Posted: Aug 13, 2017 7:45 am
And here we see that you don't even understand what a null hypothesis is. No, you don't refute the null by simply coming up with an explanation. You refute it by observationally testing the predictions of your hypothesis.
Wortfish wrote:Rumraket wrote:I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.
Well, I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy...etc....etc...We CAN show this idea to be ex recto nonsense.
Then do it. Show it to be ex recto nonsense.
Remember that all the same methods you would use to reject my infinite cycle, can be used to reject God. In other words your God can't possibly be true because it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy etc. etc.
Hoisted by your own petard.
Wortfish wrote:Rumraket wrote:Look, my proposition is falsifiable, we just have to wait another 1.18 billion years. So until it is falsified, we must believe it to be true. That's basically what you're proposing we do. Take your pet theory and accept it to be true until we disprove it. Why your pet theory over mine? Mine is simpler than yours, I only postulate the universe and it's eternal nature, nothing extra.
No. We don't have to wait. If it is logically flawed or incoherent, your hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand.
Then do it. Show it to be logically flawed and incoherent.