Ben writes:
Please see my previous response. In what way is the IPU supernatural? Invisible doesn't mean not part of the natural world. It just means it has specific properties with respect to electromagnetic radiation.
I've never heard somebody talk about an IMMATERIAL pink unicorn. What would that mean?
You are very close to committing the composition fallacy. Sure, some things are invisible, but that doesn't mean that an immaterial/invisible pink unicorn is natural.
Immaterial refers to objects that aren't made of matter as we know it. In other words, if you have an immaterial/invisible pink unicorn in a room, filling up the room with water won't allow you to measure the volume of the IPU. In fact, if you can think of any possible way to confirm the presence of an IPU in a room, you are smarter than all the philosophers and scientists that ever existed.
That IS the other question. As in, a question that's not part of this thread. If there's no reason to believe in something and no reason to NOT believe in something, ... then there's no REASON involved in the decision. It's a topic for threads that build off the result of this one (if I can establish the result that I think I can).
It is impossible to dealt with this issue unless you get a little more specific than that. If we don't get a little more specific, it is like asking, "Do we have any evidence for the natural...?" and try to answer it without mentioning something specific about the natural world.
Actually, I think it's like asking "Do we have any evidence for ANYTHING in the natural world". When you use "ANYTHING", it means bring your OWN qualifier. Sure. We have evidence for the existence of Lam.
With that said, I'm going to answer your question with a couple questions. Do we have any evidence against the immaterial/invisible pink unicorn? (No, the IPU never gets old.)
Please see my previous response. In what way is the IPU supernatural? Invisible doesn't mean not part of the natural world. It just means it has specific properties with respect to electromagnetic radiation.
I've never heard somebody talk about an IMMATERIAL pink unicorn. What would that mean?
The other question is why should we believe in something that has a total lack of evidence?
That IS the other question. As in, a question that's not part of this thread. If there's no reason to believe in something and no reason to NOT believe in something, ... then there's no REASON involved in the decision. It's a topic for threads that build off the result of this one (if I can establish the result that I think I can).
My mistake. Consider it withdrawn.
™ Version 4.2
