As I understand it, a statement like that is unscientific. You can say that the likelihood of unicorns existing is extremely small, trace possible mythological origins to show the stories are fabricated, but you can’t categorically prove that something doesn’t exist.
To be fair, one is about something that would be observable, and another is an abstract concept that as defined could be completely unobservable.
Of course, there no practical consequence of that hypothetical. Since we have no evidence we can’t claim to know the will of such a hypothetical being or beings. The problem with a hope or faith in such a hypothetical is really when a human asserts the authority of the divine to their own words, desires, and judgements. So if someone’s faith is truly private and they don’t believe they have any true insight into the nature of their faith, then no need to object since it’s it has zero effect in practice.
So the agnostic perspective rather than the atheist perspective.
“There are no unicorns, that’s the simple truth.”
Is this also over confidence?
There are a lot of children who believe in unicorns.
A lot of pictures too. The pictures are more consistent than that of the gods.
As I understand it, a statement like that is unscientific. You can say that the likelihood of unicorns existing is extremely small, trace possible mythological origins to show the stories are fabricated, but you can’t categorically prove that something doesn’t exist.
Are you saying that a proof that God doesn’t exist, can’t itself exist?
…Yes?
So therefore you can categorically prove that something doesn’t exist?
Let me change my answer to “…most probably?”
To be fair, one is about something that would be observable, and another is an abstract concept that as defined could be completely unobservable.
Of course, there no practical consequence of that hypothetical. Since we have no evidence we can’t claim to know the will of such a hypothetical being or beings. The problem with a hope or faith in such a hypothetical is really when a human asserts the authority of the divine to their own words, desires, and judgements. So if someone’s faith is truly private and they don’t believe they have any true insight into the nature of their faith, then no need to object since it’s it has zero effect in practice.
So the agnostic perspective rather than the atheist perspective.