• EatATaco
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    To me it comes down to a scientific approach.

    The hypotheses that Gandalf is a fictional creation has enough evidence to it that I believe it has risen to the level of a theory. Well, I’m being a little flippant here, but just demonstrating my point.

    Same thing with unicorns, there is such a lack of evidence for the hypothesis of their physical existence that at this point it’s been pretty much disproven.

    The way God is generally hypothesized, it’s hard (if not impossible) to prove or disprove. I don’t adhere to someone’s hypothesis that there is a god because they have not provided evidence that it exists. And maybe it’s not even a valid hypotheses because it can’t be proven or disproven. So in that sense I just lack a belief in their hypothesis. Making me an atheist. But to also hypothesize that you know for sure God does not exist is also equally, and in the same way, invalid.

    • Enkrod@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Bah, if a theoretical agent had any interaction with reality, we should find evidence of some kind of interaction. If we don’t then there are three possibilities: 1. It doesn’t exist, 2. It doesn’t interact with reality. If it doesn’t interact with reality, it isn’t real in any meaningfull way. If it isn’t real, it doesn’t exist. 3. We can’t find where and how it interacts with reality, in that case it is the ever diminishing god of the gaps.

      • EatATaco
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree that having not seen any meaningful interaction with reality that it shouldn’t be included in any theory about how things work. However, I feel it’s a logical jump to claim that this is proof it doesn’t exist.

        • Enkrod@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hmmm… I don’t think it is proof either. But it is imho the strongest possible indication of nonexistence.

          For me to accept the possible existence of something, the possibility would have to be shown first. And I am at the moment convinced that the existence of anything without interaction with reality is impossible. Because I think existence is defined by interaction with reality.

          Everything else would be apart, seperate from reality: not real.

    • dariusj18@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ex. If someone would continue to refute the existence of gods despite all evidence to the contrary, they are an atheist. (And we’re talking real evidence here, not the wonder of it all shit)