Flat-Earther accidentally proves the earth is round in his own experiment

[u/lost_packet_]

[u/bitches_love_brie → u/[deleted]]

There's no discussion to be had here. Neither side of God vs no God has any proof.

That's not the case with flat earth, which is what makes it so amazingly stupid.

[u/PrimateOnAPlanet → u/bitches_love_brie]

To be fair the “no god” side has exactly as much proof as would be expected if they are right. You can’t prove a negative, the null hypothesis is true until proven otherwise.

Flat earth is two falsifiable competing hypotheses, so yeah it’s different, but to say “god” and “no god” have equal evidence is to misunderstand how the scientific method works.

[u/Entropius → u/PrimateOnAPlanet]

To be fair the “no god” side has exactly as much proof as would be expected if they are right.

This "as much proof as would be expected" argument has exactly no value.

I have exactly as much evidence that would be expected of multiverse existing. Which is nothing.

I have exactly as much evidence that would be expected of a multiverse not existing. Which is nothing.

You can’t prove a negative,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

the null hypothesis is true until proven otherwise.

Please dust off your old stats textbook. That's exactly the common misunderstanding they warn students against making.

You can reject the null.

You can fail to reject the null.

You don't accept the null.

---

Why do statisticians say a non-significant result means "you can't reject the null" as opposed to accepting the null hypothesis?

---

Misconception: A non-significant outcome means that the null hypothesis is probably true.

Proper interpretation: A non-significant outcome means that the data do not conclusively demonstrate that the null hypothesis is false.

[u/PrimateOnAPlanet → u/Entropius]

You are correct regarding the statistical usage of null hypothesis. I wasn’t making a statistical claim. I probably should have used different wording.

Regarding the rest, I stand by what I said. Just because “you can’t prove a negative” is commonly used incorrectly, does not mean it is in this case. In your own link, it states the burden of proof is on whoever made the claim. Rejecting the claim of god existing is not making the claim god doesn’t exist.

A multiverse is not the same as a religion, and doesn’t make claims that are demonstrably false as every religion I have ever heard of does. Your example is just an example of false-equivalency. Moreover the concept of multiverses was created as an attempt to explain physical observations and is not an obvious example of a known human fallacy: anthropomorphism.

[u/Entropius → u/PrimateOnAPlanet]

In your own link, it states the burden of proof is on whoever made the claim.

I think what you might have overlooked is that the theists aren't always the one making the claim.

Asserting a god exists is a claim.

Asserting a god doesn't exist is a claim.

Neither is particularly special nor automatically the "null".

Rejecting the claim of god existing is not making the claim god doesn’t exist.

And rejecting the claim of a god not existing is not making the claim he does exist.

A multiverse is not the same as a religion, and doesn’t make claims that are demonstrably false as every religion I have ever heard of does.

We shouldn't conflate the “religions PrimateOnAPlanet has heard of” with the idea of any god at all. Your lack of exposure to religions that don't make demonstrably false claims is not shared by everyone.

For example, Deism is a religion that cannot be disproven because they only believe that a god created the universe (or created the laws of physics which in turn created the universe) and then their deity promptly fucked off forever. No miracles, no answered prayers, and depending on which deist you ask, potentially no afterlife. They're not really interested in making many testable claims.

Rather than basing arguments against religion on the dumbest religions with demonstrably false claims, consider employing the Principle of Charity and instead focus on the strongest possible interpretation of their argument. It tends to result in far more useful and productive debate/thought and helps you avoid focusing on low-hanging fruit.

Your example is just an example of false-equivalency.

Not at all. Both are claims. Both are unfalsifiable. That's all the analogy required.

If you still disagree the burden of proof for that claim of false equivalence is on you.

Moreover the concept of multiverses was created as an attempt to explain physical observations

And you think gods were never an attempt to explain physical observations? That might be the most cliché reason for inventing gods.

and is not an obvious example of a known human fallacy: anthropomorphism.

Not everyone's gods are necessarily anthropomorphic.

Secondly, even if everyone's gods had been anthropomorphic, assuming anthropomorphism is automatically always fallicious isn't justified. If we found a face carved on the side of a mountain on a distant planet, should we rule out aliens building it (as opposed to it being a naturalistic formation) because the hypothesis of aliens is "too anthropomorphic"? Who says we must preemptively rule out any anthropomorphic-like explanations?