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.

[Beto]

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.

I didn't remember flamingos, but I really wanted to avoid any discussion on "orangness-pinkness". What this animal looks like "naturally" is really beside the point. The animal can be painted in bright pink and everyone should agree the animal looks pink.

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

Indeed. If by "invisible" one means something that escapes our visual perception. In a pink background, a pink unicorn may be invisible. So we a have a creature that could actually exist, since all of its parts exist.

[McCulloch]

Indeed. If by "invisible" one means something that escapes our visual perception. In a pink background, a pink unicorn may be invisible. So we a have a creature that could actually exist, since all of its parts exist.

We're not discussing beings which are difficult to see in certain circumstances or due to their very small size. How many bugs are on your eyelashes? We are discussing non biological beings alleged to exist by Christianity, Islam and other supernatural religions.


not

[justifyothers]

Indeed. If by "invisible" one means something that escapes our visual perception. In a pink background, a pink unicorn may be invisible. So we a have a creature that could actually exist, since all of its parts exist.

We're not discussing beings which are difficult to see in certain circumstances or due to their very small size. How many bugs are on your eyelashes? We are discussing non biological beings alleged to exist by Christianity, Islam and other supernatural religions.


not

Why would evil little demons and such be necessary? It seems man is quite capable. So, they aren't really needed, are they?

[Beto]

Indeed. If by "invisible" one means something that escapes our visual perception. In a pink background, a pink unicorn may be invisible. So we a have a creature that could actually exist, since all of its parts exist.

We're not discussing beings which are difficult to see in certain circumstances or due to their very small size. How many bugs are on your eyelashes? We are discussing non biological beings alleged to exist by Christianity, Islam and other supernatural religions.

Is whether or not they are visible the only issue? Fine than, they're just unicorns. This isn't considered a "supernatural" creature? Yet it's just a horse with a horn. I wouldn't have much issue with it if I had never seen a horse. What about dragons? Are they no longer "supernatural" once all the "fire-breathing" can be explained by gaseous mixtures and stuff like that? Do they become a possible animal that never existed (or did they...) rather than being "superstition"? In some religions dragons are as non-biological as angels.

[undeterred]

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 actually said that we consider likedlihoods based on prior evidence. As Beto and Negachrist are pointing out, IPU’s may yet be more likely than God, based on prior evidence. (sorry for staying off fairies, McCulloch.)

My (extremely) limited understanding of Brane Theory is that it’s theoretically possible based on maths and physics (prior evidence). God is still less likely than pocket universes or invisible pink unicorns.

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.

Sorry, I have to look that up.

To my understanding, strange only means unfamiliar.

I was thinking of “weird, flaky, ridiculous” etc. The strange ideas of science are unfamiliar. The naturalistic bigot in me says that the supernatural falls into the first catergory. It is unfortunately all too familiar.

If we are reducing everything in observation back to “he was shot”, I feel that we’re begging the question “why was he shot?”

That doesn’t mean he wasn’t shot. And that was, after all, the only question you were asking.
“Why was he shot” is a much better question for your example though. The answer is less clear-cut. But surely we’re not entering the “science only answers ‘how’ questions” territory?

[Jester]

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?

If we mean what aspect of God exists (just as you have pointed out some aspects of a pink unicorn that can be said to exist), there are many. Love, benevolence, power, causes, creative forces, etc. are all considered to be aspects of God.

I don’t feel, however, that this line of reasoning will get us very far in either direction. Nor does it address my first and primary point. Namely, that the natural sciences limit themselves to a naturalistic paradigm and it is therefore a Circulus in Probando argument to deny the existence of anything supernatural based on a lack of scientific evidence. One will have to turn to another field of study for any legitimate answer to such a question.

[Jester]

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 actually said that we consider likedlihoods based on prior evidence. As Beto and Negachrist are pointing out, IPU’s may yet be more likely than God, based on prior evidence.

If there is no more evidence for them than there is for God, as per your statement above, how does the evidence suggest that they are more likely?

My (extremely) limited understanding of Brane Theory is that it’s theoretically possible based on maths and physics (prior evidence). God is still less likely than pocket universes or invisible pink unicorns.

This is what I personally do not understand. Essentially, I feel that there are a number of evidences for God which are discussed in several fields of study. It is only by limiting our fields of study to the natural sciences that we may make this claim.

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.

Sorry, I have to look that up.

Feel free to take all the time you need. In the meantime circulus in probando refers to circular reasoning. To elaborate:

Science pre-assumes a naturalistic paradigm. That is to say that, for an explanation to be considered scientific, it must by definition exclude any reference to the supernatural. This is a basic fact of the scientific perspective, not something that can be proved or disproved as the only accurate view of the universe via science. Truly, science cannot, by definition, study the basic alternatives. Therefore, a question regarding the supernatural world cannot be answered with science.

“Why was he shot” is a much better question for your example though. The answer is less clear-cut. But surely we’re not entering the “science only answers ‘how’ questions” territory?

Perhaps we’re getting closer to making the same point? I feel that way, at least, but don’t want to speak for you. I completely agree that science can’t answer ultimate questions (such as “why was he shot”). That is not its job. “Why” questions are matters of philosophy and theology.
It seems that you are correct in that altering the question is a much better analogy. It seems to make clear that the issue of the supernatural is not a scientific question. When we are talking about God, we are getting into “why does the universe exist?” as opposed to “how does it maintain its functions?”. Thus, science, while immense in its power and usefulness, is not the right tool for answering this question.

[Beto]

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?

If we mean what aspect of God exists (just as you have pointed out some aspects of a pink unicorn that can be said to exist), there are many. Love, benevolence, power, causes, creative forces, etc. are all considered to be aspects of God.

I said "everyone". Obviously, atheists don't see those things as aspects of "God".

I don’t feel, however, that this line of reasoning will get us very far in either direction. Nor does it address my first and primary point.

You claimed "pink unicorns" are a "goofy example". I was simply showing that several "goofy" parts of the pink unicorn (if not all) are perfectly explainable, or readily observed in nature. Yet no one has any observable evidence to admit the possibility of pink unicorns existing, so they probably don't. Then we have "God", that seems so obvious to so many people that don't believe in pink unicorns.

Namely, that the natural sciences limit themselves to a naturalistic paradigm and it is therefore a Circulus in Probando argument to deny the existence of anything supernatural based on a lack of scientific evidence.

Science doesn't deny the existence of anything logical (in the way that pink unicorns would be logical, given the necessary conditions to evolve as such). That's man country. For instance, I don't see how science can deny the existence of pink unicorns just because no one ever saw one. This isn't about what science can prove, it's about people believing in something utterly devoid of scientific support, while choosing not to believe in stuff that are much more likely to exist.

One will have to turn to another field of study for any legitimate answer to such a question.

One would think so, yes. And I think that's fine by science. Religion is the one trying to butt in where it doesn't belong, even when it refers to other "planes of existence", assuming science is not interested in them.

[Beto]

I completely agree that science can’t answer ultimate questions (such as “why was he shot”). That is not its job. “Why” questions are matters of philosophy and theology.

You're neglecting the biochemistry of "why".

[undeterred]

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 actually said that we consider likedlihoods based on prior evidence. As Beto and Negachrist are pointing out, IPU’s may yet be more likely than God, based on prior evidence.

If there is no more evidence for them than there is for God, as per your statement above, how does the evidence suggest that they are more likely?

Sorry, I can see I didn't make that very clear. I'm saying there may not be direct evidence as in right now, but there is a basis in prior evidence. Beto has outlined the separate factors that could make an IPU theoretically possible, and the Brane Theory relies on hypothetcally viable mathematical and physical models.

This is what I personally do not understand. Essentially, I feel that there are a number of evidences for God which are discussed in several fields of study.

If chief among these fields of study is theology, then I'd like to express my view that the so-called "supernatural" is a purely human invention - a figment of the imagination - and as such theology is the study of what people have imagined, [strike]including[/strike] (edit) especially God.

If we mean what aspect of God exists (just as you have pointed out some aspects of a pink unicorn that can be said to exist), there are many. Love, benevolence, power, causes, creative forces, etc. are all considered to be aspects of God.

...Obviously, atheists don't see those things as aspects of "God".

Five stars from me.

“Why was he shot” is a much better question for your example though. The answer is less clear-cut. But surely we’re not entering the “science only answers ‘how’ questions” territory?

...science can’t answer ultimate questions (such as “why was he shot”). That is not its job. “Why” questions are matters of philosophy and theology.

So we are entering the 'science only answers how' territory.

It seems that you are correct in that altering the question is a much better analogy. It seems to make clear that the issue of the supernatural is not a scientific question. When we are talking about God, we are getting into “why does the universe exist?” as opposed to “how does it maintain its functions?”. Thus, science, while immense in its power and usefulness, is not the right tool for answering this question.

Assuming - of course - that there is an answer to this question in the first place. It seems extremely unlikely that there is, and that the question isn't even valid.