How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[warpspeedpetey]

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

I simply point out that we have a few dozen books worth of witness statements. Witnesses who were so sure of their experiences that they gave their lives in martyrdom, rather than to deny Christ.

None chooses being tortured to death over a unicorn sighting.

 

[R_Daneel]

Does matter/energy have a cause of its existence, or is it uncaused?

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not contingent on anything.

 

[excubitor]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

It can’t be proven. Fairies, goblins etc may be types of angels or spirits which were manifested to men long ago, maybe before the flood. I don’t believe that by the way but I am simply pointing out that it cannot be proven absolutely. Nor can it be proven that the dodo is extinct, or dinosaurs, or dragons, or unicorns.

The scriptures mention dragons and unicorns plus dinosaur like creatures called Leviathin and Behemoth. Therefore I believe that these creatures did at one time exist and may still exist in some remote corner of the world. No-one can prove me wrong. The only thing that they can do is mock me.

So it all boils down to what we believe. Therefore there is no difference between believing in fairies or believing in God. When the atheist makes this accusation the correct response is So? Big deal. What of it? We don’t have to defend our beliefs to atheists. Our beliefs rest upon the scriptures and the witness of our friends who saw the risen Lord 2000 years ago. Evidence which the atheist rejects.

When the first settlers sent back from Australia some artifacts and sketches of a strange amphibious mammal that laid eggs and had a ducks bill and flippers they were mocked and the artifacts regarded as hoaxes. Nobody believed that such a creature could exist

Today of course we now all believe in the Platypus.

This is why the man of religion and faith is as his first instinct inclined to believe. He reserves judgement on a matter and investigates further before ruling it out. He will not disbelieve unless given conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Whereas an atheist works from the other direction. He believes absolutely nothing unless he can see it with his own eyes, feel and measure it. His first instinct is skepticism and disbelief and he will not believe anything unless given what he regards to be conclusive evidence to the contrary.

This is why the man of Faith is approved of God.

John 20:27 “be not faithless, but believing.”
John 20:31 “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

Romans 4:Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness

 

[R_Daneel]

This is why the man of religion and faith is as his first instinct inclined to believe. He reserves judgement on a matter and investigates further before ruling it out. He will not disbelieve unless given conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Whereas an atheist works from the other direction. He believes absolutely nothing unless he can see it with his own eyes, feel and measure it. His first instinct is skepticism and disbelief and he will not believe anything unless given what he regards to be conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Such a black-and-white picture. The “believablity” (if there is such a word) is the dividing line what to believe without further evidence, and what is not. I don’t think that any theist would believe if someone would insist that the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale. Likewise no atheist would doubt if someone asserted that he has a pet. There is some internal line (based upon what one has learned) which separates the believable and unbelievable claims. We all have that, but the line is different for different people.

To believe something far out without evidence is gullibility. To doubt something which is ordinary would require unnecessary research, which would be a waste of time. That is all.

 

[excubitor]

Such a black-and-white picture. The “believablity” (if there is such a word) is the dividing line what to believe without further evidence, and what is not. I don’t think that any theist would believe if someone would insist that the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale. Likewise no atheist would doubt if someone asserted that he has a pet. There is some internal line (based upon what one has learned) which separates the believable and unbelievable claims. We all have that, but the line is different for different people.

To believe something far out without evidence is gullibility. To doubt something which is ordinary would require unnecessary research, which would be a waste of time. That is all.

Why do you have to take an extreme position which I never intended. I was not endorsing extreme gullibility in my post.

What I was arguing for was an open mind, a proclivity to believe, and a slowness to pass judgement on a matter before hearing the matter fully.

Imagine the Greeks when they first heard about the resurrection. They mocked and laughed. No doubt the story of the resurrection which Paul spun was even more ridiculous to them than the selling of the Brooklyn bridge would be to us. But some believed and stayed with Paul.
Acts 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

So who was approved in this case? Those who had their internal line heavily weighted toward the “believe” side of the equation of course.

Which is why the scripture states
“without faith it is impossible to please God”

Because we are people of faith not incredulity. We are “believers” not “unbelievers”.

To be a “believer” is foolishness to the world, but the Holy Spirit strengthens us to believe according to his enlightenment of the truth which he grants to us and not to “unbelievers”.

So how is it that we believe and other men do not. Or else we believe the truth and other men believe lies? How can I answer this? I cannot. Because we are talking here about domains of Grace which is an immense mystery and known only to God.

However there are a few pointers. First of all God tends to favour the lowly, meek, poor of this world “so that no flesh should be gloried”. This shows that the humble spirit is more prone to believe than is the mighty and prideful spirit.
Also he extends Grace to the children of those who have already believed.
Also he extends those who diligently seek after him with a sincere heart, not for self interest, but with a true and genuine desire to know the true God. God loves these things which are all really part of the package of a “believer” and which are generally seriously lacking in the package of un “unbeliever”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why do you have to take an extreme position which I never intended. I was not endorsing extreme gullibility in my post.

What I was arguing for was an open mind, a proclivity to believe, and a slowness to pass judgement on a matter before hearing the matter fully.

What is “extreme” gullibility? It varies from person to person. I agree that one should not pass judgment prematurely. It is prudent to give some benefit of the doubt. But where does it end?

Imagine the Greeks when they first heard about the resurrection. They mocked and laughed. No doubt the story of the resurrection which Paul spun was even more ridiculous to them than the selling of the Brooklyn bridge would be to us. But some believed and stayed with Paul.

And there were no more resurrections. The time elapsed since then - about 2000 years - and not one resurrection happened. That is more than sufficient time to pass a judgment.

However there are a few pointers. First of all God tends to favour the lowly, meek, poor of this world “so that no flesh should be gloried”. This shows that the humble spirit is more prone to believe than is the mighty and prideful spirit.
Also he extends Grace to the children of those who have already believed.
Also he extends those who diligently seek after him with a sincere heart, not for self interest, but with a true and genuine desire to know the true God. God loves these things which are all really part of the package of a “believer” and which are generally seriously lacking in the package of un “unbeliever”.

Yes, I am familiar with the adage of “seek and you shall find”. How about 2000 years of waiting, and you still don’t find? Strictly for enjoyment I include a URL here: theonion.com/articles/vatican-rescinds-blessed-status-of-worlds-meek,546/ It is not a serious news story, so don’t take it seriously. Just have a good laugh.

 

[tonyrey]

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not contingent on anything.

In that case matter/energy must be eternal! What evidence do you have for that assumption?

 

[rvilbig]

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not contingent on anything.

I’ve posted on this before. Creation does not violate conservation of energy for the following reasons:

Physical laws in general do not reveal their cause or point of initiation. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi). Same with energy conservation, the observation that this law exists cannot reveal how it began.

As John Henry Newman said: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67). In other words, the order of energy-conservation does not restrict us from saying it was caused at the beginning of creation.

Moreover, consider Saint Augustine’s conception of creation: “Beyond all doubt the world was not made in time, but with time” (Saint Augustine, City of God, 11:6). If time is part of the universe, how can we consider the"time" when there was no energy and the “moment” when energy conservation was violated? There isn’t time at these “moments” because there is no universe. Make sense?

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[c4thy]

Start with the simple. There has never been any historially proved withness accounts of the mythical creatures you mention. No bones, writings, or actifacts of any witnesses.

The holy lands hold a vast amount of evidence supporting the existance of the men who witnessed extrordinary events. The life of Jesus and his disciples is a historial fact. Their words have been recorded to the best memories of those able to record them in a time when few could read and write.

Kenetic energy law states: when a mass has verlocity apply to it and it strikes an unmovable object, the force or velocity will pass through the object.

Faith is trusting. Without trust there is no faith.

 

[R_Daneel]

In that case matter/energy must be eternal! What evidence do you have for that assumption?

The word “eternal” is undefined. Please elaborate on the meaning of “eternal”.

All I am saying is that “matter/energy” is not contingent upon anything. It simply “is”. It is not contingent, nor it is necessary. These concepts are only meaningful in a relationship, like a grandparent->parent->child scenario, where the parent is contingent upon the grandparent, while necessary in relation to the child.

 

[R_Daneel]

Physical laws in general do not reveal their cause or point of initiation. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi). Same with energy conservation, the observation that this law exists cannot reveal how it began.

That is an excellent parable on its own right. However, it does not help. From the observation of an object revolving around another one (in a frictionless environment), we cannot deduce that there was a “start” for this process. As an analogy, the electrons “revolve” around the nucleus (in a matter of speaking), but we cannot assume that the nucleus was without the electron in the past, and it happened to “capture” a “wandering” electron.

As John Henry Newman said: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67). In other words, the order of energy-conservation does not restrict us from saying it was caused at the beginning of creation.

By the same token, the existence of the universe does not lead to the assumption of a creation.

 

[c4thy]

In an enclosed system, all that is within, is bound by the parameters of exsistance for that system.
We are in a universe that is in a linear exsistance, that has mass, velocity and energy.
At 17.7 billion years in our terms, our little galexy is slowly drifting from the centre on the outer cusp of a very small section of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

The word “eternal” is undefined. Please elaborate on the meaning of “eternal”.

Endless. Do you think the universe will never cease to exist?

All I am saying is that “matter/energy” is not contingent upon anything. It simply “is”. It is not contingent, nor it is necessary. These concepts are only meaningful in a relationship, like a grandparent->parent->child scenario, where the parent is contingent upon the grandparent, while necessary in relation to the child.

How do you **know ** the universe simply is, that it has no relationship to another reality? Do you believe the physical universe is the sole reality? If so why?

 

[R_Daneel]

Endless. Do you think the universe will never cease to exist?

Yes. And it is based upon the principle of conservation of matter/energy. The shape of the matter/energy may change.

How do you **know ** the universe simply is, that it has no relationship to another reality? Do you believe the physical universe is the sole reality? If so why?

I don’t know that. It is the base assumption. As I said before, the base assumption of the theists and atheists is exactly the same: both hold true that there is no infinite descent, and therefore there is one final, unexplained, brute reality. For the atheists it is the Universe, for theists it is God.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. And it is based upon the principle of conservation of matter/energy. The shape of the matter/energy may change.

What is that principle based on?!

How do you know the universe simply is, that it has no relationship to another reality? Do you believe the physical universe is the sole reality? If so why?

I don’t know that. It is the base assumption. As I said before, the base assumption of the theists and atheists is exactly the same: both hold true that there is no infinite descent, and therefore there is one final, unexplained, brute reality. For the atheists it is the Universe, for theists it is God.

Correct! Do you believe physical reality is the sole reality? What makes you regard it as the final reality?

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t know that. It is the base assumption. As I said before, the base assumption of the theists and atheists is exactly the same: both hold true that there is no infinite descent, and therefore there is one final, unexplained, brute reality. For the atheists it is the Universe, for theists it is God.

Correct.

There’s an interesting distinction here. On the one hand, Catholicism directly links “God” with existence itself. This is the meaning of the divine name “I AM WHO AM.” Therefore, Catholics assert that the most fundamental reality is in fact existence- which leads to a profound realism.

In contrast, atheism is somewhat different. Atheists assert that the material world is the most fundamental reality. Atheists tend to perceive this world as a world of systems- groups of interrelated things that are real. However, these systems are usually understood as things that in effect partake in existence- not as existence itself. For example, most scientists would be willing to say that STEM is real, but they would not be so quick to say that STEM is existence itself.

There are a number of challenges to the characterization that STEM is existence. One is that existence must be uniform. If there were multiple existences, then multiple existences would exist- which takes us back to square one. If STEM is the uniform existence, then why do we perceive different forms of STEM? Why would a uniform existence appear in distinct and different forms?

 

[R_Daneel]

What is that principle based on?!

I am sure you are aware of it just as well as I am. Like all the laws of nature it has been established inductively, and as such it would be overturned if one event to the contrary would be observed.

Correct! Do you believe physical reality is the sole reality? What makes you regard it as the final reality?

Yes, I believe that. Physical reality is the only reality. This does not mean that I regard abstractions as “irrelevant” or “insubstantial”, not at all. But the abstractions (though not physical themselves) are dependent on physical reality. We have been through this many times. Physical objects are NOT only part of physical reality. The attributes and interrelationships of physical objects (which are not physical ontological objects themselves) are also part of physical reality.

I do not believe that there is another reality, which is neither physical nor abstractions of physical, which are nevertheless “active”, or which are “supernatural”. There are two reasons for that lack of belief. One is that such phenomenon has never been observed (not surprisingly, since it cannot be observed), and two, because there is no need for this hypothesis (as Laplace said so eloquently to Napoleon).

 

[R_Daneel]

Correct.

Thanks. It is encouraging that both tonyrey and you deemed it appropriate to start your post with this word, indicating some level of agreement.

There’s an interesting distinction here. On the one hand, Catholicism directly links “God” with existence itself. This is the meaning of the divine name “I AM WHO AM.” Therefore, Catholics assert that the most fundamental reality is in fact existence- which leads to a profound realism.

In contrast, atheism is somewhat different. Atheists assert that the material world is the most fundamental reality. Atheists tend to perceive this world as a world of systems- groups of interrelated things that are real. However, these systems are usually understood as things that in effect partake in existence- not as existence itself. For example, most scientists would be willing to say that STEM is real, but they would not be so quick to say that STEM is existence itself.

Unfortunately I have no idea what “existence itself” might mean. The physical world exists, that is undeniable. What on Earth is “existence itself”?

There are a number of challenges to the characterization that STEM is existence. One is that existence must be uniform. If there were multiple existences, then multiple existences would exist- which takes us back to square one. If STEM is the uniform existence, then why do we perceive different forms of STEM? Why would a uniform existence appear in distinct and different forms?

What do you mean by existence must be “uniform”? I have no idea what you mean by that. The physical world has one thing in common, all material objects are composed of STEM. That is “uniform”, if that is what you mean by that word. I ask you to elaborate.

 

[Sarpedon]

Unfortunately I have no idea what “existence itself” might mean. The physical world exists, that is undeniable. What on Earth is “existence itself”?

What do you mean when you say that the physical world “exists?” What does existence mean?

Existence is not an empty term. It denotes something. “Existence itself” is nothing other than what the term denotes.

What do you mean by existence must be “uniform”? I have no idea what you mean by that. The physical world has one thing in common, all material objects are composed of STEM. That is “uniform”, if that is what you mean by that word. I ask you to elaborate.

Existence is something. Not necessarily a “thing,” but there is ____ behind the human term “existence.”

When you say that “STEM exists” there are two possible meanings to your statement. One is “STEM is real because it exists.” The other is “STEM is what existence is,” i.e. what the term denotes. In what sense do you mean it?

In the first case, existence is something that lies in addition to STEM- STEM has the property of existence, but existence is still a property to be had. In the second case, STEM is identical with existence, therefore incurring the problems I mentioned.

The problem is as follows- existence as a “thing” must be uniform, because we cannot conceive of distinct existences operating at an equal level. For example, we could argue that there are two distinct existences- but then we would also be obliged to argue that those existences are real. If those two existences are real, then we would have to say that two distinct existences exist. In that case, the two distinct existences would both exist relative to each other- therefore, both partaking in a single existence. If two distinct existences were to be proved, then they would be proved to be real and to exist- which would take us right back to the uniform existence they were both proved to have.

So “existence,” whatever that means, must be united and uniform. If existence is something that STEM draws upon- i.e. STEM is real because it has existence, there is little problem here. Existence must be uniform, but the substances that draw upon that existence can do so in differing ways. For example, even though hydrogen and oxygen are different forms of STEM, they are both equally real. Therefore, the unity and uniformity of existence is not compromised.

If STEM is identical to existence, the situation is a lot different. The same rules about uniformity apply. Now, it’s not too difficult to imagine, say, energy, as a completely uniform, united substance that is reality. The problem is then explaining how that unified substance becomes different forms. If STEM is existence, and existence is necessarily unified, then how can STEM appear in different forms? If STEM is identical with existence, then to have different forms of STEM is to have different forms of existence. If we have different forms of existence, this takes us right back to the problem- on what basis can we say that different existences exist? If different existences exist, then why isn’t that existence the real one, and how is it not unified?

In short, existence forms the framework in which we think. If existence is something behind the world, so to speak, then we have little problem. If existence is the world, then we have to explain how we can see variation in the framework itself. What is that variation measured against? It can’t be measured against itself.

 

[tonyrey]

I am sure you are aware of it just as well as I am. Like all the laws of nature it has been established inductively, and as such it would be overturned if one event to the contrary would be observed.

Since induction leads only to probable conclusions there is no reason to believe the principle of conservation of matter/energy is absolute or necessary.

Yes, I believe that. Physical reality is the only reality. This does not mean that I regard abstractions as “irrelevant” or “insubstantial”, not at all. But the abstractions (though not physical themselves) are dependent on physical reality. We have been through this many times. Physical objects are NOT only part of physical reality. The attributes and interrelationships of physical objects (which are not physical ontological objects themselves) are also part of physical reality.

Can you explain how tangible objects have produced intangible abstractions? In what way are abstractions insubstantial?

I do not believe that there is another reality, which is neither physical nor abstractions of physical, which are nevertheless “active”, or which are “supernatural”.
There are two reasons for that lack of belief. One is that such phenomenon has never been observed (not surprisingly, since it cannot be observed), and two, because there is no need for this hypothesis (as Laplace said so eloquently to Napoleon).

Your notion of observation is arbitrarily restricted to the senses. Why do you exclude observation of your intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions? Are they less real than tangible objects? If they are equally real why do they depend on tangible objects?

The hypothesis that there are only physical objects and their epiphenomena is not supported by evidence. The superior power of the mind is compelling evidence that the mind is independent and not derived from matter which lacks consciousness, insight, autonomy and purpose. The hypothesis itself is intangible and formulated by the mind not by the body!