God & the Fairy Tree

But I'm using the word "something", not the "X with basic attributes" that you made up. I'm not talking about people who believe in X. I'm talking about people who admit the possibility of "something".You're just making straw-gods and straw-fairies with your preconceived attributes. Concentrate on the concept of something not-yet-discovered. Remind me, where did I say anything about the "supernatural"? I'm talking about "something" that hasn't been observed yet - like an electron or a ninth planet.I'll ask again: How were electrons/planets falsifiable before they were observed? How is "something" not falsifiable in the same way?Edited by Ringo, : Grammar: Your --> You're.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The topic of this thread specifically addresses fairies with a given set of attributes and God, which is typically assumed to mean the Christian deity. I'm not make strawmen, I'm addressing the topic of this thread. Again, you're making a false analogy. Indirect evidence led to the assertion that electrons and a ninth planet might exist - and at that point, the hypotheses became falsifiable.If you're referring to believing that electrons and a ninth planet exist BEFORE atoms or planets were ever observed, and before any indirect evidence was noted as to their existence, that belief would have been delusional at the time, as well. The ideas would have been pulled from thin air.If you're departing from the narrow topic of this thread (that is, what is the difference between belief in one unfalsifiable specific supernatural entity and another that allows fairies to be mocked and God to be worshipped), and mean simply to say "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy," then I agree with you. But that's not our topic here.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

as ringo said, we're discussing the concept of a god or the concept of a fairy. whether one defines fairies as cute little female green winged things or genderless purple mystery bugs is irrelevant to the concept that there is a small, possibly mischievious, potentially magical or simply not understood creature that can maintain a non visible state. the only declared properties really are "small," "likes trees," and "able to maintain a nonvisible state." but, according to the sign, the statement was that the fairies had flown away, and were not invisible. so the property there is "flies really quickly." these are very different properties than your protest about planets and the precise mass and charge of electrons. likewise with the god concept. really, the only property some creature needs to be called "god" is "more powerful than many or most humans" based on the least common denominator of world faiths. a potential additional property is "has a singular or various great events or creations attributed to him/her." so while you might like to speak of, i dunno, an "omnipotent, omnicient god with a son and a spirit and no body and likes friday nights or maybe sunday mornings and people think they should burn pidgeons for him" type fellow, it's really not pertinent to the discussion. the sign said nothing about properties, but of a named idea.

You just described a set of properties. This is not the "concept of some undefined supernatural entity." You're specifically saying these things, which have never been observed or left evidence of their passing, like trees, fly, and are small. If you've never seen one or evidence of its passing, how can you tell it flies? That it's small? That it even likes trees? Likewise, if there is no evidence of such an entity existing, or any indirect evidence of anything it may have done, how can you say that it is "more powerful" than anything else? Define "power?" How can it have events or creations attributed to it without any objective evidence that it has ever existed?The ideas are identical. As soon as you attach a specific property, even a general one, to an entity without a reason based on objective evidence, that entity is essentially a figment of your imagination. Saying "the mere existence of the universe is evidence it was created, and thus the creator must exist" is false - there is no evidence that shows that the universe was created, and that it has not always existed in some form or another.For another example: attributing my grandfather's unlikely recovery to God is identical to attributing falling acorns to fairies. It is a person's own delusion to attribute events to supernatural entities where none are necessary or suggested by any evidence.But then, I'm not a believer. I used to be, but as an outside observer, I can not see the difference between claiming the existence of God and handwaving the lack of evidence as "He requires your faith, and if he gave specific proof, there would be no faith" and claiming the existence of fairies and handwaving the lack of evidence as "they just flew away."

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I don't see where the OP assigns any attributes. It talks about the idea of unobserved entities and why one might be preferable to another. And theists will say the same thing: Indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is what prompts us to look for more direct evidence. So we can search the area where Neptune and/or Pluto "ought" to be.If we don't find it, does that mean it isn't there? It takes me back to my original question to you: What if our telescope just isn't powerful enough? I think you're misusing both the words "belief" and "delusion". Accepting the idea that there might be something causing "electricity" is not a belief. And if there is no evidence to counter the idea, it's not a delusion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That is often the case. We gather more evidence. The perturbations of of other visible objects nearby should continue to be consistent with the planet hypothesis. If they become inconsistent then we might consider the planet hypothesis falsified. It depends on the nature of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis requires that Neptune be reflecting a certain amount of light then it does effectively falsify that hypothesis.

So, the narrower the hypothesis, the easier it is to falsify. But how broad do we have to get for the hypothesis to go from "difficult to falsify" to "unfalsifiable"?"There might be something out there" is pretty hard to falsify, but so is "there is nothing out there". At what point does "nothing" become more reasonable than "something"?Th OP suggests that "something X" is equivalent to "something Y". I have been suggesting that at some point "nothing" is also equivalent to "something X" and "something Y".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

good point. the sign doesn't say they fly or are necessarily small. so all we know is that they "like trees" and "fly quickly". since there are things that "like trees" and "fly quickly," it is reasonable to assume that there may be a thing called a fairy that "likes trees" and "flies quickly." oh stop being difficult. we're talking about the potential existence of god. based on the "signs" all over the world that talk about god, the least common denominator is that a god must only be "more powerful than many or most humans." since there are things that are more powerful than many or most humans, it is reasonable to assume that something which has been called god and meets the conceptual definition exists. this is bullshit made up by those who are too stupid to describe their evidence and accepted by those who are so self-righteous that they can't understand personal proof.

you know. after more than three years on this board, i don't think i've read a post that made that much sense or was that probing. i'm impressed.

quote:

---

In this day and age, we are quite assured that there is no such thing as magic. The terms, supernatural and magic fall into pointless descriptions bound from an earlier time.

---

And yet, everyone who believes in God is using exactly the same thought processes as someone who believes in magic.

Everyone is a tall order, please explain how this works(for everyone) exactly.Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think that belief in astrology is neccessarily intellectually immature either.

---

OK, so how do YOU define "intellectually mature"?I put Astrology in the same category as belief in Tarot, free energy machines, and Atlantis.

quote:

---

different people find sufficient answers in different places. for some, only science is sufficient; for others, only a god can fully answer their questions. despite the claims of the atheists, they also ask these questions and also receive comfort from their answers.

---

...except that I don't have any answers. There's a whole lot of "I don't know; nobody does." when I ask the big questions.There's no comfort, but then again, I never figured the universe owes me any explanatins.

quote:

---

That's the problem right there - you insist they're the same even if the argument is illogical.

---

That is not what I said.What I said was: All such belief can be reduced to, well, irrational belief. The motivations of the believer are irrelevant.

quote:

---

And infact one is a magical entity and the other is a supernatural entity, so there's our first difference.

---

"Magical" and "supernatural" are the same thing.And belief in either is, at the root, the same sort of irrational belief.

quote:

---

Damn, I was going to say that 'being taught' could explain my particular flavor of theism, but the belief in god, itself, is of its own accord.

---

So, do you ever remember a time when you didn't realize that people believed in and worshipped an invisible power that they called "God"?I was raised a Catholic and was brought to Mass every Sunday from infancy on, and attended CCD starting at age 5.There was never, ever a time in my sentient life in which I was not made aware of people's belief in God(s), and I suspect the same is true of you, and of most people on the planet.