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.

[undeterred]

...I would tend to favor Brane’s “eleven dimensions” idea. The only alternative as far as I see it (unless we want to remain purely indecisive, which I believe is impossible for a human) is assuming that the universe just doesn’t make sense.

That's not true. We would never assume such a thing, because an incomprehensible cosmos couldn't exist. We might favour certain theories, but there is never any scientific parallel with the "it makes sense so it must be true", of the God concept. There just isn't. Accepting that a theory among many makes the most sense, is not the same.

[Beto]

I still can’t see how. I’m obviously exempting all that has been experimentally verified, from comparison to establish likelihood. It doesn’t matter how fundamental it is. It may be a fundamental particle (and as far as I know the photon isn’t) and have no distinguishible “parts”, but still, it has been experimentally verified to exist. Now, if you argue that “God” is all the “parts” (in this sense being diametrically opposite to a fundamental particle) in existence, that would complicate the matter, but I doubt you subscribe to that philosophy.

Your assumption would be correct in that last statement, but I still do not believe this general position to be logical. The fact that the photon has no “parts” that are available to us through casual observation, yet can still be experimentally verified to exist shows us that we cannot assume a correlation between “existence of parts” and “likelihood of existence”. This seems to agree with my earlier claim that looking for “parts” of God is not a scientific means of verifying or refuting God’s existence any more than doing as much for the photon would be.

When the "whole" can't be proved to exist, one must look to the alleged "parts". Please show me how any of these "parts" are parts of "God", because I see them as being completely independent from the "God" concept. What is unknown about human behavior (to some, the divine part) decreases by the hour, so on what logical ground do you assume that the "unknown" is a part of "God"?

[Lionspoint]

Anyone who has done LSD would consider you insane for not believing in ghosts. Ghosts are totally real whenever you are on lsd or a member of LDS. Ghosts and goblins are relics of our failure to understand various aspects of our planet and our relation to it. For example, in our darwinian past, when the ground shook (during a seismic event) it was understood to be some message from our ancestors that they were unhappy with whatever it was we were doing. That was ghosts "talking" to us. Now we know that it is simply plate tectonics and the "ghosts" are relics. So too is everything else that D&D players fight. The interesting thing is that the D&D nerds realize it is all fantasy and the general public appears to consider it "real". I for one now think extinction is our best solution...

[Jester]

...I would tend to favor Brane’s “eleven dimensions” idea. The only alternative as far as I see it (unless we want to remain purely indecisive, which I believe is impossible for a human) is assuming that the universe just doesn’t make sense.

That's not true. We would never assume such a thing, because an incomprehensible cosmos couldn't exist. We might favour certain theories, but there is never any scientific parallel with the "it makes sense so it must be true", of the God concept. There just isn't. Accepting that a theory among many makes the most sense, is not the same.

I agree with regard to the idea that something “makes sense, therefore must be true”. I disagree insofar as I tend to favor the idea that makes the most sense. That seems only reasonable to me, regardless of what topic (such as science or theology) we happen to be discussing.

[Jester]

When the "whole" can't be proved to exist, one must look to the alleged "parts". Please show me how any of these "parts" are parts of "God", because I see them as being completely independent from the "God" concept. What is unknown about human behavior (to some, the divine part) decreases by the hour, so on what logical ground do you assume that the "unknown" is a part of "God"?

I don’t assume that there is an unknown part of human behavior that is a part of God. I’m not quite sure where we got our wires crossed with that one.

But, to answer your more essential comment, I don’t believe that finding the “parts” is an accurate way to determine whether or not the whole exists. Historical experience has shown that to be an inadequate means of working (evidenced by our example of a unicorn, as well as any number of mythological beings). What we see here is that finding “parts” is not necessarily an indicator of existence.

The second issue I would personally take with this argument is that we cannot apply the reflexive principal to this mode of thinking (as indicated by the example of the proton). Even if finding a “part” were evidence of existence, failure to do so would not necessarily be evidence to the contrary (and would definitely not be with a non-physical, absolute being). At the very least, it should be clear that we would be looking in the wrong place (the physical universe). At worst, my assertion is correct and the entire logic that the finding of parts being inexorably linked to the existence of the whole is clearly flawed. The very fact that we have established the existence of things that seem to have no distinguishable (and certainly not casually observable) parts to be found is testimony to such an assertion.

[Beto]

When the "whole" can't be proved to exist, one must look to the alleged "parts". Please show me how any of these "parts" are parts of "God", because I see them as being completely independent from the "God" concept. What is unknown about human behavior (to some, the divine part) decreases by the hour, so on what logical ground do you assume that the "unknown" is a part of "God"?

I don’t assume that there is an unknown part of human behavior that is a part of God. I’m not quite sure where we got our wires crossed with that one.

Well, "love" has a few associated biochemical mechanisms, agree? I assume you don't consider them "part" of "God". So, if you generally consider "love" a part of "God" (which I believe you stated before), that which is not a biochemical mechanism, is a part of "God". Where am I getting it wrong?

But, to answer your more essential comment, I don’t believe that finding the “parts” is an accurate way to determine whether or not the whole exists.

Perhaps not the "whole", but at the very least a "whole". There is a fundamental difference. Show me something that could only be part of a godlike "whole", and perhaps the concept will become something other than a logical impossibility, to me.

EDIT: Sorry, you actually referred to "love" as an "aspect" of "God". If you think there's a difference, would you elaborate on it?

[Jester]

When the "whole" can't be proved to exist, one must look to the alleged "parts". Please show me how any of these "parts" are parts of "God", because I see them as being completely independent from the "God" concept. What is unknown about human behavior (to some, the divine part) decreases by the hour, so on what logical ground do you assume that the "unknown" is a part of "God"?

I don’t assume that there is an unknown part of human behavior that is a part of God. I’m not quite sure where we got our wires crossed with that one.

Well, "love" has a few associated biochemical mechanisms, agree? I assume you don't consider them "part" of "God". So, if you generally consider "love" a part of "God" (which I believe you stated before), that which is not a biochemical mechanism, is a part of "God". Where am I getting it wrong?

But, to answer your more essential comment, I don’t believe that finding the “parts” is an accurate way to determine whether or not the whole exists.

Perhaps not the "whole", but at the very least a "whole". There is a fundamental difference. Show me something that could only be part of a godlike "whole", and perhaps the concept will become something other than a logical impossibility, to me.

EDIT: Sorry, you actually referred to "love" as an "aspect" of "God". If you think there's a difference, would you elaborate on it?

[Beto]

When the "whole" can't be proved to exist, one must look to the alleged "parts". Please show me how any of these "parts" are parts of "God", because I see them as being completely independent from the "God" concept. What is unknown about human behavior (to some, the divine part) decreases by the hour, so on what logical ground do you assume that the "unknown" is a part of "God"?

I don’t assume that there is an unknown part of human behavior that is a part of God. I’m not quite sure where we got our wires crossed with that one.

Well, "love" has a few associated biochemical mechanisms, agree? I assume you don't consider them "part" of "God". So, if you generally consider "love" a part of "God" (which I believe you stated before), that which is not a biochemical mechanism, is a part of "God". Where am I getting it wrong?

But, to answer your more essential comment, I don’t believe that finding the “parts” is an accurate way to determine whether or not the whole exists.

Perhaps not the "whole", but at the very least a "whole". There is a fundamental difference. Show me something that could only be part of a godlike "whole", and perhaps the concept will become something other than a logical impossibility, to me.

EDIT: Sorry, you actually referred to "love" as an "aspect" of "God". If you think there's a difference, would you elaborate on it?

Something wrong with your post there.

[Jester]

Something wrong with your post there.

Yeah, must have been in too much of a hurry. Here is the actual comment I'd meant to post:

All apologies for not getting back to you sooner (nearly two months without internet – yikes!). In any case, I wrote a reply for the instance in which we can even remember much about what we’d been discussing.

When the "whole" can't be proved to exist, one must look to the alleged "parts". Please show me how any of these "parts" are parts of "God", because I see them as being completely independent from the "God" concept. What is unknown about human behavior (to some, the divine part) decreases by the hour, so on what logical ground do you assume that the "unknown" is a part of "God"?

I don’t assume that there is an unknown part of human behavior that is a part of God. I’m not quite sure where we got our wires crossed with that one.

Well, "love" has a few associated biochemical mechanisms, agree? I assume you don't consider them "part" of "God". So, if you generally consider "love" a part of "God" (which I believe you stated before), that which is not a biochemical mechanism, is a part of "God". Where am I getting it wrong?

Ah, I did make that very unclear (sorry). I meant to say that I do not define God as a “plug-in” explanation for unknown parts of human behavior, or anything else. This is the classic “God of the gaps” mentality, which I consider to be a logical fallacy. To put it a better way, I believe that human states such as love are not God in any literal sense, but are simply examples of things that share some traits with God (and are therefore good examples). I do agree that the things which are unknown decrease in number as time goes on, if we assume that such things are not infinite (which, I suppose, is a very big assumption). My central point was that we do not understand God correctly if we see the concept as simply a magical means of explaining that which science does not know. If that is all we understand of God, then there is no logical conclusion but to say that the idea is both illogical and pointless in any case. Rather, the idea of God explains many things which are not (by definition) within the realm of science. The more we are aware that science specifically limits itself from asking certain questions, the more we begin to see the reasons why the God-concept exists to begin with.

But, to answer your more essential comment, I don’t believe that finding the “parts” is an accurate way to determine whether or not the whole exists.

Perhaps not the "whole", but at the very least a "whole". There is a fundamental difference. Show me something that could only be part of a godlike "whole", and perhaps the concept will become something other than a logical impossibility, to me.

My main concern with this one is that, given the topic (God), a whole can only be found by demonstrating the whole.
Specifically, there is no way to demonstrate God (a theological concept) through a scientific mode of thought. Many (theist and non-theist alike) take from this the false assumption that this establishes that theism is somehow anti-scientific, whereas it is actually non-scientific. Of course, the inverse is true:
If we choose to limit our view of the universe to the strictly scientific (a choice which science neither opposes nor supports), we have already defined any non-scientific conclusions out of our thinking. There is no point in looking for God through science and natural-world observation due to the fact that this position is outside of the realm that God, by definition, would be found in. As such, there is no logical impossibility here, merely a case of looking in the wrong place.

EDIT: Sorry, you actually referred to "love" as an "aspect" of "God". If you think there's a difference, would you elaborate on it?

Perhaps I did clearly enough, but to reiterate: I do not believe that love is God, but that love is something in humans that resembles something in God. Hence, offering an alternate explanation for such a thing as love neither supports nor contradicts the God-concept. Just as one can say “science explains that, so God can’t exist”, one can also say “God made science, so God is validated by the fact that the world can be studied”. Both “conclusions” are merely a preconceived idea based on one’s perspective. The facts of science simply do not comment on the issue. Any legitimate scientific study, by definition, cannot comment.