Non biolgical beings

[McCulloch]

Various religions make claims that certain spiritual or magical beings exist.

Fairies, Djinn, Goblins, Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Demons, Satan are all said to exist.

Do any of these beings really exist? Are they active in our world? Provide evidence to support any positive claims.

[justifyothers]

Various religions make claims that certain spiritual or magical beings exist.

Fairies, Djinn, Goblins, Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Demons, Satan are all said to exist.

Do any of these beings really exist? Are they active in our world? Provide evidence to support any positive claims.

Recently, a christian friend of mine shared a past experience of hers with me.....

Years ago, she and a friend were eating lunch in a Thai restaurant. In the center of the restaurant was a little buddha tiki thing surrounded by burning candles, incense and food 'offerings'.

As they waited on their lunch, they joked about this situation and mocked it and laughed.

Later that day, when home alone, she felt a "sudden evil presence". She was filled with a "warm glow and chills and heard moaning." Terrified, she called her other christian friend who told her that she needed to "tell this demon that she is covered by the blood of the lamb".

Ever since then, she claims to have a "healthy fear and respect for evil spirits".
I know what I think of this scenario, but am interested to hear comments..........

It sounds like she had a hallucination , that was directed by her cultural beliefs.

Agree......christianity has taught her that evil spirits will be out to 'get her' now that she is a christian - to tear her away from God. They harp on the idea that you must be aware of them and use extreme caution when you come into contact with one. Satan is after her for sure!!

[undeterred]

...there is little that much of our observational ability can say about such matters...

I'm not sure I understand. My observational ability facilitates my conclusions.

...meaning that there is little that we can take for granted regarding them.

So we can't take for granted there is no invisible pink unicorn? Again, correct me if I'm missing the point.

...To that end, what do we know that makes you feel as you do regarding the truth/falsehood of a supernatural entity?

There is no evidence of any such thing without a natural explanation.

Sorry if I've been dense. Feel free to spell it out.

[Jester]

...there is little that much of our observational ability can say about such matters...

I'm not sure I understand. My observational ability facilitates my conclusions.

Perhaps we should draw the line more clearly between observation and conclusion then. A failure to observe an object does not logically infer that it does not exist. Rather, this is a separate conclusion. Though it is tempting to assume that we observe much or all the layers of reality, there is no logical reason to assume this is so.

...meaning that there is little that we can take for granted regarding them.

So we can't take for granted there is no invisible pink unicorn? Again, correct me if I'm missing the point.

That all depends if you are talking about an invisible pink unicorn that is composed of matter or one that exists within a different plain of reality. There is no logical evidence either way, regardless of whether or not we are referencing to “pocket universes”, as some scientists have seriously proposed, or are purposely choosing to use a goofy example, such as pink unicorns.

...To that end, what do we know that makes you feel as you do regarding the truth/falsehood of a supernatural entity?

There is no evidence of any such thing without a natural explanation.

Sorry if I've been dense. Feel free to spell it out.

I suppose we’re all dense on occasion. The most clearly I can explain this is to point out that there cannot be “evidence” of an event without a natural explanation for at least two reasons.

First, because what is generally meant as evidence is scientific evidence. I have no objection to this in general (in fact I agree with this as a standard), but will point out that the natural sciences are named as such because they deal exclusively with the natural world. The scientist specifically limits himself from dealing with anything supernatural so long as he has his scientist hat (or lab coat) on.

Second, because explanations are the product of science. Many of our explanations are actually inadequate to describe events, and some areas of science get increasingly strange in trying to accurately explain the universe. The fact that an explanation exists does not mean that it is the only applicable view of the situation. Perhaps an example would serve best here:

In the event that a person dies after being shot in the chest, a policeman might say that he was killed by a criminal, a doctor might say that he was killed by internal bleeding, a biologist might say that he was killed by a loss of nutrients to various tissues, a spouse might say that he was killed by her failure to pick him up on earlier that day, and a witness might say was killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The point is that all of these explanations are accurate from their own perspectives, and possessing an explanation of a particular event does not establish that other explanations are automatically false. Given this, we cannot reference to the ability/inability of science to explain a particular event as having any bearing on whether or not there exists a different, yet accurate, understanding of the same event. Either case is a non sequitur argument.

[Zzyzx]

.

...there is little that much of our observational ability can say about such matters...

I'm not sure I understand. My observational ability facilitates my conclusions.

Perhaps we should draw the line more clearly between observation and conclusion then. A failure to observe an object does not logically infer that it does not exist. Rather, this is a separate conclusion. Though it is tempting to assume that we observe much or all the layers of reality, there is no logical reason to assume this is so.

I agree that observation and conclusion are separate items. I suggest that observation should precede conclusion.

I also agree that there is no reason to conclude that we observe most or all layers of reality. I add that there is no reason to conclude that there are layers of reality that exist beyond detection.

Anyone making such claim in either direction is expected to verify the claim with evidence.

meaning that there is little that we can take for granted regarding them.

So we can't take for granted there is no invisible pink unicorn? Again, correct me if I'm missing the point.

That all depends if you are talking about an invisible pink unicorn that is composed of matter or one that exists within a different plain of reality.

Is imagination a "different plain of reality"?

What are other examples of "different plain of reality"?

There is no logical evidence either way, regardless of whether or not we are referencing to “pocket universes”, as some scientists have seriously proposed, or are purposely choosing to use a goofy example, such as pink unicorns.

If there is no logical or physical evidence one way or another, how can a reasoning person make a decision with certainty one way or the other?

Is using pink elephants that cannot be shown to exist any goofier an example than using ANY invisible and unverifiable entity as an example?

]...To that end, what do we know that makes you feel as you do regarding the truth/falsehood of a supernatural entity?

There is no evidence of any such thing without a natural explanation.

Sorry if I've been dense. Feel free to spell it out.

I suppose we’re all dense on occasion. The most clearly I can explain this is to point out that there cannot be “evidence” of an event without a natural explanation for at least two reasons.
First, because what is generally meant as evidence is scientific evidence. I have no objection to this in general (in fact I agree with this as a standard), but will point out that the natural sciences are named as such because they deal exclusively with the natural world. The scientist specifically limits himself from dealing with anything supernatural so long as he has his scientist hat (or lab coat) on.

I agree to a point – science does not (or should not) seek to promote or denigrate supernaturalism per se.

However, when theistic "explanations" are proposed for natural phenomena, THAT becomes the territory of science. For instance, when a theistic claim is made that the Earth was recently flooded "to the tops of mountains", that CLAIM is subject to scientific study.

When false "science" is used to support theistic claims, that also is the province of science and IS a legitimate concern of scientists.

Examples of both of the above are demonstrated in the "flood debate" in Head to Head. There theology attempts to "interpret" geology to fit its claims – not on the basis of scientific study, but upon the basis of theological "interpretation" of bits and pieces of science chosen to "support" religious theories.

Second, because explanations are the product of science. Many of our explanations are actually inadequate to describe events, and some areas of science get increasingly strange in trying to accurately explain the universe. The fact that an explanation exists does not mean that it is the only applicable view of the situation. Perhaps an example would serve best here:

In the event that a person dies after being shot in the chest, a policeman might say that he was killed by a criminal, a doctor might say that he was killed by internal bleeding, a biologist might say that he was killed by a loss of nutrients to various tissues, a spouse might say that he was killed by her failure to pick him up on earlier that day, and a witness might say was killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And a religionist might say that "god called him home".

Notice that there is NO conflict between what is said by the policeman, the doctor and the biologist. Each observation and conclusion, though from separate points of view, is consistent with the others. Each can be verified (or refuted) with evidence.

The spouse and the witness are simply stating personal opinions that are one-time emotional responses that cannot be verified or repeated.

The religionist is repeating dogma that represents someone else's opinion (that s/he has adopted).

The point is that all of these explanations are accurate from their own perspectives, and possessing an explanation of a particular event does not establish that other explanations are automatically false.

Agreed. However, each explanation CAN be examined for truth and accuracy. The policeman's view that a gunshot was the cause of death can be tested. If the victim had a knife in his heart or had evidence of being run over by a train, the gunshot theory becomes questionable. Whether or not a gunshot was a criminal act is left to the courts to decide.

The doctor's view that internal (or external) bleeding can be verified (or refuted) by evaluating the amount of blood released from the victim's circulatory system and comparing that information with known blood-loss / death information.

The biologist's view can be verified or refuted by study of the effects of oxygen deprivation due to circulatory malfunction that occur upon various organs of the body including the brain.

The spouse's opinion (or guilt response) can NOT be verified as being a cause of death and cannot be duplicated.

The witness opinion can NOT be verified as being an actual cause of death and cannot be duplicated.

The theist opinion can NOT be verified at all.

Given this, we cannot reference to the ability/inability of science to explain a particular event as having any bearing on whether or not there exists a different, yet accurate, understanding of the same event.

Agreed, there MAY be other "understanding of a given event".

In science and debate those who propose the "other" are expected to verify their claim. In theology there is no expectation of verification (other than quoting and interpreting "scripture") – and any "explanation" can be proposed without challenge (particularly the ultimate – "goddidit"). "Explanations" need not fit with any known characteristics of nature.

[Zzyzx]

.

first of all ,, you have to believe in allah to believe what he said

Islam sounds a lot like Christianity.

First you believe then you can believe.

It is all written in a book.

The book is the word of god.

Just believe on faith alone and you will go to heaven after you die.

[undeterred]

A failure to observe an object does not logically infer that it does not exist. Rather, this is a separate conclusion. Though it is tempting to assume that we observe much or all the layers of reality, there is no logical reason to assume this is so.

Fair enough. A true statement with little apparent value. But like I said I'm a bit dense.

Though it is tempting to assume that we observe much or all the layers of reality, there is no logical reason to assume this is so.

Agreed.

There is no logical evidence either way, regardless of whether or not we are referencing to “pocket universes”, as some scientists have seriously proposed, or are purposely choosing to use a goofy example, such as pink unicorns.

As Zzyzx pointed out, the "goofiness" of the example is immaterial. You're right, though, that there is no more evidence for pocket universes than there is for IPU's (or God), but part of observation is to consider likelihoods based on prior evidence. On this basis we might conclude that invisible pink unicorns are perhaps less likely than God, (perhaps) but God is less likely than pocket universes.

I think it's also important to note that no-one has posited the existence of pocket universes as a fact, as opposed to what many say about the supernatural.

Many of our explanations are actually inadequate to describe events, and some areas of science get increasingly strange in trying to accurately explain the universe.

Now, that depends entirely on your definition of strange. The strange ideas of science are certainly aptly named in that they definitely unfamiliar (to say the least, perhaps). The fact that they're considered to be more odd than ideas about the supernatural is an indication of the special license granted to more familiar ideas with less basis in evidence (evidence such as mathematics and physics).

In the event that a person dies after being shot in the chest, a policeman might say that he was killed by a criminal, a doctor might say that he was killed by internal bleeding, a biologist might say that he was killed by a loss of nutrients to various tissues, a spouse might say that he was killed by her failure to pick him up on earlier that day, and a witness might say was killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Zzyzx covered this well enough. I just want to add that it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.

The cause of death goes back to the actual event of the shooting. He died because he was shot.

A policeman might say he was killed by a criminal - because he was shot.
A doctor might say he was killed by internal bleeding - because he was shot.
A biologist might say... and so on.

Using this sort of example to somehow demonstrate that observation is an inadequate means of gauging reality is an exercise in mild obfuscation.

Overall though, it seems that your point is it's unwise to close your mind to the possibility that there are things that are undetectable by science. I've considered that possibility and dismissed it, pending further evidence.

[Jester]

...there is little that much of our observational ability can say about such matters...

Anyone making such claim in either direction is expected to verify the claim with evidence.

Thus opens the basic theme of my response, that I probably agree with you much more than is expected, and that what I mostly intend to do is point out that I was not asserting that supernatural beings definitely exist. In fact, my original comment was centered around the idea that I doubted that this issue was even possible to discuss with any certainty.

Is imagination a "different plain of reality"?

What are other examples of "different plain of reality"?

Personally, I’m inclined to say that imagination is not, though some will probably disagree. There cannot, by definition, be tangible examples of other layers of reality, no matter how fond sci-fi writers are of discussing them. Things such as alternate dimensions, pocket (or mother) universes, and the like are all examples, though none of them can be scientifically established.

If there is no logical or physical evidence one way or another, how can a reasoning person make a decision with certainty one way or the other?

That is one of the great challenges of life, in my opinion. We are constantly facing a lack of evidence for many things relevant to our thought.

Is using pink elephants that cannot be shown to exist any goofier an example than using ANY invisible and unverifiable entity as an example?

While it is difficult (if not impossible) to argue on these grounds over whether or not it is more likely, I think it is easy to establish that it is goofier. It was a humorous comparison; that is all that was meant by goofy.

I agree to a point – science does not (or should not) seek to promote or denigrate supernaturalism per se.

However, when theistic "explanations" are proposed for natural phenomena, THAT becomes the territory of science. For instance, when a theistic claim is made that the Earth was recently flooded "to the tops of mountains", that CLAIM is subject to scientific study.

I agree wholeheartedly. The moment a theological claim involves a direct conclusion about the natural world, it is perfectly legitimate (I’d say necessary) for science to investigate.

In the event that a person dies after being shot in the chest, a policeman might say that he was killed by a criminal, a doctor might say that he was killed by internal bleeding, a biologist might say that he was killed by a loss of nutrients to various tissues, a spouse might say that he was killed by her failure to pick him up on earlier that day, and a witness might say was killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And a religionist might say that "god called him home".

Notice that there is NO conflict between what is said by the policeman, the doctor and the biologist. Each observation and conclusion, though from separate points of view, is consistent with the others. Each can be verified (or refuted) with evidence.

Agreed.

The spouse and the witness are simply stating personal opinions that are one-time emotional responses that cannot be verified or repeated.

I actually disagree somewhat here. While I do not believe in blaming the spouse in this case for any part of the death, her statement is factually true. In fact, this is the reason why it is so hard to counsel people experiencing guilt along these lines.

The witness has, of course, spoken something of more of an opinion, in that he/she uses the word “wrong” in a generalized sense. This is only logically possible if “right” and “wrong” can be objectively established as coinciding with the witnesses use of the term here. As that cannot be done without first accepting some concept of a divine being, the statement is subjective in terms of this debate.

The religionist is repeating dogma that represents someone else's opinion (that s/he has adopted).

I fail to see how this is any different from an opinion on these terms. Many, if not most, opinions people state are things also heard elsewhere.

To the more important issue, I maintain that a statement of religion is a statement regarding objective issues. They may be correct or incorrect, but I would never apply the term “opinion” to basic statements of faith.

The point is that all of these explanations are accurate from their own perspectives, and possessing an explanation of a particular event does not establish that other explanations are automatically false.

Agreed. However, each explanation CAN be examined for truth and accuracy.

Fair enough with regard to the more naturalistic explanations. There is a great deal of testing that can be done.

The spouse's opinion (or guilt response) can NOT be verified as being a cause of death and cannot be duplicated.

Let’s split this response into to parts: the intellectual statement and the emotional reaction. The intellectual statement can be verified if we can establish that she had planned on picking up the victim before the time of the shooting.
The emotional reaction (guilt) is based on the idea that there is an objective standard for right behavior that she has somehow contradicted. This can only be verified by checking it against that standard, which would require something akin to a deity in order to logically establish.

The witness opinion can NOT be verified as being an actual cause of death and cannot be duplicated.

The comments regarding the spouses guilt reaction would essentially apply here as well.

The theist opinion can NOT be verified at all.

I would amend this to the idea that the theist opinion cannot be verified by looking at the current natural universe via the sciences. There is a great deal of argument over whether or not particular religions can be verified via other means than the natural sciences.

Agreed, there MAY be other "understanding of a given event".

In science and debate those who propose the "other" are expected to verify their claim.

Here we are back to my original comment. I claim no scientific proof of supernatural events, and have only been pointing out that science is not the tool to search for them.

In theology there is no expectation of verification (other than quoting and interpreting "scripture") – and any "explanation" can be proposed without challenge (particularly the ultimate – "goddidit"). "Explanations" need not fit with any known characteristics of nature.

I would maintain that this is a sweeping generalization that caricaturizes many religious people and institutions. Many believe deeply in logical proof, while maintaining that limiting one to a naturalistic view of the world is simply an arbitrary philosophical position.

[Jester]

There is no logical evidence either way, regardless of whether or not we are referencing to “pocket universes”, as some scientists have seriously proposed, or are purposely choosing to use a goofy example, such as pink unicorns.

As Zzyzx pointed out, the "goofiness" of the example is immaterial.

Agreed. In fact, that is what I had meant to point out myself with the above comment.

You're right, though, that there is no more evidence for pocket universes than there is for IPU's (or God), but part of observation is to consider likelihoods based on prior evidence. On this basis we might conclude that invisible pink unicorns are perhaps less likely than God, (perhaps) but God is less likely than pocket universes.

How can we consider likelihoods without evidence?

I think it's also important to note that no-one has posited the existence of pocket universes as a fact, as opposed to what many say about the supernatural.

This is true enough, and I do feel that many overstate the “proof” of their respective religions. Where I disagree, however, is that we cannot limit accepted proofs to scientific evidence (which purposely limit themselves to a naturalistic world view), then claim that there is clearly no evidence for the existence of God. This is a circulus in probando argument.

Many of our explanations are actually inadequate to describe events, and some areas of science get increasingly strange in trying to accurately explain the universe.

Now, that depends entirely on your definition of strange. The strange ideas of science are certainly aptly named in that they definitely unfamiliar (to say the least, perhaps). The fact that they're considered to be more odd than ideas about the supernatural is an indication of the special license granted to more familiar ideas with less basis in evidence (evidence such as mathematics and physics).

To my understanding, strange only means unfamiliar. I did not offer this comment as suggesting that strange arguments were incorrect, only that science has continued to revise its thinking due to the fact that our scientific understanding of the natural world is imperfect. I mentioned this to refute the claim that science’s possession of a natural explanation for all observed events establishes the falsehood of supernatural explanations.

In the event that a person dies after being shot in the chest, a policeman might say that he was killed by a criminal, a doctor might say that he was killed by internal bleeding, a biologist might say that he was killed by a loss of nutrients to various tissues, a spouse might say that he was killed by her failure to pick him up on earlier that day, and a witness might say was killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Zzyzx covered this well enough. I just want to add that it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.

Obviously, I disagree. Let’s get to that:

The cause of death goes back to the actual event of the shooting. He died because he was shot.

A policeman might say he was killed by a criminal - because he was shot.
A doctor might say he was killed by internal bleeding - because he was shot.
A biologist might say... and so on.

Using this sort of example to somehow demonstrate that observation is an inadequate means of gauging reality is an exercise in mild obfuscation.

That is actually incorrect, in my view. I would respond with the following:
If we are reducing everything in observation back to “he was shot”, I feel that we’re begging the question “why was he shot?”
The spouse and the witness offer answers to that question. A psychologist might comment on the mental state of the killer as another option. A politician might site gun control policies as the reason. The point is that we cannot simply reduce an event down to a single, simple answer. This tends to be what many non-theists are (rightly) upset at many theists for doing. Reality is inherently complex, and ignoring those explanations which aren’t cleanly tested by observation does not eliminate them as possibilities.

Overall though, it seems that your point is it's unwise to close your mind to the possibility that there are things that are undetectable by science. I've considered that possibility and dismissed it, pending further evidence.

I feel that this contradicts your original statement (that the results are in). I feel that it is unwise to completely dismiss any possibility, waiting for information to come to us. Rather, one thing I love about science is its attitude of active searching. I believe that we should take this approach with other disciplines. Else, we should not be surprised at our lack of understanding.

[Beto]

You're right, though, that there is no more evidence for pocket universes than there is for IPU's (or God), but part of observation is to consider likelihoods based on prior evidence. On this basis we might conclude that invisible pink unicorns are perhaps less likely than God, (perhaps) but God is less likely than pocket universes.

How can we consider likelihoods without evidence?

Horses exist. Pink animals exist (depends on the "pink" I guess, but let's consider artificially colored "neons", they can be very pink). Horned animals exist. Even invisible animals could exist if their biology allowed for the light-manipulation involved (too much?). What part of "God" can we say exists to everyone?

[Negachrist]

Horses exist. Pink animals exist (depends on the "pink" I guess, but let's consider artificially colored "neons", they can be very pink). Horned animals exist. Even invisible animals could exist if their biology allowed for the light-manipulation involved (too much?). What part of "God" can we say exists to everyone?

Flamingos are pink.

What about Chameleons, could they be considered to have "invisibility" powers?