It does not give you the ability to define someone's hypothesis as false. It only means it hasn't been proven.
In science, these things are one in the same. Scientific theories are either true or false, there is no middle ground. If they are not provably true, they treated as false.
This means you would have to come up with an experiment that disproves religion in order to state that it is totally and utterly false. Until then, it is still a hypothesis open for testing. It means we haven't found a clear answer yet. It does not mean that we throw away the idea.
Of course it does.
There are, literally, an infinite amount of hypothesis one could construct which don't have any evidence in favor or against them.
They are useless, and treated as "false", until evidence comes along that makes it necessary to reconsider.
Wrong again, there are thousands of open hypotheses that have yet to be proven, but it doesn't make them false either. Rather we just don't know yet because we haven't seen evidence.
In the strictest sense of the word, theories are never truly "proven" to be false OR true, for that matter.
With evidence for it and lacking any evidence against it, they are generally accepted as being true.
But should contrary evidence ever arise, they are still open to falsifiability.
The same goes for your hypothesis that religion is delusion. We ARE talking about hypothesis by the way, something only becomes theory where there is a large amount of experimentation already done. So maybe I do know something about scientific methodology.
My statement that faith is delusional was not a hypothesis...
And hypothesis are
part of theories, they don't become theories upon being generally accepted as true..
(P.
H.E.O.C.)
And frankly, for somebody who claims to know something about it, the claim that a hypothesis is only falsifiable in the face of another hypothesis being accepted as true is so wrong that it's just absurd and laughable.
You're just making things up as you go.
Once again, you have your own burden of proof if you want to label billions of people as delusional. Once again, a very serious accusation. I don't think anyone here has any burden of proof, at least not me. I am not claiming that religion is the right answer. I am stating that it's open for further exploration.
What burden of proof would that be?
I stated a precise cause and effect reliationship.
Faith defies logic, therefore is delusional.
Nothing hypothetical about that.
According to you, we should throw out any hypotheses for which we do not have any concrete evidence. I think that does not bode well with scientific methodology...
Well, you're incorrect, then.
If you disagree, provide me with evidence to the contrary.
Wikipedia: THE source for the armchair scientist. It's so accurate, most professors don't allow their students to use it as a source.
Wikipedia is itself a collection of sources. And a convenient one at that.
Pretty pathetic that you need to fall back on
that to defend your own argument, though.
If you're going to keep rehashing the same stuff I've gone over, I don't really want to continue this. I've given example as to where my understanding of the scientific method comes from, while you've sidestepped, misinterpreted them, or artfully ignored them.
