P
PRmerger
Guest
Yup.
"The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ " Psalm 14:1
- Status
"The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ " Psalm 14:1
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
For any unbelievers out there that’s for free!
N
Numinous
Guest
Chiming in late
This is an interesting question and a fascinating topic for me as a lecturer of Medieval thought. First of all, there is problem that, logically, one cannot prove a universal negative: “Faeries do not exist.” Why? Just because you’ve never seen one does not mean they don’t exist.
The Medievals, in their quest to fit everything into their Model, also had a place–perhaps rather ambiguous, but a category nonetheless–for the Longaevi. Lewis discusses them in relation to literature in his book, The Discarded Image, which can do a better job of explaining the Faeries’ place in the universe better than I can.
Basically, it depends on what the OP means by “faeries.” Furthermore, could it be that faeries are particular aspects of fallen angels, or angels, or supernatural visions? There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy.
This is an interesting question and a fascinating topic for me as a lecturer of Medieval thought. First of all, there is problem that, logically, one cannot prove a universal negative: “Faeries do not exist.” Why? Just because you’ve never seen one does not mean they don’t exist.
The Medievals, in their quest to fit everything into their Model, also had a place–perhaps rather ambiguous, but a category nonetheless–for the Longaevi. Lewis discusses them in relation to literature in his book, The Discarded Image, which can do a better job of explaining the Faeries’ place in the universe better than I can.
Basically, it depends on what the OP means by “faeries.” Furthermore, could it be that faeries are particular aspects of fallen angels, or angels, or supernatural visions? There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Even the Nicene Creed talks about “all that is seen and unseen”
N
Numinous
Guest
Exactly. However (and I’m just saying this generally, not to LegoGE1947), one must be careful not to willy-nilly believe in everything invisible without logical, cultural, and historical considerations. There seem to be beings in the Bible itself that might qualify as Longaevi, be they Nephilim or whatever.
I cannot see how the existence of faeries would change or counter anything in the mysteries of the Catholic faith, namely, that Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
After the concept of “Chist died, Christ risen,
christ will come again” any other mystery has a tough act to follow no matter what it may be!
C
cheeto1
Guest
If they are real, lets hope that’s what they are. I hate the idea
of children being fascinated by the devil’s “angels”.
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
Noise, noise and more noise. Do not be distracted by The Liar.
S
selylidne
Guest
Objectively, my worldview allows that fairies could possibly exist. That was a remarkable and refreshing thought that was pointed out to me in G.K. Chesterton’s book, “Orthodoxy”. However, if there really were any, I think we would have found tangible evidence, particularly bodily remains.
Evidence, in the scientific sense, is not required ever. It is useful when deciding whether to believe in fairies because fairies are supposedly part of this world. God is not part of this world, and furthermore He is spirit. Asking for physical evidence of a spiritual reality is to misunderstand science, and asking for evidence in this world of something not of this world is simply illogical.
A
Abbadon
Guest
But without evidence in this world how do you know it is real? We all have reasons for what we believe. But sometimes our reasons aren’t very good ones. Or they are just simply flawed.
I mean sure there may be this being that is intelligent and initiated the origins of our universe. But without any evidence of it there is no point in us assuming there is.
Are faeries apart of this world? Maybe we just defined them incorrectly? Perhaps they can at a time exist in our world but then leave without a trace. And they live in a place outside of our world. And they do not die lie we do, instead their “togetherness” (what holds them as an individual, disassembles and attracts more energy (of some kind) and then grows into two or more, other individuals. Then what? Outside of the overpowered characteristics of god and perhaps his vengeful and wrathful nature you could add a bit of cunning and guile then apply every other factor of a god that makes him so indescernable then apply it to faeries.
For me faeries are the same. They could exist, but there is no point in me assuming such until I have enough evidence to assume so.
If we could perhaps we could apply this to something that you don’t believe in so as not to seem to be targeting you personally. Many people believe in the existence of Krishna and all his other forms (Kali, Ganesh etc…). How can we discern whether this is true or not?
Can you see what I’m saying? Sure everything and anything could be true, but it does not help us in the slightest to live with the idea that it does.
S
selylidne
Guest
The ideas in your last post are muddled, so critiquing them will require untangling.
Without evidence in this world, there are admittedly few ways to know about realities outside this world. St. Thomas Aquinas admirably discussed five of those ways, and many other writers have attempted to explain those ways in more modern language. For the most part, they deal with logical requirements given that the world is the way it is in general, rather than with analysis of little details. Peter Kreeft’s web site has some examples, if you want them. (See the upper right hand box on the linked page.)
Correct. We do not assume God. We have reasons, some rationally convincing and so for everyone, and others based on personal encounters with the Divine and so only convincing to those who experienced them.
Fairies are generally described as part of this world. (“Apart” has the opposite meaning.) We cannot go about testing for something until we have some idea what we are testing for, so if you wish to propose a brand spankin’ new definition for the word “fairies”, feel free to specify it clearly rather than stringing together a bunch of what-ifs and maybes.
Near the end of the paragraph you compare fairies and God, although you misstate his characteristics. Later on you compare him to Krishna. These seem to suggest you’re thinking of God in the childish “old man in the sky” sense. That view is fine and acceptable for children, but it is very, very far from the reality. He is not in the sky. He is not a man, nor does He have any kind of body at all. He does not even have parts such that you could say “this is part of God but not the whole”; he is absolutely simple. That’s because he’s a spirit, not made of matter or energy of any kind. If you’re not sure how to think of spiritual things, good examples include ideas and mathematics. We can only understand and share ideas by making patterns in matter (neurons in a brain, ink on a page, pixels on a screen, sound waves in the air), but the idea itself is not any of those pieces of matter. It is spiritual, not material. God is a spirit which, in some sense, can be identified with existence. So He is in all things (insofar as they exist) but those things are not Him (the Eucharist is an exception by His decree; that it could be Him and yet part of this world we freely admit to be a miracle and not part of the natural order of things).
We already did apply it to something I don’t believe in: fairies. Krishna is not a God in the way Jews, Christians, Muslims, and even old-time Greek philosophers use the word. Neither are Zeus, Thor, Osiris, or any of those other colorful characters. All those are, in the stories, powerful beings who are very much material (albeit changeable) and part of this world.
Not everything or anything could be true. Many concepts are literally impossible. A great danger faced by modern skeptics, however, is never bothering to seriously grapple with the ideas they reject. There is a reason early Christians were called atheists by the pagan Romans. Our idea of God is VERY different from the mythological ideas of gods.
Peace,
-Gabe
A
Abbadon
Guest
Heh I always like that, their god is a myth buy mine is not. I hear it and it never gets old, brings back fond memories of reading 1984.
Sorry about my muddled thoughts. Perhaps we can take this one step at a time. You have made statements about your idea of god.
" He is not a man, nor does He have any kind of body at all."
“That’s because he’s a spirit, not made of matter or energy of any kind.”
“That view is fine and acceptable for children, but it is very, very far from the reality.”
How do you know these to be true? How can you make such statements about it and especially define a gender as he? Is your source reliable? Did you do a chi square test for that?
A
Abbadon
Guest
Yes I am familiar with these “proofs”. They’re not very good. Everything must have a cause, but this one thing we call god. Why couldn’t you call that one thing the universe? Or energy particle wave synthesis Alpha. And the rest of those proofs are mainly infinite regression logical issues.
Pascal’s Wager is also flawed because it does not consider the possibility of other religions being correct. And some other problems with it I hear but they assumed existence of a specific type of god.
Argument from design is so flawed you just have to look at a periodic table or a 1st year biology text book to see how retarded our universe is. The existence of a retarded watch. Also we have natural explanations of how nature can present the illusion of design.
A
Abbadon
Guest
Well the god I was referring to was the god of the Jews/Christians and Muslims.
Deuteronomy 6:15, 7:2.
And all over the place of all three books. [edited]
I apologize if I assumed you were using the bible as to your idea of the characteristics of god. Am most interested in your source for this matter.
Deuteronomy 6:15, 7:2.
And all over the place of all three books. [edited]
I apologize if I assumed you were using the bible as to your idea of the characteristics of god. Am most interested in your source for this matter.
- Status