why are some people so sure god does not exist?

[almifkhar]

why are some people so sure god does not exist?

 

[cardero]

For some people, they may not know what to recognize.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Why are some people so sure god does exist, when the only evidence produced by them is
"Allah once said:" or "I read the Quaran, so I have everything" ?

 

[painted wolf]

some people have different expectations of 'evidence'.
They simply havent found any compelling evidence that logically works for them to accept such a sweeping notion of 'god'.
You have to admit it is a rather big thing to simply accept.

wa:do

 

[jamaesi]

Why are some people so sure G-d does exist?

 

[michel]

Why are some people so sure G-d does exist?

Because I have spoken to him in prayer, and I have 'felt' him answer me; because I look around me at life, at everything I see tells me that God is here. Because God is in my heart................what else can I say ?

 

[SoyLeche]

some people have different expectations of 'evidence'.
They simply havent found any compelling evidence that logically works for them to accept such a sweeping notion of 'god'.
You have to admit it is a rather big thing to simply accept.

wa:do

Sorry to bring Statistics into this, but that is my forte.

The basic point of Statistical analysis is to take something that you believe to be true, or at least has been historically accepted as true (called a null hypothesis), and see if the data that you are given offers evidence to disprove it. The end result depends a lot on how you define the null hypothesis.

In my case, and with most theists, the null hypothesis is that God exists. When approached with data, we take that data and decide if that is enough for us to reject that God exists. I have yet to find any data that disproves Gods existance to me, so therefore I 'fail to reject' the null hypothesis. (For a statistician, you cringe when someone says they 'accept' the null hypothesis. That isn't how the system works).

Atheists, on the other hand, set up the null hypothesis that God doesn't exist, and then take the data to try and disprove this hypothesis. Again, the evidence that has been offered isn't sufficient for them to reject their hypothesis.

Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that there really isn't enough 'evidence' or 'data' to make a statistically significant decision in this case for most people, so we stay with what we started with.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry to bring Statistics into this, but that is my forte.

We'll see ...

The basic point of Statistical analysis is to take something that you believe to be true, or at least has been historically accepted as true (called a null hypothesis), ...

That is not the definition of a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "the assumption that nothing other than chance is operating to produce the effect which we see in a particular data set" [see, for example, musc.edu]. Learn your forte, then teach.

 

[SoyLeche]

We'll see ...
That is not the definition of a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "the assumption that nothing other than chance is operating to produce the effect which we see in a particular data set" [see, for example, musc.edu]. Learn your forte, then teach.

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#h0
The null hypothesis, H[size=-2]0[/size], represents a theory that has been put forward, either because it is believed to be true or because it is to be used as a basis for argument, but has not been proved. For example, in a clinical trial of a new drug, the null hypothesis might be that the new drug is no better, on average, than the current drug. We would write H[size=-2]0[/size]: there is no difference between the two drugs on average.

Wikipedia

In statistics, a null hypotheses is a hypothesis that is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NullHypothesis.html
A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance). The concept was introduced by R. A. Fisher.

Do I need to continue? I may have made the definition a little simplistic, but that is because my null hypothesis is that I am not dealing with Statisticians, and I have yet to be given any evidence to convince me otherwise. (You all have WAY too much personality for that :bounce)

 

[SoyLeche]

We'll see ...
That is not the definition of a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "the assumption that nothing other than chance is operating to produce the effect which we see in a particular data set" [see, for example, musc.edu]. Learn your forte, then teach.

BTW, we conclude that "nothing other than chance is operating to produce the effect we see in a particualar data set" when we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do I need to continue?

No, you need to understand your own quotes. To define the null hypothesis as "something that you believe to be true, or at least has been historically accepted as true" is simply ignorant.

 

[SoyLeche]

It was, and is, acceptible for the topic and audience at hand. Anyway, the thought process that I described is the important part of my post, not the mechanics of performing a hypothesis test.

 

[Sunstone]

There seem to be two schools of thought about the lack of evidence for deity. One school points to the lack of evidence for or against deity and comes up agnostic. The other group points to the lack of evidence and comes up atheistic, more or less on the grounds that the lack of evidence for deity is akin to the lack of evidence for pixies, and other things that not believed to exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was, and is, acceptible for the topic and audience at hand. Anyway, the thought process that I described is the important part of my post, not the mechanics of performing a hypothesis test.

Making incorrect statements in an effort to speak down to your audience may well be an important part of your post, but it renders your arguments worthless. Furthermore, to assert ...

Atheists, on the other hand, set up the null hypothesis that God doesn't exist, and then take the data to try and disprove this hypothesis.​

is a simply ludicrous. Atheists rarely concern themselves with 'disproving' God for precisely the same reason that the avoid trying to disprove mermaids and unicorns. You, on the other hand, have managed to render god, the mermaid, and the unicorn ontologically equivalent without even knowing it.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Why are some people so sure god does exist,

Why are some people so sure G-d does exist?

Has a nice ring to it minus the -O :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There seem to be two schools of thought about the lack of evidence for deity. One school points to the lack of evidence for or against deity and comes up agnostic. The other group points to the lack of evidence and comes up atheistic, ...

I believe this to be inaccurate. Agnosticism addresses the state of our knowledge. Atheism addresses a response to that state.

 

[SoyLeche]

Making incorrect statements in an effort to speak down to your audience may well be an important part of your post, but it renders your arguments worthless. Furthermore, to assert ...

Atheists, on the other hand, set up the null hypothesis that God doesn't exist, and then take the data to try and disprove this hypothesis.​

is a simply ludicrous. Atheists rarely concern themselves with 'disproving' God for precisely the same reason that the avoid trying to disprove mermaids and unicorns. You, on the other hand, have managed to render god, the mermaid, and the unicorn ontologically equivalent without even knowing it.

Notice that I didn't say that Atheists try and disprove that God exists. That is their null hypothesis, just like it is for mermaids and leprechauns. If you are talking to an atheist about God, he will ask for proof that God exists, and then shoot down any that you offer as not good enough (not "statistically significant" in my attempt to bring stats into the conversation). They look at the data, and decide that it is not enough to move them from their current, accepted position. The theist, on the other hand, will do the opposite, and require proof that God doesn't exist, in order to get them to reject thier null, that God does exist. That was the point I was trying to get at, and I probably did a bad job of it. Oh well, live and learn.

 

[jamaesi]

Why are some people so sure god does exist, when the only evidence produced by them is
"Allah once said:" or "I read the Quaran, so I have everything" ?

Praytell, why are you only focusing on Islam and Muslims?

 

[Malus 12:9]

Praytell, why are you only focusing on Islam and Muslims?

*sigh* Because, it happened that the author of this thread, happened to be Islamic. I
was referring to him/her in my first post.

 

[jamaesi]

I see.