For the first time (that I have seen anyway) we have a highly competent and scientifically minded debator (RAZD) arguing the case for the existence of god/gods in earnest against the atheistic contingent (myself included).
The normally in agreement science lobby are arguing philosophy, logic and practicality regarding their different outlooks as opposed to the all too frequent "creationists are demonstrably wrong" sort of debate that we often have.
I would like the chance to reply to Raz. I would also like to see how the defence of deism pans out in practical terms.
Fictional characters like unicorns and superheros do not fill a gap in knowledge.
But you told me that you thought that the term "superhero" is meaningless in exactly the same that the term "god" is meaningless.
However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning. Just like god.
But that aside.....
Words used to fill a gap in knowledge, Strag. I made that clear in a few post. Fictional characters like unicorns and superheros do not fill a gap in knowledge. God, supernatural, ghost, telepathy, poltergeist, those words do.
Even if we somehow proved that no gods exist Thor, Apollo, Zeus etc. would still be gods. The definition of the term "god" would still apply to them and every other fictional god past present or future.
Even if we filled every gap in human knowledge Harry Potter would still be a wizard rather than a poltergeist and Peter Parker would still be a superhero rather than a ghost. Charles Xavier of the X Men would still be a mind reading telepath and Carrie would still be exhibiting telekinetic powers.
If we somehow proved that we were alone in the universe the term "alien" would still have the same conceptual meaning regardless. Why? Because these concepts have conceptual meaning that in and of itself has nothing to do with gaps.
That is my ONLY criteria. Nothing to do with fiction, at all. Just gap fillers.
You seem to me to be making a false distinction between products of human imagination that have arisen as a result of being posited as answers to certain observed phenomenon and those that have been created purely for entertainment.
I still have no idea why you think this difference in origin makes some fictional concepts any more or less conceptually meaningful than others.
Remove the gaps and the concepts remain as purely fictional entities or phenomenon. No more or less meaningful or meaningless than fictional entities and phenomenon which were never designed to fill any gaps other than our desire to be entertained.