How do you know unicorns do not exist?

[Simon]

Some people talking on the "santa" thread by dangerdan think they're really clever. I think they being completely irrational. They're not asking the right questions, and they're failing to understand something basic about Metaphysics and Epistemology. It reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a friend, about unicorns.

She asked me something like, "How do you know that unicorns don’t exist?" She was trying to make an argument for her unbelief in God. She wanted to say that it was reasonable not to believe in God, and that we have no reason to believe in God. She was attempting to show that it is unreasonable to think that God exists - that, perhaps, we have just as much reason to believe in unicorns as we do in God.

I offered another problem, that of other minds, as a better analogy to work with – I told her I thought that the problem of other minds is much closer to the issue of whether or not it is reasonable to believe that God exists. I think she remains unconvinced, however.

I quoted to her J.P. Moreland, who says it best these days: "Existence resides in the having of properties." Strictly speaking, I know that unicorns don't exist because there is no thing that has the property of being a unicorn. The statement, "Pegasus is a unicorn," is a real thing, a proposition, but it does not have the property of being a unicorn.

The next question is this - How do I know that there is no thing that has the property of being a unicorn? Well, this is easy because part of being a unicorn is the having of certain physical properties like horseness, one-hornedness and so forth. And, since that which is physical is observable using the 5-senses, and since I do not observe unicorns with my 5-senses, then I conclude that unicorns do not exist. This is not an argument from ignorance, because I am not ignorant in this area. Certainly if a unicorn existed I would have known by now; on top of that, certainly if a unicorn existed other people would know by now as well.

So, Unicorns, if they exist, have certain physical properties. I, along with every else, do not observe a thing having those physical properties. From that we can see that unicorns do not exist. The question of other minds is a different question because the mind is not thought (by most) to have physical properties.

Now, there is a question of whether or not a belief is justified (or warranted, to use Plantinga's preference). I think that even if I was the only person whose testimony was under consideration here, I would still be justified in thinking that unicorns do not exist - yes, because I have not seen a unicorn using my physical eyes. True, I reason that if such a thing existed, it would be known by other men - probably kept in some zoo or laboratory.

You ask, can't you then use the same kind of reasoning with respect to God? Well, remember the important difference here is that God is not thought to be a physical thing with physical properties. So, that I don't see Him with my physical eyes does not justify my not believing that He exists. Perhaps other information does. But certainly not the same kind of information that justifies my not believing that unicorns exist such as my not seeing with my physical eyes a unicorn.

My friend was surprised, I think, that I could claim to know that unicorns do not exist simply from the fact that I do not observe them. And she seemed to remain confused about why the same kind of "logic" doesn’t apply with respect to God.

"How can you say you ‘know’ that unicorns do not exist?" she wonders. Perhaps what she meant to convey by "know" is something more like "necessarily have undeniable proof that everyone else will accept".

In that case, no, I do not "know" (necessarily have undeniable proof that everyone else will accept) that unicorns do not exist.

But I was using the word "know" to convey in a statement, "this is how I know unicorns do not exist" something more like .. that which I believe to be justifiably true .. and in this case, certain criteria must be met - one of which, my perceiving with my 5 senses unicorns existing (since unicorns are said to be physically existing things, at least).

But she is correct in this respect: this criteria is not a sufficient reason for my believing that unicorns do not exist (I'm glad you explicitly made this point that I meant to implicitly make). Nevertheless, it is a necessary condition (and not so with regard to other minds or God, by definition - I assert).

If you say that "I think that God does not exist" (and by "think" you mean "necessarily have undeniable poof that everyone else will accept") because you don't experience Him physically or otherwise, then you can see how we may say that your logic is faulty.. in part because it is obvious that other people believe that God exists and or that they have experienced God in some way.

However, if you say, "I don't think that God exists" (and by "think" you mean "hold a belief that seems to me justifiably true") because you haven't experienced Him physically or otherwise, then I think your logic is valid insofar as it goes, but only insofar as you recognize that it may be the case that God's existence is not dependent on your experiencing Him in any way (but that that is a different question from whether or not you are justified in believing that He exists) and that it may be the case that your not experiencing God in any way is not a sufficient condition for justifying your unbelief. Perhaps it is a necessary condition.

The difference between the question of whether or not a unicorn exists and whether or not God exists is, of course, that while not having experienced either in any way may be a necessary condition for holding a justified belief that either does not exist – it is nevertheless not a sufficient condition; and moreover, the other necessary conditions needed to have a sufficient basis for unbelief in either will not be in the same ballpark, since in the case of the unicorn we have on the table the fact that unicorns are said to be things that, if they existed, would have physical properties measurable by the 5-senses whereas God, if He exists, would not.

[concerro]

Some people talking on the "santa" thread by dangerdan think they're really clever. I think they being completely irrational. They're not asking the right questions, and they're failing to understand something basic about Metaphysics and Epistemology. It reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a friend, about unicorns.

She asked me something like, "How do you know that unicorns don’t exist?" She was trying to make an argument for her unbelief in God. She wanted to say that it was reasonable not to believe in God, and that we have no reason to believe in God. She was attempting to show that it is unreasonable to think that God exists - that, perhaps, we have just as much reason to believe in unicorns as we do in God.

I offered another problem, that of other minds, as a better analogy to work with – I told her I thought that the problem of other minds is much closer to the issue of whether or not it is reasonable to believe that God exists. I think she remains unconvinced, however.

I quoted to her J.P. Moreland, who says it best these days: "Existence resides in the having of properties." Strictly speaking, I know that unicorns don't exist because there is no thing that has the property of being a unicorn. The statement, "Pegasus is a unicorn," is a real thing, a proposition, but it does not have the property of being a unicorn.

The next question is this - How do I know that there is no thing that has the property of being a unicorn? Well, this is easy because part of being a unicorn is the having of certain physical properties like horseness, one-hornedness and so forth. And, since that which is physical is observable using the 5-senses, and since I do not observe unicorns with my 5-senses, then I conclude that unicorns do not exist. This is not an argument from ignorance, because I am not ignorant in this area. Certainly if a unicorn existed I would have known by now; on top of that, certainly if a unicorn existed other people would know by now as well.

So, Unicorns, if they exist, have certain physical properties. I, along with every else, do not observe a thing having those physical properties. From that we can see that unicorns do not exist. The question of other minds is a different question because the mind is not thought (by most) to have physical properties.

Now, there is a question of whether or not a belief is justified (or warranted, to use Plantinga's preference). I think that even if I was the only person whose testimony was under consideration here, I would still be justified in thinking that unicorns do not exist - yes, because I have not seen a unicorn using my physical eyes. True, I reason that if such a thing existed, it would be known by other men - probably kept in some zoo or laboratory.

You ask, can't you then use the same kind of reasoning with respect to God? Well, remember the important difference here is that God is not thought to be a physical thing with physical properties. So, that I don't see Him with my physical eyes does not justify my not believing that He exists. Perhaps other information does. But certainly not the same kind of information that justifies my not believing that unicorns exist such as my not seeing with my physical eyes a unicorn.

My friend was surprised, I think, that I could claim to know that unicorns do not exist simply from the fact that I do not observe them. And she seemed to remain confused about why the same kind of "logic" doesn’t apply with respect to God.

"How can you say you ‘know’ that unicorns do not exist?" she wonders. Perhaps what she meant to convey by "know" is something more like "necessarily have undeniable proof that everyone else will accept".

In that case, no, I do not "know" (necessarily have undeniable proof that everyone else will accept) that unicorns do not exist.

But I was using the word "know" to convey in a statement, "this is how I know unicorns do not exist" something more like .. that which I believe to be justifiably true .. and in this case, certain criteria must be met - one of which, my perceiving with my 5 senses unicorns existing (since unicorns are said to be physically existing things, at least).

But she is correct in this respect: this criteria is not a sufficient reason for my believing that unicorns do not exist (I'm glad you explicitly made this point that I meant to implicitly make). Nevertheless, it is a necessary condition (and not so with regard to other minds or God, by definition - I assert).

If you say that "I think that God does not exist" (and by "think" you mean "necessarily have undeniable poof that everyone else will accept") because you don't experience Him physically or otherwise, then you can see how we may say that your logic is faulty.. in part because it is obvious that other people believe that God exists and or that they have experienced God in some way.

However, if you say, "I don't think that God exists" (and by "think" you mean "hold a belief that seems to me justifiably true") because you haven't experienced Him physically or otherwise, then I think your logic is valid insofar as it goes, but only insofar as you recognize that it may be the case that God's existence is not dependent on your experiencing Him in any way (but that that is a different question from whether or not you are justified in believing that He exists) and that it may be the case that your not experiencing God in any way is not a sufficient condition for justifying your unbelief. Perhaps it is a necessary condition.

The difference between the question of whether or not a unicorn exists and whether or not God exists is, of course, that while not having experienced either in any way may be a necessary condition for holding a justified belief that either does not exist – it is nevertheless not a sufficient condition; and moreover, the other necessary conditions needed to have a sufficient basis for unbelief in either will not be in the same ballpark, since in the case of the unicorn we have on the table the fact that unicorns are said to be things that, if they existed, would have physical properties measurable by the 5-senses whereas God, if He exists, would not.

I will not debate this becuase I know unicorns dont exist and I just did the santa thing, but just if your argument is unicorns dont exist because you have not seen them, that is not good logic. New species of animals are discovered every year, and not one knew about them until they were discovered. Giant squids were at one time thought to be mythical also.

If I can not experience something. or have at least a logical reason to beleive it, then it is illogical for me to beleive it.

[Simon]

Well.. that's not my argument.. and you'd know that if you read the post instead of merely setting it in the quote box, which, btw, is completely unnecessary seein as how you're post is the only response on the thread.. and so, it would be evident to anyone reading that your reply is to the one above it.

At any rate, the poor argument is the one that goes like this, "I have never seen an invisible rabbit; therefore, invisible rabbits do not exist." That's the kind of argument many people have about God.

[mrmufin]

Simon, I'm not entirely sure of your debate topic. While you present questions, their context appears more conversational than debatable. This may account for why your response to concerro's suggests a non- or misreading of your post. I think your topic is interesting, and I plan on responding in more depth, but I'd like to be certain of what the subject of debate is. Is it, "How do I know unicorns don't exist?" and the other questions that your friend asked you?

At any rate, the poor argument is the one that goes like this, "I have never seen an invisible rabbit; therefore, invisible rabbits do not exist." That's the kind of argument many people have about God.

If this is a clarification of topic to concerro, than it is, unfortunately, of no service to me; it reads more like an assertion than a debate. If you you could help me out with some clarification of the specific debate topic, I would appreciate it.

Concerro, I do agree with Simon that quoting his entire, lengthy post is unnecessary, particularly given your early response and noted intent not to debate.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Simon]

There are two issues here, and perhaps everyone here would like this post to be in the Discussions forum .. I don't mind, really.

The debate is about a theory of existence, I think. How do we know when something exists or when something does not exist? I think it's pretty straightforward -- the comparison between Santa and God or Unicorns and God are not good comparisons. The comparisons between other minds and God is a better comparison, given that other minds are things that are thought to reside in a realm, if you will, seemingly inaccessible to us (our 5-senses). That is, other minds are not said to have properties that we can know about with our 5-senses. In a sense, it is the same with God. For one to say that one does not see God (or other minds) or taste, touch, smell, or hear Him, and then to say that one concludes based on that, that God does not exist, is to presuppose methodological naturalism when espousing a theory of existence. It is to say that all existing things are necessarily things that we can know about using our 5-senses. And this is a metaphysical assumption -- one that I think is silly. Despite the popularity of methodological naturalism, we all act as if it were silly on a day to day basis; for instance, we believe that there are other minds, we believe in love, in evil, in many things that are not, essentially, knowable the way that those things that are known to us to exist by our 5-senses. As Greg Koukl has put it, all of the things that are really the most dear to us, the most beloved, that of ultimate value, are things that cannot be "classified, studied, probed or analyzed empirically by the five senses using science."

Secondly, many posters here seem to think that the Santa thread is clever.. like my friend with the unicorn example, it is thought that it is shown that the existence of God is as easy to defend as the existence of Santa, or a unicorn – that in fact, belief in either is equal with respect to warrant. I think that’s ridiculous, and I’ve begun to say why by pointing out a simple fact – the fact that unicorns, for example, are supposed to have properties such that we can classify, study, probe and otherwise analyze them empirically using the five senses, whereas God is not. So it is a disingenuous comparison being made .. the same kind of disingenuousness displayed by the person who pretends to look for the invisible rabbit in the kitchen with his eyes. You’re not really looking seriously, because you have already presupposed the nonexistence of invisible rabbits – and at any rate, you don’t see invisible rabbits with your eyes.. they’re invisible.

[dangerdan]

...since in the case of the unicorn we have on the table the fact that unicorns are said to be things that, if they existed, would have physical properties measurable by the 5-senses whereas God, if He exists, would not

You seem to be saying that because unicorns have a physical body, they would be detectable. Fair enough. Ok, suppose the unicorns were also invisible? Suppose they also (conveniently) are undetectable by our sensory apparatus? Could you disprove them? This is a serious question.

As you have said repeatedly, God is not detectable by our senses. We then can say that God is somewhat abstract, remarkably unverifiable, and as such, totally irrelevant. Don’t fear, I would say the same about invisible unicorns. Unless you would like to change your mind and say that God is detectable by our senses…

If you are curious, these arguments are not new. The first person to solidify these arguments was a philosopher called Kant.

[Simon]

You seem to be saying that because unicorns have a physical body, they would be detectable.

Well.. yes, it ought to be self-evident that if unicorns exist, then they are detectable via the 5-senses. But that isn’t the main point I made. The point is this: to conclude that a nonphysical being does not exist on account of it not being detectable via the 5-senses is disingenuous.

I think we can know if nonphysical beings exist. If by “prove” you mean “show to be detectable by our 5-senses” then no, we cannot prove that nonphysical beings exist. However, I think that’s a rather silly definition of “proof.” Unfortunately, this is the position take by the naturalist.

If, because He is nonphysical, He is then “somewhat abstract, remarkably unverifiable, and as such, totally irrelevant” then you have to say the same things about love, numbers, thoughts, other minds, ones own mind, and everything else nonphysical.

By the way, what argument was Kant the first to solidify?

[mrmufin]

The debate is about a theory of existence, I think. How do we know when something exists or when something does not exist?

Thank you for clarifying the debate topic. For some strange reason this question reminds me of those mysterious, alleged, and currently undiscovered Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction that were so popular in the press just a few short years ago. At what point, if any, do we start to question their existence? If none are ever found, what is the apologetic?

Determining whether or not something exists starts with defining --at least tentatively-- the subject of speculated existence. Set up the concept. What is it that you're trying to demonstrate exists? What would affirm the subject's existence? What would falsify its existence? In what form would the subject exist? Would the subject exist in some physical form or detectable phenomonon, like Labrador Retrievers or thorium decay? Or might the subject exist as a consistent, specific concept, such as the rules and conditions for queen-side castling or the fundamental theorem of algebra? Additionally, there are inconsistent and highly subjective subjects which also appear to exist as concepts, like beauty or fun. These subjects have the toughest existences to demonstrate, due to their inconsistency.

For the most part, we tend to agree about the physical stuff that exists. Gather six people in a room with a Labrador Retriever, and I'd bet few would disagree about the number of persons present or the breed color of the dog. As long as the subject is consistent, we can generally test it by a variety of means. If you try an' castle your way out of check, you might not have grasped the rules about castling.

When we try to determine the existence of highly subjective, inconsistent concepts, we're probably exercising in futility. To theists, the gods are entities to be known, to atheists, they're concepts to be defined. Before any meaningful discourse can be had, all parties to the discourse need to establish a baseline. For example, what the very lovely msmufin and I may regard as a loving, caring, mutually beneficial relationship may be entirely different than what otseng and his wife regard as the same. At the end of the day, I don't really care whether or not otseng and I have the same concept of love; but it does matter that msmufin and I have at least some agreement on the topic.

Whether the subject of existence is physical or conceptual, the essential questions are the same:

1) What is it that we're looking for?
2) What would affirm its existence?
3) What would falsify its existence?

For theists, the answer to the first question is personal, the second answer varies quite a bit, and it's often tough to get a straight answer on the third question. This might just leave atheists and agnostics a bit confused as to what we don't quite believe in. Some skeptics may note that the fuzzy, flexible, untestable descriptions of the gods have all the markings of the type of thing that exists only in the minds of believers...

Perhaps those pesky WMD's really did exist, but Saddam and the other 51 cards in his deck all flushed 'em down their toilets in a big hurry as troops rolled into Bagdad. Perhaps the Earth did glide through the luminiferous ether at some point prior to the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Perhaps oxygen really didn't exist prior to Lavoisier and perhaps Fermat's Last Theorem was truly unproveable prior to Wiles.

Despite the popularity of methodological naturalism, we all act as if it were silly on a day to day basis; for instance, we believe that there are other minds, we believe in love, in evil, in many things that are not, essentially, knowable the way that those things that are known to us to exist by our 5-senses.

Love and evil are indeed highly subjective concepts. Kinda like the gods. Methodological naturalism strives for avoidance of biases, including, but not necessarily limited to, shoe size, political affiliation, hair color, skin tone and/or religious affiliation. Because of this, subjective concepts escape the means of methodological naturalism. With those means removed, what remains?

Regards,
mrmufin

[scorpia]

In other words, 'Don't think there are no crocodiles just because the water is calm.'- Malayan Proverb

Or perhaps 'don't think there are no unicorns just because you cannot detect any through your 5 senses.' ?????

Considering the crocodiles, if you go underwater and check, you can determine for sure whether there is or is no crocodiles. But with God you have to consider that there is a certain place you will find God. Or if you relate it to unicorns that there is an extra sense other than our original 5 senses that could be used to detect God.

But then how can you find God then?

Maybe God himself answered that question himself. maybe somewhere in the bible there's a method of finding God.

[mrmufin]

But then how can you find God then?

Maybe God himself answered that question himself. maybe somewhere in the bible there's a method of finding God.

Maybe somewhere in the Zend Avesta there's a method of finding Ahura Mazda. Maybe somewhere in al Quran there's a method of finding Allah. Maybe in Charlie an the Chocolate Factory there's a method of finding Willy Wonka. Maybe in Baghavad Gita there's a way of finding...

If one or more of the gods exist, shouldn't their existence be knowable outside of their associated scripture? If Athena can only be found via Greek mythology, perhaps that's the only place that she exists? What may lend some insight into this question is if some of the theists step forth and tell us the methodology applied, if any, which was deployed to adequately falsify the many and numerous gods whose existence is doubted. If that methodology goes something like, "I know God exists because the Bible says so," then the methodolgy is circular and I know that Zooks exist because The Butter Battle Book says so.

Regards,
mrmufin