer yes, this god cannot do something (he can only destroy mountains of a smaller size), so this god cannot be all-powerful.
If you answer no, this god cannot do something (he can only create mountains of a smaller size), so this god cannot be all-powerful.

Therefore, no all-powerful god can exist. I just used logic to disprove one form of god.

As for your argument about the burden of proof, you are not very knowledgeable about the scientific method. As I just proved, you can disprove god. If you want a bigger slap to your ego, ask this question again later, and I'll prove using logic that no all-knowing god could exist either.

Answer 9

By the same token, you can't prove he does. The questions I respond to are generally illogical arguments as to why god absolutely exists. Neither view can be proven.
I do point out that in civil law the standard it is the preponderance of evidence. The preponderance of evidence suggests that god does not exist.

If people of faith want to believe I am fine with that. I personally have not seen a good argument why I should follow any faith.

I have a problem with people saying this is the truth, They should say this is my faith.

Answer 10

God is a sentient being, and not only that but a superior being to ourselves. God is not like some aspect of the universe be it animal, vegetable or mineral, that we can study through scientific experiments or look at through a telescope or microscope. Man cannot be seeking find out God. The only way for us to know about God is for God to reveal himself to us.

You cannot convince an Athest (or for that matter anyone else) that God exists, only God himself can convince the Atheist of that fact.

The day will come when God will appear to judge the earth and everyone will have no choice but to acknowledge him, but until then, God has made both belief and unbelief possible. If you want to believe in God, he gives you ample evidence on which to base your faith. If you want to reject the opportunities that God gives you to know himself and instead to doubt, you can also do so.