this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
625 points (83.1% liked)
Comic Strips
12611 readers
3151 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.