Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

[nobspeople]

Yeti. Yowie. Grassman. Skunk Ape. There are said to be types of sasquatches - bigfoot as popularized by media over the last 40-ish years.
Dogman
Lizard man
Nessie (Loch Ness monster), Champ and Ogopogo.
Mothman
Even flying humanoids

All of these cryptids have claimed experiencers as well as evidence (photos, videos, tracks, verification of indigenous people from scientific documentation, etc) - some even have potential fossil records to prove they're possible.
While there have been proven fakes (see famous Nessie photo), not all evidence is proven fake.

All of these have more 'evidence' for them than God. There's no footprints of God. No photos or videos or fossil record evidence. The best we have is personal experiences (which, while many hold true fundamentally, there are variances in the how, where and what of the experience), a few claims here-n-there showing 'proof' of a work of God (how many times has Noah's Ark been found?) and a book written by people said to have been inspired by God.


As silly of a comparison as it sounds, there does seem to be more non-anecdotal evidence of Nessie, Bigfoot, Dogman, etc. than God with there being MUCH more believers in God than any of the cryptids.

So does this mean the ultimate outcome (eternal heaven) mean more to people than actual knowledge of something in the here and now?

[Dimmesdale]

Keep in mind I'm not saying Bigfoot does not exist. If it does, like many things such as gods, fairies, etc., there is currently no clear definition for it or verifiable evidence of it so slapping extra labels on it to make it more plausible is a futile exercise. If they exist as an animal, we are going to eventually find solid evidence for it. If it's supernatural, we will never be able to explain it as by definition, we cannot observe the supernatural since it would exist outside of nature.

I disagree. We can observe something supernatural by noting its natural effects. For example, if we observe a door handle opening by itself. By observing it, we at least know it happened. If we can ascertain it is due to no natural cause that we know of, through tests -- even if limited, then we can narrow down the field of possibilities to some other force. This force may, of course, also be a law of the material world, we just haven't discovered it. But at least we may rule out the known laws that were not operating by ruling out things like magnetism or gravity, etc.

I think the same can be said for many supernatural elements or, perhaps the word "extra-mundane" entities at play in the world.

[benchwarmer]

I disagree. We can observe something supernatural by noting its natural effects. For example, if we observe a door handle opening by itself. By observing it, we at least know it happened. If we can ascertain it is due to no natural cause that we know of, through tests -- even if limited, then we can narrow down the field of possibilities to some other force. This force may, of course, also be a law of the material world, we just haven't discovered it. But at least we may rule out the known laws that were not operating by ruling out things like magnetism or gravity, etc.

I think the same can be said for many supernatural elements or, perhaps the word "extra-mundane" entities at play in the world.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement

We cannot observe something supernatural. Period. If we observe natural things without explanation, we can never jump to "it's supernatural" because that means we are giving up and using god of the gaps thinking.

Jumping to a supernatural explanation give ZERO useful information. This is because we are now free to make up anything that pleases us.

In your door handle example, if we rule out everything we know and incorrectly (IMO) claim it must be the supernatural what does that actually mean? Was it a god? Bigfoot? A ghost? 3 bored pixies? A raging, pink, invisible unicorn that turns random door handles?

If we don't know something, the only rational response is "We don't know". In this case we can either:

1) Keep looking until we figure it out.
2) Assume the supernatural and pretend we have answered the question.

[Dimmesdale]

I disagree. We can observe something supernatural by noting its natural effects. For example, if we observe a door handle opening by itself. By observing it, we at least know it happened. If we can ascertain it is due to no natural cause that we know of, through tests -- even if limited, then we can narrow down the field of possibilities to some other force. This force may, of course, also be a law of the material world, we just haven't discovered it. But at least we may rule out the known laws that were not operating by ruling out things like magnetism or gravity, etc.

I think the same can be said for many supernatural elements or, perhaps the word "extra-mundane" entities at play in the world.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement

We cannot observe something supernatural. Period. If we observe natural things without explanation, we can never jump to "it's supernatural" because that means we are giving up and using god of the gaps thinking.

Jumping to a supernatural explanation give ZERO useful information. This is because we are now free to make up anything that pleases us.

In your door handle example, if we rule out everything we know and incorrectly (IMO) claim it must be the supernatural what does that actually mean? Was it a god? Bigfoot? A ghost? 3 bored pixies? A raging, pink, invisible unicorn that turns random door handles?

If we don't know something, the only rational response is "We don't know". In this case we can either:

1) Keep looking until we figure it out.
2) Assume the supernatural and pretend we have answered the question.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion that it was a ghost, bigfoot, unicorn or anything. Why read that into what I'm saying?

All I'm saying is that we need to revise our whole understanding of natural laws and be at least willing to accept extra-mundane entities. We don't know. That is exactly right. Well, actually I personally know some things you don't. But since I respect your level of understanding, I won't import concepts you aren't ready to accept yet or that are too foreign to you.

All I'm saying is that we should keep an open mind. Some things in life that we witness, we need to think deep and hard about without saying it was due to some force we already know OR that it was definitely supernatural. I leave that up to everyone's individual conscience.

I actually don't think "God of the gaps" is a real fallacy anymore. I think science is limited in its scope to know many, many things. God on the other hand is limitless.

[Dimmesdale]

We cannot observe something supernatural. Period. If we observe natural things without explanation, we can never jump to "it's supernatural" because that means we are giving up and using god of the gaps thinking.

If we observe a door handle opening by itself every 15 minutes, and we have ruled out gravity, magnetism, a breeze, etc, all as factors that could influence its being opened. If we have done this under lab conditions and with many witnesses, we at least must revise our whole understanding of natural laws. Period.

[Paul of Tarsus]

As silly of a comparison as it sounds, there does seem to be more non-anecdotal evidence of Nessie, Bigfoot, Dogman, etc. than God with there being MUCH more believers in God than any of the cryptids.

I must disagree with you here. There is no doubt far more evidence for God, both anecdotal and non-anecdotal, than for any cryptid.

So does this mean the ultimate outcome (eternal heaven) mean more to people than actual knowledge of something in the here and now?

For many people, yes, eternal salvation means more to them than "actual" knowledge. I see nothing wrong with valuing the hope of eternal life.

[benchwarmer]

We cannot observe something supernatural. Period. If we observe natural things without explanation, we can never jump to "it's supernatural" because that means we are giving up and using god of the gaps thinking.

If we observe a door handle opening by itself every 15 minutes, and we have ruled out gravity, magnetism, a breeze, etc, all as factors that could influence its being opened. If we have done this under lab conditions and with many witnesses, we at least must revise our whole understanding of natural laws. Period.

Why? We can certainly agree that we don't understand what's happening. We can even agree that we don't know all the natural laws. Discovering new things is the whole point of science. If we eventually discover some other force that can act on door handles, then yes, we revise our understanding of natural laws.

What I'm saying is, don't bring the supernatural into the equation. It is completely meaningless. Since we can't observe the supernatural and therefore can't understand what it might be capable of, we can't ascribe any action to it.

Look, it may very well be something supernatural moving the door handle, but we have absolutely NO way to know that so what's the point in even bringing it up? It might be aliens from Blargon 7 using some unknown to us tractor beam technology in an attempt to prank us. Honestly, that explanation has far more validity because we know pranks exist and we know at least one intelligent species (us) exists. That explanation would at least be an extrapolation on what we know is possible - albeit extremely weak and unlikely.

[benchwarmer]

I'm not jumping to any conclusion that it was a ghost, bigfoot, unicorn or anything. Why read that into what I'm saying?

Apologies if that is how my response came off. I was trying to speak in general, but may have inadvertently implied I was talking about you specifically.

All I'm saying is that we need to revise our whole understanding of natural laws and be at least willing to accept extra-mundane entities. We don't know. That is exactly right.

I'm perfectly willing to accept an extra-mundane entity if we can observe one. That's all I'm saying.

I'm also saying, let's (i.e. all of us) not jump to conclusions when we simply don't know. When postulating extra-mundane entities, the list is infinite, that's why there is no point in going down that road until we can observe one.

Well, actually I personally know some things you don't. But since I respect your level of understanding, I won't import concepts you aren't ready to accept yet or that are too foreign to you.

That sounds cryptic, intriguing, and possibly slightly insulting (though I'm sure you did not mean such). Perhaps start a new thread on it? Not sure which forum would be best for that. I'm certainly open to reading your ideas. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume I won't agree with the ideas, but that shouldn't stop anyone from considering them, including me.

All I'm saying is that we should keep an open mind. Some things in life that we witness, we need to think deep and hard about without saying it was due to some force we already know OR that it was definitely supernatural. I leave that up to everyone's individual conscience.

I think we might be saying the same thing. I have never suggested the only choices are forces we know or the supernatural. I HAVE suggested that the choices are forces we know and "I don't know".

I actually don't think "God of the gaps" is a real fallacy anymore. I think science is limited in its scope to know many, many things. God on the other hand is limitless.

Well that's a rabbit hole. Which god(s)? There are so many to choose from.

Not to sound completely glib, but the green pixie collective is also limitless. i.e. that last sentence above does not parse with me as "God" is undefined.

[Miles]

I disagree. We can observe something supernatural by noting its natural effects. For example, if we observe a door handle opening by itself. By observing it, we at least know it happened. If we can ascertain it is due to no natural cause that we know of, through tests -- even if limited, then we can narrow down the field of possibilities to some other force. This force may, of course, also be a law of the material world, we just haven't discovered it. But at least we may rule out the known laws that were not operating by ruling out things like magnetism or gravity, etc.

I think the same can be said for many supernatural elements or, perhaps the word "extra-mundane" entities at play in the world.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement

We cannot observe something supernatural. Period. If we observe natural things without explanation, we can never jump to "it's supernatural" because that means we are giving up and using god of the gaps thinking.

Jumping to a supernatural explanation give ZERO useful information. This is because we are now free to make up anything that pleases us.

In your door handle example, if we rule out everything we know and incorrectly (IMO) claim it must be the supernatural what does that actually mean? Was it a god? Bigfoot? A ghost? 3 bored pixies? A raging, pink, invisible unicorn that turns random door handles?

If we don't know something, the only rational response is "We don't know". In this case we can either:

1) Keep looking until we figure it out.
2) Assume the supernatural and pretend we have answered the question.

Exactly! And for another thing, to conclude it's supernatural we would first have to confirm the supernatural exists, which has never been done, just merely asserted. As it stands, claiming the supernatural as a reason for anything is nothing but a last ditch explanation when all else fails. OR, when trying to convince others of the existence of something without proof or even reasonable evidence, such as gods, ghosts, or an afterlife.

It should be noted that "The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was an offer by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) to pay out one million U.S. dollars to anyone who could demonstrate a supernatural or paranormal ability under agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. Over a thousand people applied to take it, but none were successful."
Source: Wikipedia.



.

[Dimmesdale]

Well, actually I personally know some things you don't. But since I respect your level of understanding, I won't import concepts you aren't ready to accept yet or that are too foreign to you.

That sounds cryptic, intriguing, and possibly slightly insulting (though I'm sure you did not mean such). Perhaps start a new thread on it? Not sure which forum would be best for that. I'm certainly open to reading your ideas. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume I won't agree with the ideas, but that shouldn't stop anyone from considering them, including me.

I'm not being arrogant, though I know I must sound condescending. But it is natural that if you have knowledge another person doesn't, and you merely say so, then you will come across as "better" - I am better when it comes to this facet of information -- that doesn't mean I'm better in other ways. In other ways I'm inferior. But anyway I have had an experience with a post-mortem visitation. I don't know how to express it to someone, since this particular revelation can't be replicated -- unless the higher ups decide to reveal it more to others. But I have no doubt, based on the coincidences, and how they aligned, that it was so. That's my personal revelation. And it has helped and guided me immensely in life.

[brunumb]

I actually don't think "God of the gaps" is a real fallacy anymore. I think science is limited in its scope to know many, many things. God on the other hand is limitless.

Of course there are limits to what we can ultimately know. Humans are merely intelligent apes with many limitations. To expect us to be able to use the scientific method to discover everything is unreasonable in the extreme. On the other hand, it's easy to invent a god that can do anything and then claim that God can do anything. No gods have ever demonstrated such an attribute.