And how do you propose we know which authority to choose to accept, aside from drawing a name out of a hat?
Well then why did you propose it? Try sticking to the original thought experiment instead of attempting to alter it unreasonably.
And this is exactly why the very first thing I brought up was the gumball analogy. Please go back and re-read it, and this time just think about it instead of mangling it.
As I said, I find your gumball analogy silly. It is a poor one. Some may find it useful, I just see it as simplistic and incoherent as I explained earlier. I did not mangle it, I explained why it doesn't function as it is supposed to. This is because we are on the grounds of the collective authority we choose to accept or reject, not just musing ourselves. To answer your first paragraph, this is to be done by Reason and what correlates best with our own experience.
The null hypothesis states that the default position is that there is no causal correlation between two things. My racing stripe analogy absolutely does fit, and you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Rereading the OP, I see you never made a claim that some said racing stripes make cars quicker against which the null hypothesis was juxtaposed. I was under the impression you had. If it is merely the hypothesis itself, not one supported by subjective evidence, then yes, Mea Culpa.
But that is the thing. There are people, with experiences, that assert Religion. It is not no-data, but data that needs to be overthrown, to assert atheism. It requires insistence upon merely repeatable empirical data, as if this is the only data we have, instead of merely another form of qualia, for such an assertion.
If we scan the stars for a Dyson Sphere, and we find nothing, then, according to your methodology here, we would have no data on Dyson Spheres. You literally could not possibly be more wrong.
This statement is incongruous. So you're saying the Atheist position is not lack of empirical evidence, but positive empirical evidence against the existence of God? What, pray tell? So you say you do have data on God, then? Is this not against your whole attempt to co-opt agnosticism?
Again, more of the same ignorance.
An insurance company looks at your driving history, and you have 0 accidents and 0 tickets. Hmm, no data, right?
No evidence for God *is* data.
I'm hoping something happens inside you and you admit that you're wrong, but I'd probably have better luck shaving a flea's butt with a chainsaw.
But there is not 'no evidence'. There is no repeatable evidence that fulfills methodological naturalism, true, but the concept does not require this.
There is however a lot of human experience and other forms of qualia in support. You can even argue methodological naturalism supports Theism, but that requires teleological assumptions which I assume you are loath to make.
Wow, a positive claim is a null hypothesis. Absolutely unbelievable that you just said this.
This is how the null hypothesis works:
Suppose we think there might be some correlation between fossil fuels and global warming. The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation. If we find that there is no correlation, then the null hypothesis is vindicated; if we do find a correlation, then the null hypothesis is falsified.
So the null hypothesis regarding God is that he doesn't exist. If you think you've made a case for his existence, the null hypothesis is falsified. You seem to think that either the null hypothesis is always correct - and that we change the null hypothesis with accumulation of evidence - or that a positive claim could be a null hypothesis.
And again, you literally could not be more wrong.
Noted. How they described it in your linked article wasn't as clear. But it was wikipedia though, so of course a poor source.
My own background in statistics is in Evidence Based Medicine. This concept is never used there, or at least not in its application in clinical practice. We assert confidence intervals, areas in which we think the answer may or may not fall. We don't assert one hypothesis as necessarily more valid in this manner, we talk of Best Evidence or evidence class. It is a system of deductive reasoning from data, while this seems more inductive reasoning then tested by data, so is a quite different animal. In practice, there can be no null hypotheses in EBM then; so in my, admittedly biased, opinion, this is a thoroughly inferior means of statistical reality testing to EBM. Anyway, by that reasoning you describe, the null hypothesis is agnosticism then. This is bordering on the sophistry of equating agnosticism with Atheism, which you seem to ascribe to - which renders the latter a meaningless term, seeing that you need to ask in detail every person what they mean by it. While people can call themselves whatever they wish, if their terms are robbed of utility, it is robbed of meaning as well. I shall say no more on this.
And I'd suggest you read the OP before responding, research the subjects being discussed, and have the requisite humility to admit when you're wrong.
You asked for my arguments and I gave them. I fail to see how you think such a flippant broadside is called for in response to what I wrote. This was thoroughly within your OP anyway, being reasonable arguments for Christianity.
We've had many discussions, and none of them will be fruitful until you show some Christian humility.
Please enlighten me where I have been so proud? When I am wrong, I admit it. When I have not been shown in error, it is not humility, but sycophancy to the OP, to do so. I explained concepts of assertoricity and apodicticity in excruciating detail in your previous thread, with you mostly choosing to ignore, in fact often refuse to even read, what I wrote. Our discussions will be fruitful if you extend me the courtesy I extend you.
There's what logic actually is. Then there's what logic is used for. We use it to make inferences. But that's not what it is.
We use cars to drive, but does that mean a car is the act of driving?
Artificial intelligence may one day be able to make inferences. Or maybe it already can. But most computers on earth cannot make inferences, and yet all they do is perform logic. So I await your admission that you are wrong. Here's me waiting for that day:
You are not listening. We don't use logic to make inferences. We make inferences and test their validity with Logic.
Logical sequences can have all their propositions replaced with placeholding letters and still remain coherent. The actual propositions are irrelevant to the logic of the sequence, which tests the relations between them. You appear to equate logic with reasoning now. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said...
You really should read up a bit on what Logic actually is, before launching into snide insistence on your own correctness. You seem intent on parading your ignorance though, and I tried my best - once again, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
