RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 5, 2015 at 5:49 pm
(This post was last modified: February 5, 2015 at 6:25 pm by Creed of Heresy.)
(February 5, 2015 at 9:16 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote:(February 5, 2015 at 7:19 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: You say you are being "intellectually honest." I say "you are keeping an open mind to the impossible." The existence of a unicorn is just as impossible as the existence of a god.Impossible or improbable? These are not the same thing.
Now there's the million-dollar question, isn't it?
On the one hand, there might be a possibility. On the other, if there even is such a possibility, then the chances would be so innumerably astronomically remote, would it even be worth actually considering as a possibility? Or would those chances be so high that they actually step into the realms of impossibility?
I know, this is the same argument delusionists use to argue against the idea of the chaos of random chance resulting in the universe. Difference is, it nevertheless still happened. But what if the odds are even more remote, by an order of many magnitudes, for something else? And in that same breath, if the result is what it is, does that actually mean the odds are 1 in 1?
My answer to all those questions, inevitably, is "I don't know." Which, bizarrely and contradictorily enough, is actually an agnostic stance.
That said...a unicorn would have to exist on a planescape, as all other equines do. They would also have to have a sizable, sustainable population count. We would therefore have discovered them by now, don't you think? Do dragons exist? Do leprechauns? Is there the possibility they do? Is there the possibility of magic?
I say no. Why? Because the possibility of their existence is 0. Why? Because we've had plenty of time to actually discover these things. We have not. Ergo, they are not real. They are not possible, by virtue of their non-existence.
If a hypothesis is disproven, demonstrated as false, do we not then say that the truth of that hypothesis is not possible?
