Oliver, evil is the opposit of love, remember everything in this dimention has its opposit.
The greatest gift mankind was given was "choice" the choice to be and think anything you wish, so i will be evil, that's fine but live with its consequences figuratively speaking.
This subject has been debated by some of mankinds finest brains down the centuries, without an answer, it is going round and round on this forum, time for me to leave.
beam me up Scotty.

Blackwattle,
you clearly enjoy your narcissistic little fantasy, but like OUG, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Read some genuine philosophy, or Ecclesiastes, or Khayam's Rubaiyat, or Theravada Buddhism. Any of these would be a good antidote.
"nothing is certain except that nothing is certain, and that there is nothing more ignorant nor more wretched than Man"

squeer quote....<<..Any of these would be a good antidote.>>...antidoting for what [lue of facts ot science to validate thy beliefs...or redirect the debate from certain science ground into the uncertainty of poets masticating words.meanings into absurdities..?

<<"nothing is certain except that nothing is certain,>>>..if science does not claim certainty..what does it claim?...its latest theory

<<and that there is nothing more ignorant nor more wretched than Man>>...lest we forget science method..infures scientific certainty/predictably...the claim made by these..selfsame..''ignorant/wretched''..faulse gods/..of science/goyam/clay...or simply clay slippe

each..decrying their own version of creationist soup...by failure to replicte their ambiogensis..;first life from non life...ok no science facts to refute here...now were going into pillow-sophey...

well go for it..squeer...im up for rebutting their so called un-solvable quandries...stop dropping names and sprout others opinions/defacts..in lue of thy own...

and just de facts...

u 2 ..OHH too..as well

noting black-what?-tell quote<<..This subject has been debated by some of mankinds finest brains down the centuries,..without an answer>>....preceeeded your philospophy remark...t's queer t's it not

but lets..p-high-low-size../philows-onhise/fello-sophise/..

heck just but up your certainties..[of man]...or parrot their uncertainties...and see..if they are sound or simply sounding off

Sqeers,

I used the term null hypothesis a little loosely. Basically, what I was saying is that one tests for the truth of the proposition you believe “untrue”, before testing the proposition you believe is true. It’s a methodology used in science and often with mathematically based hypotheses. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then, go onto the alternative hypothesis (what is expected).

Relatedly, I feel if one holds a position on something one should every now and then test that position. Regarding this thread and similar olo threads, one should not have untested “faith” in god, religion or atheism. Instead, one examines the facts and takes an empirically-based position, while taking what one does not believe as degraded possibility (not impossibility). It is why I engage religionists here, to test my position.

What I find interesting is Christians accept Jesus without first examining the nature of God. Here, one is naming an entity with fully the addressing the construct “God”, beforehand.

Squeers,"narcissistic" an assumption i would imagine, or do you approuch every public forum with name calling.
If i may be so bold as to advise you,"make not a fool of yourself for all to see".

Oliver, I absolutely applaud that kind of self-critical approach; one should never be complacent about anything. I take your point too about examining “the facts”; my take is that these have empirical foundations and are therefore “qualified” facts. OUG thus misunderstands or misrepresents the scientific position; he keeps asking for facts and accusing us of being faith merchants, when what science offers is rigorous analytical method and provisional determination: a way of analysing data that has so far been extremely productive.
Blackwattle, not an assumption, but an inference. What am I to make of someone who dons the prosaic persona of a sage and makes sweeping statements about God, the universe and everything as though such knowledge had been divinely vouchsafed? This is as accurate an illustration of narcissism as I could ask for. The inference is further justified by your ludicrously inflated, aphoristic and patronising style: “i am an observer in this dimension ...”, “make not a fool of yourself for all to see", “Tell me my friend ...” etc.
What on Earth do you know about any other dimension (indeed what do you know about this one!) that you haven’t drawn from some self-professed guru getting rich by appealing to the vanity and credulousness of the people who buy the books/CD’s?
I don’t want to trade in insults, but nothing that’s been said on the side of reason in this thread seems to have penetrated. I was just trying to get a response. Now that I have, can I urge you to sober up and analyse what you “know” in all humility (indeed use scientific method). Otherwise, I can assure you that narcissism is where you’re heading.