L
LegoGE1947
Guest
I wouldn’t want to dodge any either I’d rather hyundai them! lol
- Status
C
cpayne
Guest
Sigh. You know, this “no evidence” claim comes up all the time, despite its falsity. All it means is “I have an extremely narrow definition of ‘evidence,’ and if there’s any evidence out there that doesn’t fit my definition, I’m not going to look at it.”
C
cpayne
Guest
For good examples of this, just go back in this thread and read the first ten posts or so. It doesn’t matter what sort of arguments are used for God’s existence, some people will simply say, “That logic doesn’t work for me.” Or they’ll just say something else. ANYTHING else, just to avoid God.
I
I_Believe
Guest
It just dawned on me that probably every catholic here who denies faeries exist, were lead to believe there is such a thing as a tooth faerie as children.
Hmmm, catholic children being told by their catholic parents that faeries leave money under their pillows in exchange for a lost tooth.
I’m not saying the practice leads children to paganism, but perhaps catholics should not promote this foolishness.
Just a thought.
J+M+J
Hmmm, catholic children being told by their catholic parents that faeries leave money under their pillows in exchange for a lost tooth.
I’m not saying the practice leads children to paganism, but perhaps catholics should not promote this foolishness.
Just a thought.
J+M+J
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the difference is the existence of the universe, Thomistic proofs show that no physical thing, including fairies, can be the cause of itself.
as to why we ascribe a stansdard of evidence to fairies that we do not to G-d, that is also simple. until this post, no one claimed fairies created the universe, they are in mythology physical creatures, in the Judeo/Christain tradition G-d is spirit.
therefore, one should see physical evidence of fairies, and physical matter is the evidence of G-d.
M
MegaTherion
Guest
"cpayne:
Could you please indicate what is “extremely narrow” about this definition? What definition do you use for evidence of things that exist in the objective world?
He told me that fairies existed before time and (not being physical) are uncaused. They created everything in existence 6,000 years ago by sprinkling pixie dust.
Therefore, physical matter is evidence of fairies.
These fairies, by the way, have informed us that they want humans to dress in tights at all times and ring a special fairy bell each day at noon and chant their magic fairy spells to give them strength. Hey, we owe it to them – they created the world (as I proved above).
Serious question: what’s wrong with the logic above? Assuming my uncle sincerely believes what he told me (he has dreams of the fairies, you see, so he’s certain), and assuming that these beliefs are a real family tradition that has been believed for centuries (at least), please explain what is wrong with the logic.
And if there is nothing wrong with the logic, why don’t you believe in fairies too?
**
My definition of evidence is the same I use for evidence of anything whatsoever that exists in the objective world (for all people, not just in my mind): “Independently verifiable, repeatedly confirmable data.”
Could you please indicate what is “extremely narrow” about this definition? What definition do you use for evidence of things that exist in the objective world?
Long before this post, my uncle harry used to claim that fairies created the universe. He told me that the belief was an old family tradition handed down from time immemorial.
He told me that fairies existed before time and (not being physical) are uncaused. They created everything in existence 6,000 years ago by sprinkling pixie dust.
Therefore, physical matter is evidence of fairies.
These fairies, by the way, have informed us that they want humans to dress in tights at all times and ring a special fairy bell each day at noon and chant their magic fairy spells to give them strength. Hey, we owe it to them – they created the world (as I proved above).
Serious question: what’s wrong with the logic above? Assuming my uncle sincerely believes what he told me (he has dreams of the fairies, you see, so he’s certain), and assuming that these beliefs are a real family tradition that has been believed for centuries (at least), please explain what is wrong with the logic.
And if there is nothing wrong with the logic, why don’t you believe in fairies too?
**
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
M
MegaTherion
Guest
No, you believe in the false god Jehovah. You are using the correct argument, except that you believe the first cause is a Semitic war god worshipped by nomadic tribes in the middle east.
The fairies told my uncle that all the scriptures of the world are false, inspired by the unseelie court in an attempt to convince the world that fairies don’t exist. The fairies have told other members of my family this, and they’ve told me the same thing in dreams as well.
Furthermore, by not ringing the magic fairy bell and casting fairy spells every day at noon (and by not wearing the magic fairy tights at all times!) you are angering the fairies. My goodness, you are even worshipping a myth inspired by the unseelie court!!
If you can agree that there is a first cause, why can’t you see that fairies are the true First Cause? What argument could you possibly use against what I’ve written above? (and I haven’t even mentioned the numerous fairy prophecies that have come true)
[edit: this post is satire, for anyone who happens to wander onto this thread and thinks I’m insane – but the point is very serious: what’s wrong with this logic?]
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Jehovah came from the King James Bible G-d’s real name is so holy the jews would not say it so they replaced it with names succh as YHWH< Adonai etc
M
MegaTherion
Guest
That’s true – but either way, the “lost name” of this god (the Tetragrammaton) and the name Jehovah were inspired by the unseelie court in a plot to convince the world that fairies don’t exist.
Prove me wrong.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
not a trinitarian i see.
what? i worship the Most High Trinitarian G-d of Christianity, your refering to Judaism. how can you disagree with something when you cant tell the substance of one thing from the other?
further your arguments are for a G-d, which you call fairies, which is not the hard atheist postition, that would be that there is no
G-d or fairies, or anything non-physical.
you are really arguing comparative theology, admitting there is a G-d, by trying to argue that it is not mine, it is your fairies.
the more derogatives and sarcasm you use the less space you have to type out arguments based on reason and evidence.
yes the devil, or unseelie court, would love to convince the world that no G-d exists.
thats right, many Christians are aware of the push for the new atheism
the tights thing is a mormon deal, they arent Christains. and if fairies get mad at you when you choose not to do their deals, i wouldnt want to worship fairies.
you might want to check out Catholic theology before you start making such statements.
yes, atheism is the devils best friend
so we agree that there is a first cause, and that the universe is created. you are not then an atheist. we only disagree on matters of comparative theology.
in that vein i would argue that your fairyism is a cult in which we are totally dependent on your word, with no witnesses to anything occuring, no witnessed miracles, no theology, no scripture, no corresponding historical or archeological evidence. no convergent prophecies based on multiple unrelated sources over the course of millenia.
nothing, just in the most basic way, unknowingly, you are making our case for us.
- you admit a supernatural (non-physical) creation.
- you admit an extremely rudimentary theology.
- this all amounts to an admission of the validity of Faith, regardless of what you choose to call it.
the funny part is you started with the intention of making theists look foolish, when it turns out you are a theist too, welcome to the party.
[/quote]
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
fairies are a plot, to convince the world that the unseelie court doesnt exist.
Prove me wrong.
M
MegaTherion
Guest
That’s my point, warpspeedpetey.fairies are a plot, to convince the world that the unseelie court doesnt exist.
Prove me wrong.
I’m not actually arguing for the existence of fairies. My “arguments” for fairies use precisely the theist line of argument – however, the theist line of argument is completely invalid.
I’m attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of your position.
The argument you use to “prove” your god could just as easily be used to “prove” the existence of fairies – and now we have no way to choose between the 2 beliefs.
You’ve tried to pretend the two positions are the same, but they are not.
Now let’s say my uncle and I have really had revelations from fairies – those fairies tell us that they are the first cause and that the god you worship is a lie.
How do you go about proving us wrong? How do you know that your theology is correct? What evidence do you have?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
C
cpayne
Guest
Actually, the definition seems pretty good, and works for me. The logical arguments for God’s existence are independently verifiable. The spiritual experience of transformed, new lives is repeatedly confirmed in the experience of believers, like the existence of love is confirmed in the experience of those falling in love.
If you meant “scientifically” verifiable–well, you didn’t say that, and adding that word DOES “narrow” the definition considerably.
C
cpayne
Guest
M
MegaTherion
Guest
The fairies have told me that everything you say was planted by the unseelie court.
[actually, on a serious note, nothing that you listed actually qualifies as evidence of anything – other than myths that cannot be verified.]
No. I think my fairies are one possible cause of the universe; another woul be some natural law we don’t understand; another might be some mortal first cause that doesn’t exist anymore, etc. Origins are a big question mark that doesn’t point to anything whatsoever.
Since we have evidence of physical matter – and none of anything supernatural – I don’t feel that accepting supernatural claims is justified.
The experience of believers proves that they have had experiences – not that those experiences corespond with objective reality.
Do the experiences of Hindus prove that Hinduism is real? Would my “experience” of fairies prove that fairies are real?
Or do we seek actual evidence outside of the individual?
Furthermore, your analogy between your god and love fails on a number of levels. No one is asserting that love has an existence independent from the human mind, as people do with gods. We certainly can measure love when certain biochemical reactions take place in the brain.
What logical arguments for any gods are “independently verifiabe”?
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Can’t prove either way. That’s like asking a gold fish to prove there is or is not anything outside his/her bowl!
C
cpayne
Guest
First quoted paragraph: Believers also frequently assert that others may have the same experiences, just as lovers assert that others may in fact fall in love. Say to God, “Help me to know You; forgive me of my sins; help me to follow You and live for You,” and let’s see what happens.
Second: I am sure that some Hindu religious experiences are genuine. What that means, I do not know. This is a Christian web site, after all, although Hindus are certainly welcome to post.
Third: Any valid logical arguments are separate from the individual experience.
Fourth: (By the way, regarding “your god”: We aren’t really discussing “my” god, but God as a being separate from my belief or non-belief. If “I” have a “god,” that is referred to as an idol.) “No one is asserting that love has an existence independent from the human mind”–actually, this is not factual. Many philosophers do assert this; Plato, for one, and even philosophers today who believe in the separate existence of universals. Songwriters also tell us to believe in love.
Also, biochemical reactions do not measure love; they measure the physiological correlates to a person’s experience of love. These are two different things. To your loved one, do you say, “Darling, I am really experiencing biochemistry and neurology for you”? Instead of “I (heart) you” do you write “I (brain) you”?Finally: All logical arguments, if valid, are independently verifiable. All people experience teleology in the world; for example, “My blood is clotting in this cut in order that I don’t bleed to death.” Aquinas uses that common experience of teleoogy as one of his arguments. Since blood clotting mechanisms have no mind and no purpose, some mind had to give this mechanism its purpose. If you want to argue that his argument is not valid, you are the one who has to argue that people’s independent and yet commonplace experience of teleology is misguided.
This is the thing about that last sentence: I don’t have to think that Moslems, or Hindus, or indigenous peoples, or whatever, are completely wrong in their religious beliefs, since we share many common experiences on which to base our inductive religious axioms. You, however, have to say that ALL OF US are wrong, and that ALL OF US misinterpret our common, independently verifiable experiences and inferences.
- Status