Do you believe in God?

[danieldemol]

Yeah, but that is not obejctive. In effect it is not different than a belief in God, because they are both subjective and without evidence.

You don't need evidence for a null hypothesis, rather you need evidence to logically move away from it according to my understanding.

Eg the null hypothesis would be the glass is empty unless you find evidence of water or other substance in it.

What you are effectively trying to sell me in my view is like saying "the glass is full" is equivalent to saying "the glass is empty" when we have no evidence of any substance in the glass.

Sorry but I just dont buy your false equivalence in my view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't need evidence for a null hypothesis, rather you need evidence to logically move away from it according to my understanding.

Eg the null hypothesis would be the glass is empty unless you find evidence of water or other substance in it.

What you are effectively trying to sell me in my view is like saying "the glass is full" is equivalent to saying "the glass is empty" when we have no evidence of any substance in the glass.

Sorry but I just dont buy your false equivalence in my view.

Yeah, you use a norm for how you think and then you disregard that even evidence as evidence as a concept are without evidence itself, but also just a norm.

So be objective and next time answer without how you think and without using norms for how we ought to think. Then I will listen to you. Until that has happen you are as much a product of culture and a subjective worldview in part like all other humans including me.
You are not speical and neither am I.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yeah, but that is not obejctive. In effect it is not different than a belief in God, because they are both subjective and without evidence.

He’s not assuming objectivity.

The clue is his use of the term “null hypothesis”.

The null hypothesis is that which you learned at your mother’s knee.

The accumulated knowledge of humankind throughout the centuries, as represented by your parents’ cultures.

The “null hypothesis” is that our own culture provides the answers to life, the universe, and everything.

The “null hypotheses” is basically common sense.

Deviations from common sense obtained thru experience and observation can be codified and accumulated.

Eventually, academic disciplines are created, like History and Anthropology and Religion and Biology and Music and Dance and Mathematics, to help us understand the world we live in.

And all of these evolve thru time. (I’ve noticed that not everybody here in this thread is an evolutionist, and that some don’t believe in dynamical systems, because dynamics implies change, and change implies evolution.)

Incidentally, according to physicists, neutrinos evolve, with some kind of see-saw mechanism.

Until recently, we didn’t know whether or not neutrinos evolve.

They might have been massless. For some, being massless would be considered the “null hypothesis”.

Massless (Muse Neutrino Parody) | A Capella Science​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He’s not assuming objectivity.

The clue is his use of the term “null hypothesis”.

The null hypothesis is that which you learned at your mother’s knee.

The accumulated knowledge of humankind throughout the centuries, as represented by your parents’ cultures.

The “null hypothesis” is that our own culture provides the answers to life, the universe, and everything.

The “null hypotheses” is basically common sense.

Deviations from common sense obtained thru experience and observation can be codified and accumulated.

Eventually, academic disciplines are created, like History and Anthropology and Religion and Biology and Music and Dance and Mathematics, to help us understand the world we live in.

And all of these evolve thru time. (I’ve noticed that not everybody here in this thread is an evolutionist, and that some don’t believe in dynamical systems, because dynamics implies change, and change implies evolution.)

Incidentally, according to physicists, neutrinos evolve, due to some kind of see-saw mechanism.

Until recently, we didn’t know whether or not neutrinos evolve.

They might have been massless. For some, being massless would be considered the “null hypothesis”.

Massless (Muse Neutrino Parody) | A Capella Science​

Can you break it some in simpler parts and do one at a time?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

" common sense "

Isn't " common sense" a misnomer, please, right?

Regards
___________________

Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense​

View attachment 91946
Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com › the-power-prime

Well, without clicking back, I think that the person who I was replying to defines opposition to slavery as common sense, which seems to differ from what he defines as philosophy, in that philosophy may support slavery, by overturning common sense.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You don't need evidence for a null hypothesis, rather you need evidence to logically move away from it according to my understanding.

Eg the null hypothesis would be the glass is empty unless you find evidence of water or other substance in it.

What you are effectively trying to sell me in my view is like saying "the glass is full" is equivalent to saying "the glass is empty" when we have no evidence of any substance in the glass.

Sorry but I just dont buy your false equivalence in my view.

This is an excellent example of a “ null hypotheses” in your culture.

I like it.

Pessimistic cultures might believe that the glass is empty as a null hypothesis.

Optimistic cultures might believe that the glass is full as a null hypotheses.

Observation might find that the glass is half-empty and half-full, thereby both confirming and denying both null hypotheses simultaneously.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No.

As we use the term, nothing.

I posted a comment by Aristotle directly addressing the issue of slavery.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yup, I am aware of that. Your point being... ?

Didn’t you claim above that Aristotle didn’t address the issue, and that his philosophical answer differed from the common sense notion that slavery is wrong?

 

[Koldo]

Didn’t you claim above that Aristotle didn’t address the issue,

No. You asked me what Aristotle and Socrates had to say about common sense. Not what they had to say about slavery.

and that his philosophical answer differed from the common sense notion that slavery is wrong?

What I said is that neither Aristotle nor Socrates talked about the concept of common sense (as we understand the term nowadays).

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are hard physical objective facts and not subjective like any other worldview.
That is how speical a scammer you are.

Why should I believe in something which is not objective?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No. You asked me what Aristotle and Socrates had to say about common sense. Not what they had to say about slavery.



What I said is that neither Aristotle nor Socrates talked about the concept of common sense (as we understand the term nowadays).

Aren’t you the one who told me that opposition to slavery was common sense?

I may be getting folks confused here.

 

[Koldo]

Aren’t you the one who told me that opposition to slavery was common sense?

I may be getting folks confused here.

Yes. Nowadays it is.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yes. Nowadays it is.

It was also common sense 500 years ago, wasn’t it?

You told me it was, above.

Somebody told me that those Holy Wars were the result of common sense, not theology or philosophy.

Maybe it wasn’t you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you believe in God?

Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

Regards

I had to study the Bible with those that I believe love God and follow His commandments in order for me to come to the conclusion that there IS a God who cares. And -- who can give everlasting life. At John 17:3, Jesus said the following: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." I have found this to be true in my case.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Nowadays it is.

The question about slavery is an interesting one. Slavery in many countries is obviously illegal. But there are many forms of slavery. That includes financial and personal. They are slaves in a different concept, nevertheless slaves anyway. Do you agree with that?

 

[Spice]

I had to study the Bible with those that I believe love God and follow His commandments in order for me to come to the conclusion that there IS a God who cares.

I hope that now that you have your feet firmly planted in belief you can feel His his direction without boundaries. But if you're still a little wobbly, never fear, God is near.

Namaste

 

[Kathryn]

I believe in God, not because I am so smart but because I am NOT so smart. And I actually have a highish IQ but I believe that we are all in for some surprises one day. For starters, I believe in the concept laid out by so many people, that of a piece of paper with a dot on it, and that's my knowledge, as a 21st century American woman. Then draw a circle around that smaller one, and that's all the world's knowledge. Then draw a circle around THAT, and that's all the knowledge in the universe. The rest is God's knowledge.

 

[YoursTrue]

I hope that now that you have your feet firmly planted in belief you can feel His his direction without boundaries. But if you're still a little wobbly, never fear, God is near.

Namaste

Spice, my God tells me the boundaries I should live by. And--guess what?--I believe my mind has boundaries, too. Meaning I do not and cannot understand everything. And as to boundaries, yes--some boundaries are prescribed for me by the God I love and worship.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Was any of these links your proof of God or did you just refer to it as Ultrafinitism but not link to it?

Do you want me to prove something about God?

I hope you that you want me to cite anthropologists and historians, rather than using pure logic alone, because that strikes me as really, really hard.

Us atheists like to prove easy stuff, like 1 + 1 = 2.

And then we move on to harder stuff like, oh, I don’t know, maybe like trying to compute the homotopy groups of spheres. (ie: The Music of the Spheres)

Why it took 379 pages to prove 1+1=2

What is...homotopy of spheres?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you want me to prove something about God?

I hope you that you want me to cite anthropologists and historians, rather than using pure logic alone, because that strikes me as really, really hard.

Us atheists like to prove easy stuff, like 1 + 1 = 2.

I appreciate your honesty. When I read certain replies though, I think about the apostle Paul. Although he did not claim to have been an atheist and was a confirmed Jewish advocate as well as persecutor of new disciples of Christ, he gave his reasons for changing. When he spoke of this, Festus, the Roman Governor of Judea did not believe him. (Acts 26:24 Now as Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice: “You are going out of your mind, Paul! Great learning is driving you out of your mind!"