Some god hypotheses are not disprovable no matter how improbable: I.e., a self-realizing transcendent absolute being on which everything is dependent for its reality but which itself is dependent on nothing (definition of a theist friend of mine). Certain claims attributed to such a hypothesis might be more amenable to testing. If someone claimed that this transcendent reality intervened in our cosmos in a particular fashion we might look for expected evidence. Then one might claim the evidence was somehow concealed. Something does not have to be absolutely disprovable to maintain a more probable hypothesis or even to withhold any opinion.
I would say I lack a belief in the concept of theism as defined by my friend. At the same time I am pretty sure that concept does not correspond to reality. I believe that particular God definition lacks reality. We might conjecture how probable my belief is (just how many assumptions I must make to attain it) but I would say I lack a belief and hold another that I believe is more likely. Ultimately I am agnostic on the issue but definitely incline to disbelief.
You are entitled to be certain in your atheism as a believer is in theism. But neither of you really knows the reality or lack thereof of untestable propositions.
I would say I lack a belief in the concept of theism as defined by my friend. At the same time I am pretty sure that concept does not correspond to reality. I believe that particular God definition lacks reality. We might conjecture how probable my belief is (just how many assumptions I must make to attain it) but I would say I lack a belief and hold another that I believe is more likely. Ultimately I am agnostic on the issue but definitely incline to disbelief.
You are entitled to be certain in your atheism as a believer is in theism. But neither of you really knows the reality or lack thereof of untestable propositions.
