We have zero evidence on this thread for the existence of non-imaginary supernatural beings, ...
And zero methodology for testing for them,AND zero effort on your part to track down and test reports of same. The lack of evidence is assumed on your part, not tested.
... and plenty of evidence that people can and do invent them. ...
Based on fictional novels and the ASSUMPTION that non-fictional accounts are all invented -- again you have provided ZERO evidence of some concept being invented\imaginary that you did not start out KNOWING that it was invented\imaginary.
If you only look at apples you will not see oranges.
... Your claim that my theory is weak remains completely ...
... based on your complete lack of objective evidence in support of your claims.
The fact that you do not understand this is because you are unwilling to actually do the work necessary to support it, but bluster and pontificate as if your opinion alone should suffice. Sorry.
That it is true without being factual.
What is "true"? ...
Reality is "true" -- and we approach knowing reality by ruling out what is known to be false.
The attack on Guernica actually occurred, people and livestock were bombed and it was a horrific act of war, but the depiction in the painting is not factual, it is symbolic of the fear and suffering and senseless slaughter. The symbolic representation gives it an emotional and evocative element that lasts in memory long than a dry factual report does. This makes it memorable to those who see it, and makes it a symbol of anti-war sentiment.
Now can you figure out how this compares to the turtle?
... Is this supposed to be your evidence ...
No, it is more refutation of your attempt to use mythology\creation stories\records of anecdotal descriptions\narratives\etc as evidence of imagination on the basis that they are not strictly factual -- in spite of the fact that they all derive from a time before written language, before scientific development, and all rely on symbolic language to convey their messages in a memorable fashion.
It demonstrates why your assumption of factual representation being necessary to the dissemination of valid information in these narratives is false.
... for non-imaginary supernatural beings?
Again, it is not up to me, nor is it my responsibility, to provide evidence for non-imaginary supernatural beings -- it is my job to point out your failure to identify, test and show that non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined\invented: that is your hypothetical conjecture, the one you claimed to have lots of objective evidence for, yes?
You do not do this by providing endless lists of KNOWN to be invented supernatural being concepts, you do this by investigating concepts NOT KNOWN to be invented and then showing that they are.
In science, if you make a claim that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are extinct, and people tell you that there are unconfirmed sightings of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana swamps, you do not claim that they are the product of imagination -- you investigate or you change your opinion to allow the possibility that some sightings may be real.
Another year without evidence that your conjecture has passed from hypothesis to theory by proper testing, replication and peer review.
The method is observation. That's how we establish whether or not concepts of beings are imaginary. Try it: ...
Okay: observation 1 -- zero effort has been put into testing people's claims of supernatural experiences, observation 2 -- you don't have a means to identify whether a supernatural essence is present.
An hypothesis that is not tested is not a theory.
Hypothesis (b): All French speaking kangaroos are figments of the human imagination. That's a very strong theory that fits all repeatable observations made so far.
All imaginary things are products of the human imagination, that is an exceedingly strong theory by your books. It is also mundanely true by definition. What you don't seem to understand is that every time you make up something to substantiate your point all you prove is that all imaginary things are products of the human imagination. Every time you use an example that you know a priori is a product of human imagination to substantiate your point all you prove is that all imaginary things are products of human imagination.
Your claim was that you had a theory, a strong theory, and lots of evidence, and all I see you doing is making up stuff and pretending that known imaginary things are evidence rather than presenting documentation and evidence of any actual discovery process.
All you have demonstrated is that all imaginary things are products of human imagination.
Including your "theory" ... so far
Can you provide a list of the supernatural entities that you have determined are products of human imagination, but that no one knew a priori were imaginary, by some as yet unreported methodology? Yes No
Do you have any objective empirical evidence that demonstrates these recognized and previously documented as supernatural entities are products of human imagination? Yes No
Do you have a methodology, other than opinion, for determining whether a supernatural essence is present? Yes No
Have you reported this in any peer reviewed journal? Yes No
Has your work been reproduced\replicated by someone else? Yes No
Stop dancing around these issues. Anything not an unequivocal yes will be taken as a no.
If you can't answer all of them with a yes then you de facto do not have a strong theory supported by lots of evidence. Q.E.D.
Its that simple.
And of course you can always just admit that what you have is a 'working hypothesis' ...