God & the Fairy Tree

It is true that you must treat each claim equally because they are both simply claims about reality. As a Theist, I request that you treat God-belief as an equally absurd claim. If you only get what you know to be fallacious reasons - then you are right to disregard them, as you would dissapoint me if you didn't. But I'm not always available to give you logical reasons. One can only make sense of these beleifs in personal subjective colloquial ways. i.e. I would ask myself what is more believable TO ME. That life has a purpose - that there is a "something" that intended the universe, or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What is behind each belief?What fascinates me is that you exist, therefore it's not impossible for me to believe that you could exist again. Once I've seen the miracle, why should it be impossible for me to believe it can happen again in another reality? Is it so different from believing that other universes could exist? Hang on a minute - isn't that what it is? Another "place". (I'm begging the question, but it doesn't matter because TO ME - it's a miracle.TO YOU it's not a miracle. Respect this - it is not a delusion, it is the way my mind works.Yet is a belief in a fairy to be equated with belief in God? There are deeper formal reasonings STILL - such as composition.- WHAT does each person believe EXACTLY. Is there depth and difference in those beliefs? WHAT do they entail? Do they truly not differ in every manner, or is only the absurdity-factor being observed?The fact is that pink-unicorn or fairy belief is not the same as God-belief, NOT because of absurdity-factor, because they are both absurd in their transcendent capabilities, but because the P.U. is a shallow concept. It has no worth, whereas my belief in God requires much of me. I have to care for others, try to help them, feed the poor, clothe them, I have to do as Christ says all of my life, and worry about getting my one shot at life correct.The P.U. is shallow. (Check out undistributed middle term)- P.U. belief invokes magic entity
- God-belief invokes magic entityTherefore God and P.U. belief are the same.- An apple is a fruit
- An orange is a fruit.Therefore apples and oranges are the same.Looks simple eh? Logic always looks simple - even absurdly obvious - but only in a strict formal context. See the big mess I had to type in order to explain?(Please feel free to check on everything I have said)

But I thought you were implying it, as this story of the tree is asking why one should respect belief in God but not fairies. If both are magical entities - there are no valid implications from that, as shown.But also, I was referring to the popular atheist argument which states that the P.U. and God are the same, so I am not accusing you, but this train of thought is common knowledge.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Lol - what do you mean - it is a simple argument.It's still begging the question because it assumes that God is absurd, but it's only atheists who say that God is absurd. First the claimant must prove that God is necessarily absurd. That's not self-evident, all we have to go on is that God shares invisibility with said entity, and atheists think he's just as silly. That's not enough, the argument is not sound.S0 you might aswell compare God with the higgs boson. Why not? = because God is absurd. BBBZZZZT! Wrong! That's what you have to conclude.Oh but - the higgs boson isn't absurd. Now that right there is a double standard, because that freakin' thing is invoked because mass exists.So I compare God to the higgs boson. The scientist needs the boson, the believer needs God.

Yes - to an extent. But I don't know where fairies originate, but it wouldn't matter to me if an adult believed in fairies.As far as I know they are fairytale. If they were mythical, and claimed to be true, then that would be one similarity with God. ONE.But instead of immediately obeying your desire to compare them with God - check the composition of each belief and what it involves. Why would an adult believe in God? Why would adults generally not believe in fairies?1. Do adults care about feeding the poor? Clothing them? visiting the sick, loving their fellow man, preaching hope to those with nothing, etc..etc..?2. Tell me, do fairies involve such matters, or are they mind-candy for babas?( NOTE: Not that this proves God is not made-up and fairies are. As I said earlier - I expect God to be treated equally as any magical claim.)

Yes - this begs the question. You've assumed God is a joke because atheists think he is a joke. If this was self-evident - there would be a God-tree.God isn't clearly a joke. All I've heard is people state that he is because fairies are to people.Think about that in a formal context;All people generally think fairies are a joke.Therefore God is a joke.

That's the problem right there - you insist they're the same even if the argument is illogical.That means that no matter what the different argument for the different entities, they're always deemed the same, despite any plausable or none-plausible arguments for the respective concepts.They aren't the same or equivalent unless you can describe in each and every manner why, otherwise it's equivocation/evasion of the issue. Let's have a list of their traits - characteristics, that make them "the same" in no uncertain terms.At best you'll get three or four hits. The differences will be many many many more because they only share their transcendent quality. And infact one is a magical entity and the other is a supernatural entity, so there's our first difference.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I'm still convinced that the P.U. is unfair - but if you say it is to show how it's wrong to believe in something without subjective evidence, I would say that I agree if you would say it is wrong to CLAIM something exists without evidence. I think that's because of the shallow-factor though. It's an unfair comparison - and obvious attempt to ridicule the God-concept, rather than just using something neutral. That's why it's an informal fallacy, IMHO - because such terms are loaded.I see the thread is hitting meltdown so I won't nag you any further.

Just don't tell Shraff that you poor deluded insane brain-washed comfort-seeker.Apparently we can't string a sentence together without our religion having preached it to us.

- I enjoyed reading that.I see that you still think it's a double standard at this stage, pretty much?I know that you were gracious enough to consider my musings about the fairies being shallow.There is one more shot I can take to try and convince you, and it could be ad logicam, the falalcy fallacy itself.And that is that because the fairy claim is ad hoc, it is not sound, and because the God-argument is ad-hoc, and shares the same conclusion, it is also not sound. But even ig both are un-sound, as your post's implications preach, we cannot take the fairy argument's conclusion of fairy existence, and say that God's existence is false.Essentially, I think you have "thought" of ONE fallacious ad-hoc Theistic reasoning, but I think Theist-arguments have far more deep philosophical worth, even in their deep ponderings, whereas the fairy-argument, well - you can come up with one yourself.So all I request is that you don't base your outlook on Theism, at it's basics, all upon this fairy tree.I concede that both are ad-hoc posteriori improvisations, however, I think the truism from the metaphysical is still a technically correct argument;That because either metaphysical reality could be true, despite each having the same worth as claims, nevertheless, whatever is metaphysically true, is true.Therefore, even though it's self-evident, we can say that although both are equally worthless as claims, the truth-value of either is still not known.That's rather vacuous to you, I suppose, but men, and thinking men, have posited that God exists. You even mention Einstein. He himself believed in a none-personal spirit.I'm not appealing to authority - I am simply saying that men you respect intelelctually, consider an intelligent entity. I assume you apreciate that?

Fair enough. I don't know the deep musings of Spinoza, but my understanding was that Einstein was a Pantheist - or a scientific pantheist. Well, whatever the case, even if this type of principle was his "God", it could be argued that that comes under a Theism-of-sorts. Thanks - perhaps I am trying to justify appealing to authority - in a way, but I suppose it seems valid to me, because I am not saying that this proves the God-concept has worth, but I think that if deep thinkers consider some form of God-concept, or higher intelligence, then it can not be that shallow.I can't remove the fact that ad-hoc arguments exist, I think it's okay that you dismiss a personal God because of this. All of the evidence seems to point in your favour.Bye for now.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.