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.

[Jester]

All apologies up front. I was rather wordy with this one.

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".

In the same way, I do not see pink as an aspect of a pink unicorn in that I don’t personally believe they exist.
Pink is an aspect of a pink unicorn in one sense. That is, by definition regardless of whether or not such a definition can be shown to reflect an actual object. The trouble is that this reasoning clearly applies to anything that can be imagined, and one can easily apply it to the God concept.

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.

Explainable or not, “goofy” still applies. That word specifically referenced to the tone of the example, not its likelihood of existence. I personally was a little deflated by the reference, as many times in the past such references have been given to me in a mocking tone. While I do not accuse Undeterred of having such a tone, I wanted to make clear that the “goofiness” of his example should be ignored for the purposes of speaking about the issue logically. That is to say, I was making the claim that it is logically inconsistent to disregard an idea simply because one finds it goofy.

I completely agree that pink, horns, legs, etc, exist. In fact, I do not thumb my nose at anyone who wishes to seriously discuss the logical possibility of such an animal. I simply wanted to make certain that I wasn’t dealing with the “God can’t exist if pink unicorns don’t exist argument”. Undeterred does not seem to have taken that track, and I am pleased with him there.

You and I, however, have taken this to a different tangent, in which you seem to be claiming that pink unicorns have a higher likelihood of existence than God. I would argue that the fact that such “parts” of a unicorn specifically make its likelihood of existence less likely, as they are physical parts. This makes the idea of a unicorn a scientific claim, and therefore testable by science. The lack of scientific evidence, then, should speak volumes whereas science cannot comment on any thing outside a naturalistic paradigm (such as God).

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.

Science doesn’t outright deny the existence of anything, but it does ignore the question of whether or not certain things exist (such as God). These things will never have scientific evidence for existence for the same reason that there will be no such evidence to support the idea that art is a worthwhile choice of a career for some. The question is completely off-topic.

When we are dealing with supernatural entities, we are not discussing the natural world. If we are not discussing the natural world, legitimate science cannot enter the conversation. To claim that science’s silence is telling, then, is a circulus in probando argument.

In order for science to be a useful tool, its scope must be understood. Else, we are left with a plethora of commonly or universally accepted ideas which would slowly be rejected on the grounds that science does not comment on them. Some such ideas are the idea that human life has intrinsic value, that ethics have objective weight, that some art is beautiful, that children should be educated, etc.

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.

While I agree that there are areas in which theology and science do intersect, these places are relatively few provided that we are not dealing with an extreme fundamentalist approach (of whatever particular religion). The basic question of God, however, is no such place and other “planes of existence” (as they have been previously defined) are outside the interest of science by definition. This is not an assumption.

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".

But my basic point regarding ultimate cause versus immediate case still stands.

[Jester]

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.

Fair enough.
My main reaction to this is that these same basic comments could be made for God.

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.

Indeed. You would not be an atheist were this not your opinion. And, no more surprisingly, my opinion is opposite this.

I would say that history and philosophy would be more appropriate fields myself. I would argue that theology is not the correct field for basically the same reason that I believe you would – it begins with the assumption that a supernatural world exists, just as science begins with the assumption that it either does not exist, or can otherwise be ignored for the purposes of experimentation in the natural world.

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.

I already gave my long answer to Beto, but thought I’d leave the summary here as well (apologies if you just finished reading that only to run across it again):
The things I named are aspects of God in at least the same sense that the things Beto has mentioned are aspects of a pink unicorn. They are part of the concept by definition; whether or not an actual example of that concept exists in the real world is another matter.

To the idea that such “existence” helps to validate the idea is not logical, as addressed in my comments to Beto.

“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 we are. God has always been an answer to the basic “why” questions of life. This is clearly not science, but I do find that certain understandings of God are logically consistent with the facts we have about life.

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.

There does remain the possibility that the question is unanswerable (ultimately, all questions are for the human mind), and that is the position of atheism (and, in a different way, agnosticism) as I understand it.
To continue down that tangent, I don’t personally see a reason to assume that the question is unanswerable, at least so far as we can comprehend, and am inclined to search for such an answer. Thus far, I would say that the God concept is the most logically consistent theory (both internally and when compared to reality) I’ve run across (or invented) thus far.

[Chimp]

I think they do exist after a fashion. They are an attempt to describe something that
defied description. You could almost say it was the germination of the scientific method.
Before you pounce...hear me out.

Something was observed...say fire doing something uncommon for fire (like will-o-the
wisps), the observation gets recorded. People read the observation and agree that
they have also observed this. The breach of the scientific method happens when no
attempt is made to falsify/repeat...but rather it is accepted and codified into dogma.

I remember reading a humour article about Lucas instruments (British version of
Delco) and how they were powered by smoke, in fact, all things electronic are
powered by smoke. If you let the smoke out the instrument stops working.
While accurate in the observation of the net result, the "cause" is a bi product of the
actual failure.
I think that little humour snippet sums up how a superstition could grow around a
simple observation (and a fair amount of ignorance)

[Beto]

In the same way, I do not see pink as an aspect of a pink unicorn in that I don’t personally believe they exist.
Pink is an aspect of a pink unicorn in one sense. That is, by definition regardless of whether or not such a definition can be shown to reflect an actual object. The trouble is that this reasoning clearly applies to anything that can be imagined, and one can easily apply it to the God concept.

That's not the point. I'm not saying you recognize aspects of imaginary creatures as part of them. I'm saying their parts are analogous to parts of existing creatures. That's it. And this is true to anyone who knows both parts being compared. Alternate realities notwithstanding, no part of "God" can be compared with the part of something that exists. Still you believe in the existence of a god, but not in the existence of pink unicorns. I have an impression that this is hard for you to recognize, and rightfully so.

Explainable or not, “goofy” still applies. That word specifically referenced to the tone of the example, not its likelihood of existence.

You'll understand why I think that the "real god" concept is even more "goofy", at least nowadays, when everything about "God" is abstract.

I personally was a little deflated by the reference, as many times in the past such references have been given to me in a mocking tone. While I do not accuse Undeterred of having such a tone, I wanted to make clear that the “goofiness” of his example should be ignored for the purposes of speaking about the issue logically.

To me it's just a good example of an imaginary creature to use in arguments against the logic of believing in gods.

You and I, however, have taken this to a different tangent, in which you seem to be claiming that pink unicorns have a higher likelihood of existence than God. I would argue that the fact that such “parts” of a unicorn specifically make its likelihood of existence less likely, as they are physical parts. This makes the idea of a unicorn a scientific claim, and therefore testable by science. The lack of scientific evidence, then, should speak volumes whereas science cannot comment on any thing outside a naturalistic paradigm (such as God).

What if I was to say "pink unicorns" exist in the same "alternate reality" as "God"? Where would you stand there? How could you deny their existence and continue to support "God's"?

You're neglecting the biochemistry of "why".

But my basic point regarding ultimate cause versus immediate case still stands.

Immediate? To me, everything about us is ultimately biochemical.

[undeterred]

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.

My main reaction to this is that these same basic comments could be made for God.

How?

The things I named are aspects of God in at least the same sense that the things Beto has mentioned are aspects of a pink unicorn. They are part of the concept by definition; whether or not an actual example of that concept exists in the real world is another matter.

To the idea that such “existence” helps to validate the idea is not logical, as addressed in my comments to Beto.

Sorry, I'm being dense again. I'll try re-reading the comments to Beto, but could you maybe put that another way?

[Jester]

That's not the point. I'm not saying you recognize aspects of imaginary creatures as part of them. I'm saying their parts are analogous to parts of existing creatures. That's it. And this is true to anyone who knows both parts being compared.
Alternate realities notwithstanding, no part of "God" can be compared with the part of something that exists. Still you believe in the existence of a god, but not in the existence of pink unicorns. I have an impression that this is hard for you to recognize, and rightfully so.

My main reaction is that I don’t see how this in any way lends credibility to the claim. All it would do is make the claim easier to imagine. For this reason, a pink unicorn is easier to imagine than a hypersphere or the behaviors of light particles, but this does not make it more likely to reflect reality.
Secondarily, the aspects of God that I named are parts of the concept of God that can be compared with something that exists. Your only disagreement was whether or not God existed, unless you were attempting to claim that the things on the list do not exist in the real world.

Explainable or not, “goofy” still applies. That word specifically referenced to the tone of the example, not its likelihood of existence.

You'll understand why I think that the "real god" concept is even more "goofy", at least nowadays, when everything about "God" is abstract.

And that rolls us back around to my original point behind the word goofy. I was specifically trying to point out that whether or not a particular individual finds a concept goofy has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

I personally was a little deflated by the reference, as many times in the past such references have been given to me in a mocking tone. While I do not accuse Undeterred of having such a tone, I wanted to make clear that the “goofiness” of his example should be ignored for the purposes of speaking about the issue logically.

To me it's just a good example of an imaginary creature to use in arguments against the logic of believing in gods.

So long as we do not make the fallacy of: goofy = false, and recognize that it is not a perfect allegory, I have no objection.

You and I, however, have taken this to a different tangent, in which you seem to be claiming that pink unicorns have a higher likelihood of existence than God. I would argue that the fact that such “parts” of a unicorn specifically make its likelihood of existence less likely, as they are physical parts. This makes the idea of a unicorn a scientific claim, and therefore testable by science. The lack of scientific evidence, then, should speak volumes whereas science cannot comment on any thing outside a naturalistic paradigm (such as God).

What if I was to say "pink unicorns" exist in the same "alternate reality" as "God"? Where would you stand there? How could you deny their existence and continue to support "God's"?

This would first mean abandoning your earlier mentioned argument that such creatures have parts that exist in the natural world, due to the fact that you have pushed them into a non-physical reality. Second, you would have to establish some logical reason why I should believe that they do. I like to think I’d be open to hearing you out about that, but don’t see that I should accept the fact based on your word alone.

You're neglecting the biochemistry of "why".

But my basic point regarding ultimate cause versus immediate case still stands.

Immediate? To me, everything about us is ultimately biochemical.

This is a very limited word view.
The most obvious place that this breaks down is in the realm of ethics. One cannot argue on logical grounds that ethics have any objective weight on these grounds.
A similar point is the matter of the meaning and value of life. From a strictly biochemical perspective, the human race serves no purpose but to sustain and entertain itself.
Moreover, this view leads one to the inevitable conclusion that personal choice and free will is illusory. It would mean that one’s will and personality is entirely created and dictated by chemical reactions.
Personally, I am more inclined to agree with people like Carl Jung, who believe that the thoughts, feelings, and will of an individual cannot be so neatly explained.

[Jester]

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.

My main reaction to this is that these same basic comments could be made for God.

How?

God’s existence is theoretically possible, most directly because we haven’t covered any ground that logically refutes the idea. More convincingly, because it explains a world view that puts us less in a position of self-contradiction in our behavior. Lastly, there is historical and logical evidence that the God concept is valid. I would say that this is definitely in the realm of hypothetically viable (well, obviously, I’d say that it is more than that, but I feel that we should be able to agree on that much).

The things I named are aspects of God in at least the same sense that the things Beto has mentioned are aspects of a pink unicorn. They are part of the concept by definition; whether or not an actual example of that concept exists in the real world is another matter.

To the idea that such “existence” helps to validate the idea is not logical, as addressed in my comments to Beto.

Sorry, I'm being dense again. I'll try re-reading the comments to Beto, but could you maybe put that another way?

No need for apologies. I know that I’m less than the most eloquent writer, and definitely understand that I’m not often as clear as I had thought I was being at the time. To try that one again:

Beto made the claim that pink unicorns are more likely to exist than God because traits of pink unicorns are analogous to traits of things that we know to exist. I responded with two things (I’ll try to make more sense this time). First, I claimed that many of the basic “traits of God” which Christians are always reciting are things that do exist in human beings. Second, I claimed that this is all moot anyway, because none of it has any bearing on the likelihood of something existing. Perhaps that needs more explanation, however, let me digress.

Having traits similar to something that exists makes a thing easier to imagine, but not necessarily more likely to exist. The best example I can currently offer is the one I’ve most recently sent Beto (which you’ve not had time to read as of this posting). That is, a hypersphere or the strange behaviors of light particles are more likely to be real (than pink unicorns) in spite of the fact that it is much harder to find analogous objects in other parts of reality. By Beto’s reasoning above, a pink unicorn is more likely to be real than a photon.

Is that better? I’m feeling a bit frustrated at my own inability to express my thoughts, but am always willing to try again (how else will I learn?).

[undeterred]

God’s existence is theoretically possible, most directly because we haven’t covered any ground that logically refutes the idea.

Like most things we could make up? I know, I'm ignoring the next part...

More convincingly, because it explains a world view that puts us less in a position of self-contradiction in our behavior.

Because we made it up to fit, so it neatly filsl in the gaps about what we don't understand about ourselves?

Lastly, there is historical and logical evidence that the God concept is valid.

I don't want to wear out your typing fingers, but... such as?

Your re-write was great, as was a re-read. Don't ever worry, it ain't-a yer writin', its-a my a-readin' that's the problem!

[Beto]

My main reaction is that I don’t see how this in any way lends credibility to the claim. All it would do is make the claim easier to imagine. For this reason, a pink unicorn is easier to imagine than a hypersphere or the behaviors of light particles, but this does not make it more likely to reflect reality.

But do you agree that "God" (in its modern conception) enjoys neither the comparisons that would make it easy to imagine, nor the scientific verification that proves its existence, no matter how complex?

Secondarily, the aspects of God that I named are parts of the concept of God that can be compared with something that exists. Your only disagreement was whether or not God existed, unless you were attempting to claim that the things on the list do not exist in the real world.

They are all readily associated to biochemical mechanisms, whether these were created or not, so they're only part of "God" because you choose to believe it, right? And I do have reserves in saying these things exist at all, since they're used as absolutes, when they're really abstractions with meaning only in unconditional universes. For example, "love" is used with the same meaning as "unconditional love" when I make a clear distinction between the real emotion, product of biochemical mechanisms, and the abstraction, no more real than "Pi".

What if I was to say "pink unicorns" exist in the same "alternate reality" as "God"? Where would you stand there? How could you deny their existence and continue to support "God's"?

This would first mean abandoning your earlier mentioned argument that such creatures have parts that exist in the natural world, due to the fact that you have pushed them into a non-physical reality.

My position doesn't matter. For the sake of argument I'll make any necessary concessions. If you recognize parts of "God" in physical reality, you have no logical grounds to deny the existence of mythical creatures in "alternate realities".

Second, you would have to establish some logical reason why I should believe that they do.

What if millions of people believed in it, because religious scriptures mentioned pink unicorns? I dare assume many people would then see pink unicorns, and generally "feel" like they exist, know what I mean?

I like to think I’d be open to hearing you out about that, but don’t see that I should accept the fact based on your word alone.

I most certainly hope not.

Immediate? To me, everything about us is ultimately biochemical.

This is a very limited word view.
The most obvious place that this breaks down is in the realm of ethics. One cannot argue on logical grounds that ethics have any objective weight on these grounds.
A similar point is the matter of the meaning and value of life. From a strictly biochemical perspective, the human race serves no purpose but to sustain and entertain itself.
Moreover, this view leads one to the inevitable conclusion that personal choice and free will is illusory. It would mean that one’s will and personality is entirely created and dictated by chemical reactions.
Personally, I am more inclined to agree with people like Carl Jung, who believe that the thoughts, feelings, and will of an individual cannot be so neatly explained.

Actually, ultimately "quantum" rings more true to me, and it covers a lot more ground.

[Jester]

God’s existence is theoretically possible, most directly because we haven’t covered any ground that logically refutes the idea.

Like most things we could make up? I know, I'm ignoring the next part...

There is the next part, but also there is the fact that this is the frustration of seeking real proof, rather than basing ideas on assumption and blowing off those things that strike us as wrong initially.

More convincingly, because it explains a world view that puts us less in a position of self-contradiction in our behavior.

Because we made it up to fit, so it neatly filsl in the gaps about what we don't understand about ourselves?

We could also apply this to any number of scientific theories. The special theory of relativity is, quite specifically, something that we made up to fill in the gaps about things we don’t understand about the world around us. When something comes along that shows it to be false, we adjust the theory to fit. This is the basic method of logical advancement into understanding of a subject.

Lastly, there is historical and logical evidence that the God concept is valid.

I don't want to wear out your typing fingers, but... such as?

Such as a list of things that are probably digressing way off topic: the issue of the historical validity of the Bible, the cosmological necessity argument, (though I disagree with it on some points) there are some legitimate points raised by Dembski’s ID arguments, and the study of near death experiences doesn’t seem fit a purely scientific explanation.

Your re-write was great, as was a re-read. Don't ever worry, it ain't-a yer writin', its-a my a-readin' that's the problem!

Thanks!

I don’t think I mentioned it yet, but I love your avatar pic (where did you get that?)