We’re all agnostic. No one truly “knows” one way or another. I personally think there isn’t a god because they don’t “need” to exist. There is no purpose, the universe just is and given a large enough system, life can be explained by randomness and chaos.
I don’t need the comfort of a god to justify my existence. I’m ok with just existing here and now and when I’m gone I hope I made enough difference in those still living to carry on in spirit.
This is atheist deletion. I know God doesn’t exist that same way I know unicorns don’t exist. Or the same way I know Gandalf wasn’t real. I am not an agnostic, I am quite sure that there is not a spooky sky wizard who refuses to demonstrate its existence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
To be fair, you don’t know for certain, and no one does. I guess it depends of your definition of ‘god’. No one has ever proved that there is a creator, and no one has ever proved that there isn’t a creator. I would say that, based on the facts that we know, the most scientific position to have is one of being agnostic.
I am not saying that any human description of a god, in human religions, is anywhere close to reality. I am just saying that it is very hard, and maybe impossible, to prove whether there is something that created the universe or not. At least from our perspective in the universe.
That being said, I think its fair to say that based on the facts that we do know, athiest theory is much more probable to be true than just about any other human myths about gods. It’s just that the truth is actually impossible to know, and the argument is kind of pointless until a time where we know more about the universe, if we ever get to that point.
I am pretty anti-religious and would definitely agree with you over any cultist, fwiw. I just think it’s impossible to actually ‘know’ that there is nothing created the universe. Maybe there is a creator of some kind. Maybe this is all just a product of nature. Its really impossible to know either way with our current understanding.
That’s not really a fair comparison. We know what unicorns are. If someone discovered an animal that looked like a horse but had a horn growing in the middle of its forehead, they could call that a unicorn and most people would agree with them. It’s theoretically possible (albeit extremely unlikely) that that animal exists somewhere.
With God, on the other hand, the definitions are constantly changing and self-contradictory. Even as a theoretical concept God has never been described with any degree of coherence, so the idea of whether or not it “exists” is moot. Something needs to exist as a concept before the question of whether or not it exists in the real world can even be asked.
That’s agnostic atheism. The term “agnostic” is the opposite of “gnostic”. Being a gnostic atheist would mean you think there’s direct proof against god as a concept, rather than merely saying there’s no evidence in favor.
I’m gnostic about the Abrahamic god existing, and agnostic about any other god existing. I call myself an atheist, and most other atheists seem to hold a similar position. Not that I have a randomly selected poll of atheists or anything; just anecdotal observation.
![Victory? [elder cactus]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/244d43ec-eeec-4e9c-a97a-a7e978cc47a5.jpeg){kind=link}
We’re all agnostic. No one truly “knows” one way or another. I personally think there isn’t a god because they don’t “need” to exist. There is no purpose, the universe just is and given a large enough system, life can be explained by randomness and chaos.
I don’t need the comfort of a god to justify my existence. I’m ok with just existing here and now and when I’m gone I hope I made enough difference in those still living to carry on in spirit.
This is atheist deletion. I know God doesn’t exist that same way I know unicorns don’t exist. Or the same way I know Gandalf wasn’t real. I am not an agnostic, I am quite sure that there is not a spooky sky wizard who refuses to demonstrate its existence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
To be fair, you don’t know for certain, and no one does. I guess it depends of your definition of ‘god’. No one has ever proved that there is a creator, and no one has ever proved that there isn’t a creator. I would say that, based on the facts that we know, the most scientific position to have is one of being agnostic.
I am not saying that any human description of a god, in human religions, is anywhere close to reality. I am just saying that it is very hard, and maybe impossible, to prove whether there is something that created the universe or not. At least from our perspective in the universe.
That being said, I think its fair to say that based on the facts that we do know, athiest theory is much more probable to be true than just about any other human myths about gods. It’s just that the truth is actually impossible to know, and the argument is kind of pointless until a time where we know more about the universe, if we ever get to that point.
I am pretty anti-religious and would definitely agree with you over any cultist, fwiw. I just think it’s impossible to actually ‘know’ that there is nothing created the universe. Maybe there is a creator of some kind. Maybe this is all just a product of nature. Its really impossible to know either way with our current understanding.
That’s not really a fair comparison. We know what unicorns are. If someone discovered an animal that looked like a horse but had a horn growing in the middle of its forehead, they could call that a unicorn and most people would agree with them. It’s theoretically possible (albeit extremely unlikely) that that animal exists somewhere.
With God, on the other hand, the definitions are constantly changing and self-contradictory. Even as a theoretical concept God has never been described with any degree of coherence, so the idea of whether or not it “exists” is moot. Something needs to exist as a concept before the question of whether or not it exists in the real world can even be asked.
I am not agnostic. there is no god. there is no proof so there is no god. yes, it is really that simple.
That’s agnostic atheism. The term “agnostic” is the opposite of “gnostic”. Being a gnostic atheist would mean you think there’s direct proof against god as a concept, rather than merely saying there’s no evidence in favor.
I’m gnostic about the Abrahamic god existing, and agnostic about any other god existing. I call myself an atheist, and most other atheists seem to hold a similar position. Not that I have a randomly selected poll of atheists or anything; just anecdotal observation.