Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 12-16-2002, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by parkdalian:


There is another difficulty. It may be more accurate to say that "fictional creatures do not presently exist".

Unicorns may be considered fictional now, but I'm sure they could manipulate the genes of horses to grow horns. Flying machines were once fictional, but exist now.

I think you have to say that:

"Fictional creatures do not exist in the physical reality commonly perceived by all of us"

If I imangine a fictional creature, it exists in my mind as a manifestation of the neural net with which I imagined it.

Anybody ever read "The Nonesuch" by Larry Niven?

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]

nXile · 12-16-2002, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


Anybody ever read "Jabberwocky" by Larry Niven?

I have, though I thought it was written by Lewis Carrol, the Alice in Wonderland author.

Also, concerning this "what exists" argument, where does virtual reality (as it progresses) figure in?

Using the body's senses and mind to prove/disprove what is and isn't...
Would/does VR makes that way of functioning obsolete?

nXi|e

Crito · 12-16-2002, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Unfortunately, having shunned vacuous pontification" in order to proudly rise to assert your declaration of ignorance, you've hardly gone much beyond tautology.

OK. Show me, please. Elaborate more on your nebulous statement, "you've hardly gone much beyond tautology". And whenever you use phrases like "it's obvious", "it's more reasonable", and "it just makes more sense", please tell my why it's obvious, or more reasonable.

Quote:

That does not, of course, render the declaration wrong, but "god-damned adverbiage" to the effect that you don't know that which is rendered inaccessible and unknowable says very little.

And why does it say very little? Elaborate here, too, please.

Quote:

Tell me, from your perspective:

Is the belief in God(s), the Daoine Sidhe, the Purple Unicorn and White Raven warranted?

Please simplify this question, and toss in an example too. I want to be sure I understand the question.

Quote:

Do you suspect that the laws of physics and chemistry apply to gallaxy M51, and is this belief similarly warranted or unwarranted?

I don't know what gallaxy M51 is. What is it?

If you ask "Are the laws of physics and chemistry ubiquitous?", I reply "I don't know," because I have not experienced the extent of the universe. And, to make matters worse, even if I thought I have seen all of it, I would still wonder if there's something more, something I overlooked.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

Kosh · 12-16-2002, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nXile:


I have, though I thought it was written by Lewis Carrol, the Alice in Wonderland author.

My Bad, got the title wrong. "The Nonesuch". Don't know why Jabberwocky came to mind, maybe he referenced it in the story.

MadKally · 12-16-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

posted by Koy:
God is a fictional creature until such time as the burden to prove otherwise has been met. Stating God is not fictional does not meet that burden.

Anyone who merely states, "God is not fictional" (i.e., "God exists") or tries to get around the burden by stating something equally asinine (such as "Prove that God is fictional") fails to meet the absolute, self-imposed burden of proof inherent in the initial claim, "God exists."

If god is not fictional, then neither is the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny!

BTW, Koy rules!!!

Crito · 12-16-2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

(Laurie) Chimeras - good one! Makes my point. It's not about having never experienced them. My original statement was that intellectually speaking, I consider atheism to be the default position. Is this not your default position? Are you claiming that no one can know anything for sure?

Infants are ostensibly unaware of God. I could say that it's more reasonable to consider atheism as the default position, but I wouldn't be able to prove why it's more reasonable.

As for universal uncertainty, I don't know.

Quote:

(Laurie) It's reasonable to believe that because the burden of proof is on the leprechaun asserters. They've had centuries, but those believers have still not introduced a leprechaun to the world - not one tiny footprint - not one li'l green coprolite. Yes: concluding that leprechauns are fictional folktale figures who do not actually exist IS reasonable and DOES make the most sense.

First, to be clear, I'm not talking about the leprechaun asserters. I'm talking about those that claim "Leprechauns do not exist," and those that make no claim, no commitment. Just like the leprechaun asserters, the leprechaun deniers are making an assertion and, hence, hold the burden of proof.

Second, your conclusion that leprechauns are fictional is fallacious. What you have just said is, "No on has ever proved that a leprechaun exists; thus, leprechauns don't exist." This is the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam" target="_blank">argumentum ad ignorantiam</a> fallacy.

Quote:

Another writer here put it best:

Selseral: Knowing for a fact that human beings have a distinguished history of believing in ridiculous things, how can you take any of their ridiculous claims seriously?

Selseral claims that these beliefs are ridiculous, yet never shows why they are ridiculous. If such a proof is "obvious", then it should be easy for Selseral to prove.

Quote:

(Laurie) In my opinion that is precisely the trouble with the agnostic position. "I don't know" is their sole response to everything. A person who, when serially quizzed re: his belief in a long list of improbable gods and obviously fictional, supernatural creatures who repeats "I don't know! We can never know!" over and over and over again might pat himself on the back for intellectual honesty. But in the real world, such a respondee is quickly dismissed by others as a fencesitter, one unwilling to take a stand - and to a truly absurd degree!

And just why are they "quickly dismissed"? You seem to think that a fencesitter is a bad thing, that refusing to commit is bad. I ask you, why is it bad? What makes it "truly absurd"?

Quote:

I agree with Reasonable Doubt and with Koyaanisquatsi:
Reasonable Doubt: Maybe the question is defective. Rather than asking "Does God exist?", perhaps we should ask "Is the belief in God(s) warranted?"

My question for Reasonable Doubt is, what do you mean by "warranted"?

Quote:

Koyaanisquatsi: For anyone to make the claim that a fictional creature is not, in fact, fictional is to ipso facto invoke a burden of proof... even if one is merely claiming they have a cousin named Freddy. Until such time as one adequately meets their burden of proof regarding their claim, even cousin Freddy is, technically, a fictional creature.

See my note above on argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Quote:

(Laurie) To summarize: the lack of positive evidence [hinduwoman], and the historical propensity of humans to invent gods [Selseral], are both very strong evidence for the nonexistence of god(s). To that I would add another item relating to Selseral's "big picture" observation, namely that no babies are born believing in a god.

Not born believing in a god? Please prove, asserter.

Again, a lack of positive evidence does not prove nonexistence. And from man's penchant to invent gods, it does not follow that God does not exist.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

doodad · 12-16-2002, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman:
...

Again if we start an argument by saying "Let us assume God exists" then you really cannot hope to show that the particular God you are attacking cannot exist. ...

Most of the arguments I see here are directed against the Abrahamic God. But merely proving that Yehovah is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent does not mean that he does not exist. It might deconvert Christians, but sometimes they straight go to other religions including Hinduism. The arguments against Christianity do not apply in toto against these other religions.

That is why I think the only certain way of keeping god out is to insist there is no evidence and be strong atheists.

Why would someone want to "attack" God? What would be accomplished by deconverting Christians?
What do you mean by "keeping God out"?

doodad · 12-16-2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sockpuppet:


If god is not fictional, then neither is the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny!

BTW, Koy rules!!!

If God is fictional, does that mean He exists in conceptual form, or as a mental construct? Is He a figment of the imagination?

doodad · 12-16-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


I think you have to say that:

"Fictional creatures do not exist in the physical reality commonly perceived by all of us"

If I imangine a fictional creature, it exists in my mind as a manifestation of the neural net with which I imagined it.

Anybody ever read "The Nonesuch" by Larry Niven?

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]

Which influences peoples' thinking and behavior,
the fact that God may or may not exist in reality, or the belief that God exists?

Selsaral · 12-16-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crito:


Selseral claims that these beliefs are ridiculous, yet never shows why they are ridiculous. If such a proof is "obvious", then it should be easy for Selseral to prove.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

It's as obvious that there are not 1400 green elephants living in my nostrils manufacturing snot as it is obvious that I exist. Asserting that those 1400 green elephants don't exist is equivalent to asserting that I exist. However I can't prove, without a doubt, 100%, either fact. If you disagree with the logical premise that we can assume we exist, even assert that we do, then what are we arguing about? Nothing is proveable, you don't actually exist, you can't prove that you can't prove 100% that you or god doesn't exist. You can't prove your opinions are really your own, and maybe I should assert you really agree with everything I say?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.