The Null Hypotheist

The Null Hypotheist

It is often stated that the existence or non existence of gods cannot be proven.

But what is more likely?

While one cannot prove, or disprove, the existence of gods, I intend the term null hypotheist to communicate that there is not enough evidence to indicate that the alternative hypothesis, a god or gods, is more likely than chance as the cause of, and influence on, the universe, but new evidence is up for consideration should it arise, and the answer is still not certain. But to be clear, there is not enough evidence to reject the the null hypothesis, hence- Null Hypotheism.

The null hypothesis, or H0, is that chance alone accounts for the outcomes we observe around us. This is the null hypothesis both because chance alone is the default start of any analysis, as well because one can not prove a negative. The alternative Hypothesis, or H1, postulates a god's existence, and that this god influences the universe. The idea of a god or gods introduces a whole new layer of unproven, un-measurable, unlikely, and frankly unnecessary concepts, to explain the universe and its behavior. By nature, this is more unlikely than a single unlikely explanation.

In fact, the concept of a god or gods introduces no better explanation of what we observe at all, and so Occam's Razor or the Law of Parsimony would indicate choosing the simplest solution, particularly given that the alternative offers no improvement in explanation or predictive power.

The portmanteau word 'null hypotheist' is intended to playfully communicate that, based on empirical evidence presented so far, we(I) fail to reject the null hypothesis in regards to the existence of a god, God, or gods, due to lack of support or indication of influence. The alternative hypothesis, the existence of god, God, or gods, is rejected. Chance alone is enough.

That is to say, I am unconvinced of any god's existence, including the deity referred to as God, but this does not imply absolute answer or proof, merely that there is simply no empirical support for the existence of any deity or other super natural entities, and without that evidence I see no reason to accept this idea. As I have stated, chance is enough- and so, in that way, we could be described as "lucky!"