Recently I created this portmanteau word from null hypothesis and theist. It really seems to capture my worldview.
Null hypotheist specifically describes the idea that, based on empirical evidence, one must fail to reject the null hypothesis in regards to the existence of a god, God, or gods, due to lack of support. The alternative hypothesis, the existence of god, God, or gods, is rejected.
The null hypothesis is typically the hypothesis that sample observations result purely from chance. The alternative hypothesis is the hypothesis that observations are influenced by some non-random cause.
Theism is belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
A theist believes in a god. Theism is the alternative hypothesis, that a god is the non-random cause of the universe, and that this god can intervene in its affairs.
I hope null hypotheist is a provocative way of saying there is not enough evidence to indicate that a god is more likely than chance as the cause of, and influence on, the universe, but new evidence is up for consideration should it arise.
That is to say, it is likely the universe we observe resulted purely from chance. There is no support for the idea of supernatural intervention, but if new evidence were to emerge, it should be reviewed.
an atheist is without belief in a god,
Based on the idea that the null hypthesis is taken for granted until the alternative is shown to be more likely. The null hypothesis is never proven true; you simply fail to reject it.
This word is intended to indicate the intellectual openness to to examine new evidence if it is presented. A related argument commonly voiced against atheism is that it cannot "prove" the non-existance of a god or supreme being, and that atheists reject the idea out of hand. Null hypotheism also addresses this, random chance is the default position.
Science requires remaining open to the suggestion that supernatural forces exist, but but it seems highly unlikely, given that there is no epirical evidence to support this claim.
indicating that one has rejected the alternative hypothesis (god)
the alternative hypotheses do not do as good a job explaining or making predictions as the model based on chance. In fact observation matches a chance based model.
The alternative hypothoses do not match the way the world works , requiring the abandonment of
can't make true scientific experiment since this universe is the only example available.
it also implies that even if the null Hypothesis were rejected, that only something non-random was occuring, what that is is likely unspecified.
god= random chance
carl Sagan quote- extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence