Do Faeries exist?

[seeker777]

People HAVE seen God.

What’s your point?

I’m sure there are people who claim to have seen fairies.

No different than those who insist that they have seen abominable snow men, UFO’s, aliens, sasquatch, big foot, lockness monster, ghosts, leprechauns, little people, unicorns etc…

 

[seeker777]

11 of the 12 apostles were put to death for their belief that Jesus is the son of God.

How many people can you name who’ve been willing to die for the sake of their belief in Fairies?

So, the God that Muslim suicide bombers pray to is the true God.

He must be, by your logic, their dying for their faith prove that theirs is the true God.

 

[cpayne]

So, the God that Muslim suicide bombers pray to is the true God.

He must be, by your logic, their dying for their faith prove that theirs is the true God.

Unlike Moslem suicide bombers, the apostles would have to have been dying for something they knew to be false. No one would do that.

 

[seeker777]

Unlike Moslem suicide bombers, the apostles would have to have been dying for something they knew to be false. No one would do that.

No, a person dying for something they believe to be true, does not make that something true.

That is my point.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Wish I had the reference, but CS Lewis once mused over what, IF they exist, the “fair folk” might be. He posited these possibilities

1. A third category of created sapient beings on this world–and like us, posses a fallen nature, can be redeemed or damned accordingly.
2. As above, but they are not “fallen”–but may later face a choice of choosing God or the adversary’s side
3. In accordance to an old Irish legend, angels who tried to sit out the conflict between God and Lucifer–for their attempted neutrality, they were banned from Heaven but not cast into Hell.
4. The devils under a variety of disguises–ie, already damned angels.

 

[adstrinity]

To “classify”:​

• God is supernatural
• Angels are preternatural
• the rest of created being is natural
  **Preternatural **beings without bodies = angels.
  Presumably, we are talking about preternatural beings with bodies - that is, beings composed of matter (which angels are not; they are composite, but are not & have not bodies).

BTW, let’s not forget:

• shape-shifters [many kinds of these]
• mermaids
• pixies
• browns
• leprechauns
• changelings
• giants
• dragons
• krakens
• etc.
  There is a question how far these should be classed together, & how far they are really distinct.

Some are more numinous than others - faeries seem to be halfway between the numinous & the mythical/fantastic/terrible (themselves not identical in meaning); or even the numinous & the earthly

You entertain this idea yet scoff that Jesus went to see His Mother before anybody else went to visit His Body at His tomb.

 

[cpayne]

No, a person dying for something they believe to be true, does not make that something true.

That is my point.

Yes, I got your point. You might read mine over again a time or two to catch the difference.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You entertain this idea yet scoff that Jesus went to see His Mother before anybody else went to visit His Body at His tomb.

Maybe you would show me where I express belief in faeries ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And the Uruk-hai.

The U-h. are a purely literary fiction - justifiably or not, people have credited these other beings with real existence in the world.​

 

[adstrinity]

Maybe you would show me where I express belief in faeries ​

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

No, a person dying for something they believe to be true, does not make that something true.

Point conceded, but I would refer you to what I said earlier about witness. Dying is not the only way people give witness to a truth they believe in. Quite often, how people live a belief will stand as a stronger testament to the strength of those beliefs.

Does this in itself demonstrate truth? Not necessarily; by the arguments you use, the counterexample of devout Muslims or ‘devout’ atheists could be used to cancel out the argument of the devout Catholic life.

So it falls on the observer-- or, if you prefer, the seeker– to examine the evidence and testimony to his satisfaction, and from there, make his conclusions. By studying the lives and deaths of those who profess a faith, what are you compelled to deduce and infer from it all? For, if I may be so bold, that is why you are here, isn’t it?

To find out if we who do believe are indeed hysterical, brain-washed, conditioned zealots, communal victims of a grand illusion, and are all touched in the head… or if we are all just normal folk, logical and rational in every respect EXCEPT in the matter of religion…

Or if maybe, just MAYBE… there was something else involved, something beyond the understanding of a mere man.

 

[Abbadon]

I was replying to many things and I realize there is no point.

Maybe I was to hostile in the way I put it.

What I’'m trying to do is perhaps get the people who believe in a particular god, realize that they have no more real good reason for believing than do the muslims or the mormons, the aboriginies or the celts that once believed in faeries.

I just want people to understand that. These belief systems are all equal. So what makes one more correct than the other?

 

[cpayne]

I was replying to many things and I realize there is no point.

Maybe I was to hostile in the way I put it.

What I’'m trying to do is perhaps get the people who believe in a particular god, realize that they have no more real good reason for believing than do the muslims or the mormons, the aboriginies or the celts that once believed in faeries.

I just want people to understand that. These belief systems are all equal. So what makes one more correct than the other?

But they are not equivalent. Saying “I believe in the Supreme Being” and “I believe in a little green fellow who causes milk to sour in the refrigerator” are not equivalent statements, nor do they have equivalent warrant.

 

[cpayne]

The U-h. are a purely literary fiction -​

Say WHAT?

 

[seeker777]

But they are not equivalent. Saying “I believe in the Supreme Being” and “I believe in a little green fellow who causes milk to sour in the refrigerator” are not equivalent statements, nor do they have equivalent warrant.

Why is that?

Neither is possible to prove or disprove. They both profess a belief in the existence of a supernatural being that one cannot experience with the senses.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why is that?

Neither is possible to prove or disprove. They both profess a belief in the existence of a supernatural being that one cannot experience with the senses.

But one can know the supreme being through reason, becuase such a being has a causual extention. In otherwords, it has explanatory powers that our relevant to the existence of our Universe, and more importantly the existence of personal-creatures.

When it comes to talking about the existence of creatures like a goblin or an alien, it wouldn’t matter if they existed or not, becuase they have no relevance to the existence of things in themselves or the practical needs of personal creatures. If God doesn’t exist, morality doesn’t exist. **If God doesn’t exist **then their is no reason to believe that peoples lives have any importance or value. If God doesn’t exist, then the universe is left without meaning. For the suffering, there is no objective point in them continuing in their existence, no purpose. Most of the things that make us human and gives us humans value, would be reduced to subjective fantasy. God, has a logical extention to things and the meaning of things, so much so that God is a neccesitity to human-survival. God Matters. Even people who don’t believe, believe themselves to have objective value and meaning, and freewill, and that there is such a thing as right and wrong; yet nobody would call them iirational for thinking so.

But if a goblin doesn’t exist, what does it matter? The only relevance that such creatures have, is their usefullness in creative story writing. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that it is irrational to think that there might be some strange entities out there that are invisible; but there is no point in having faith or believing in such a creature. It is not a concept that one would be wise in investing their whole lives in.
The question of God, on the other hand, strikes to the very heart of human existence. The concept of God provides objective purpose meaning and value to the existence of the universe and the people who live in it. Therefore to search for such a being through reason and revelation, ought to be taken very seriously, and is not to be looked upon as something that is unreasonable. Reflection on God in the search for purpose is, or ought to be, the highest of all Human-Sciences and Humanities, becuase of the causual importance of such a being. To create charactures, false comparisons, and redherings of God in order to make it seem as if the people who believe in such a being are insain or stupid, is to demoralise your own existence as a human being.

I admit that there maybe many false representations of the supernatural, but that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know. They very well may.

Seriously what is the difference bettween this question and the god question?

There may be very little difference between “faeries” and “gods.” For instance, the medieval poem “Sir Orfeo” transforms the pagan gods into fairies.

But there is a huge difference between “faeries” or “gods” and the traditional Christian concept of God. “Faeries” or polytheistic “gods” are just other beings with whom we may or may not share the universe. God is the ultimate reality from which the universe derives.

There is a ton of Lore in ancient cultures about faeries. Just because no one has seen a faerie

How do you know no one has seen one?

doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, maybe there invisible and maybe they have powers far beyond what we can imagine. Maybe there immortal and have always existed. And maybe in their hordes they created our universe.

What “lore in ancient cultures” says that faeries created the universe? I’m not aware of this “lore.” Could you give a specific example?

But why do we prescribe a requirement of evidence for faeries but not for god?

I don’t know why people would do this. Obviously the evidence for God (not for “god”) is a different kind of evidence, since God is not just another being and cannot be directly observed. I am an “agnostic” about faeries. I am inclined to be open to the possibility that they exist, because I respect tradition as a source of knowledge. I suspect that if there were not odd creatures quite different from ourselves knocking around the universe, we would not have so many reports of people encountering them. But the issue is not one of great importance to me.

Why don’t you believe in faeries?

I do not have *faith *in the existence of faeries because it is not something proposed to me for belief by the Christian Church. I do believe in the existence of angels and demons (who may well be similar sorts of beings–in fact, it is possible that all “faeries” really are angels or demons, though most of the stories don’t fit this dichotomy neatly), and I regard the question of the existence of “neutrals” (i.e., non-human sentient creatures with a very different mode of being than our own) curiosity but without any great investment on one side or the other.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

god lore is exactly the same. So many gods to pick from.

Until you recognize that “God” and “gods” are different concepts entirely, we can’t even have a conversation. God is not just one among many possible beings. The God in whom traditional Christians believe is the only necessary Being. So no, there aren’t “so many gods to pick from.” There either is an ultimate Being from whom all other beings derive, or there isn’t. The existence of other superhuman entities, whatever they are called and however they are spelled, is a separate question entirely.

As we are slowly proving neither is god.

I am not aware of anything being “slowly proven” that addresses the classical arguments for God’s existence, such as those found in Aquinas. Aquinas does not teach a “God of the gaps” whose existence can be rendered unnecessary by scientific discovery. If you think he did, then you haven’t bothered to study what he actually said.

The logic for deducing your specific gods existence is highly flawed. Another “kind” of gods existence may be logical but not your god.

Perhaps you could explain what kind of “god” you think we believe in?

the Muslim god.

Muslims also do not believe in a “god,” but in God.

Edwin

 

[seeker777]

But one can know the supreme being through reason, becuase such a being has a causual extention.

I disagree. Reason must be suspended in order to believe as truth, that which cannot be proven.

What did Martin Luther have to say about reason?

“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.”

If God doesn’t exist

, morality doesn’t exist. **If God doesn’t exist **then their is no reason to believe that peoples lives have any importance or value. If God doesn’t exist, then the universe is left without meaning. .

Morality certainly exists outside of the Bible. Aboriginals lived quite well within their societies. That is before the arrival of the Christian missionaries, their monotheistic faith and their Bibles.

You can find meaning in friendships, children, family, education and experiences. Are you really suggesting that one can only find meaning in a God that may or may not be there?

Why does the universe need meaning? Why does life need meaning?

Are we that insecure and egotistical to believe that the sun rises and sets for us?

The concept of God provides objective purpose meaning and value to the existence of the universe and the people who live in it. .

Just because an idea exists, does not make that idea true, useful or even necessary/

Therefore to search for such a being through reason and revelation, ought to be taken very seriously, and is not to be looked upon as something that is unreasonable. .

If reason is used to determine if God is real, then I’m afraid that reason would have determined long ago that there is no subjective or testable evidence that leads to any proof that a God exists, let alone a Hindu God or a Christian God.

Reason is the enemy of faith.

Why ought anyone take your belief in a supernatural sky God seriously, if you cannot produce any tangible proof that your God exists?

 

[Contarini]

I was replying to many things and I realize there is no point.

Maybe I was to hostile in the way I put it.

What I’'m trying to do is perhaps get the people who believe in a particular god, realize that they have no more real good reason for believing than do the muslims or the mormons, the aboriginies or the celts that once believed in faeries.

I just want people to understand that. These belief systems are all equal. So what makes one more correct than the other?

But you don’t understand the belief systems in question, so your arguments aren’t going to be very convincing, are they?

God is not “a particular god.” We do not believe Him to be one member of a species.

Edwin