God & the Fairy Tree

quote:

---

The position of the Agnostic is that any supernatural entity ever conceived, being unfalsifiable, may possibly exist, that we do not and cannot ever know for certain one way or the other. The Atheist simply accepts that the default answer to the question of whether something should be believed in is that it should not until a reason (ie, evidence) is given to cause that belief.

---

I don't see the difference. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

God made the claim that created everything.

---

Where and when did God do that? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I must ask, if you admit to not knowing or having answers, why you would toss away possibilities that are not falsifiable? I would expect more open-mindedness from non-religious people who are not 'convinced' of a scenerio. Yet in the previous post you scorned astrology and psychic readings? Perhaps you have falsified some things in your own mind?I am quite sure that folks don't go through life not knowing. Not knowing with certainty is one thing, but for all of our actions we must have some kind of reason. You can not live life without filling in the gaps one way or another, and state of true skepticism is rare.ABE...I just saw all of the OT warnings, so I will clarify that what I am trying to say is this:To me, the question should not be asked to theists 'why don't you believe in fairies?' because obviously we already have a belief which is not compatible with or has no need/niche for their existance. I am more curious why those without compelling answers would not gather around the tree and try to prove something, rather than take it as a joke as well? Is it already a given that some things were falsified, and if so, why should thiests be the only ones answering the 'how?'?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I don't think it is a fallacy.The one thing you are forgetting is that the people who believe in God really do 'feel' the presence of God. We can't get into whether or not it is real, but for the sake of the argument, they don't feel or see fairies, they do believe they see or feel God, so to them, there is no fallacy in the logic.The only way it would be a fair comparison is if you put a thiest in a room with a psychic or a person who DID see fairies, because what you have is a situation where you are mocking people based on your opinion that all entities are false, and that therefore the theists are being dishonest.If a person really saw fairies, there is no fallacy in saying someone scared them off, any more than if it was a chipmunk tree. I wouldn't grovel for excuses about why someone doesn't 'know' God, but in a world where police stations actually hire psychics to solve crimes for the force, and where I have to see these things presented as facts on tv, and my kids as well...what can I say? Why don't I feel ghosts like my houseguest at the moment? Why can't I solve crime? If I ask my buddy here why I haven't seen ghosts, is any answer he gives me a fallacy?Am I somehow not allowed to feel God while others can see ghosts and get public credit for it? Are you working from a presumption that all of these things are falsified, and therefore all statemenets are fallacies?And btw, why is it that we always say people are 'born' psychic, but must be in a haunted place to see ghosts, or a prayerful stste to feel God, or really quiet to see fairies?

I don't believe in God and I really do 'feel the presence of God'. The only difference is that I don't associate the elating feeling of wonder and awe and insignificance etc etc I get from thinking about the cosmos with being evidence of an entity with a personality which created the whole shebang. There is though: They feel a feeling of greatness or an elated sense of wonder and decide that must be a divine being with a son called Jesus, who spoke with Abraham, and who answers prayers (indirectly). The thing is: we are putting them in the same room. Children sometimes believe in fairies and we call that belief childish. Gullible people believe in psychics and spoon benders. We call them childish or gullible....unless they say their religion is 'spiritualism' or 'paganism' and then that for some reason shields their beliefs from the same level of criticism.

Well, for the record, no one has described 'feeling God in their lives' with any specific so far. If it comes down to 'wonder, awe, and insignificance at the beholding of the cosmos' I doubt we would even be having this discussion. Anyone can have that, and anyone can miss out on it. If someone tells me they don't appreciate nature I am inclined to suggest getting a life before even contemplating a more virtuous one. That's kind of post hoc unfair, and make-believe. No one developes a complete theology from looking at the stars. Besides, that wasn't the fallacy in question in this thread. I don't think any idea is above criticism, and I would call most pagans and spiritualists much more than gullible, basically because I haven't found one of them who could convince me they truly believed anything. Most of them get bored and one day start waltzing around with a velvet cape and making excuses to do childish things like run in the park at night, which I'll admit is fun..but you are steering me off the point.Again, if I ask my houseguest tonight why it is that I have never heard ghosts, and he tells me it is because I have not been in a haunted place, is that a fallacy or a possibility?We are not even talking about why I don't believe in ghosts, just about why I don't hear them, but I guarantee if I started believing in them it would make it easier for me to 'hear' them, and vice versa. You guys want to know the idfference between a fairy tree and God? Belief, that's all.Imagine if the owner of the grounds where the tree was came out and said "a joke?, why I have seen the fairies many times!". Perhaps you would call him deluded, but the sign would no longer be a fallacy of Para's description. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I must ask, if you admit to not knowing or having answers, why you would toss away possibilities that are not falsifiable?

---

If it is not falsifiable, then there is no way of knowing if it is correct or not, since there's no way to test it.Such "possibilities" are useless, in other words.

quote:

---

I would expect more open-mindedness from non-religious people who are not 'convinced' of a scenerio. Yet in the previous post you scorned astrology and psychic readings? Perhaps you have falsified some things in your own mind?

---

I am quite open-minded, much more so than most religious people. I am open to any and all objective evidence in support of any phenomena anyone claims exists.If there is no objective evidence, however, then what's the point? There's no way to tell if the claim is true or not.

quote:

---

I am quite sure that folks don't go through life not knowing. Not knowing with certainty is one thing, but for all of our actions we must have some kind of reason. You can not live life without filling in the gaps one way or another, and state of true skepticism is rare.

---

It depends upon which "gaps" you are talking about.Remember, Brenna and I were talking about the "big questions"; does God exist, why are we here, is there an ultimate purpose to existence, etc. etc. etc.?I simply don't spend any time wondering about the answers to those questions, because they are unanswerable. Oh, many people pick various answers to those questions for lots of different reasons, but nobody really knows the answers.

quote:

---

To me, the question should not be asked to theists 'why don't you believe in fairies?' because obviously we already have a belief which is not compatible with or has no need/niche for their existance. I am more curious why those without compelling answers would not gather around the tree and try to prove something, rather than take it as a joke as well? Is it already a given that some things were falsified, and if so, why should thiests be the only ones answering the 'how?'?

---

I'm sorry, I don't understand your meaning.

I can't tell you if God exists, but I wouldn't consider a person who spends no time simply contemplating the big questions for themselves as a deep person of any sort. One need not dwell on them indefinitely, but I fail to see how an intelligent person can go through life without some goal posts set up for their own existence. It is crucial to Christian thought and many other philosphies as well, that every person can be a mediator or fulfill a special need for the world. At the very least I can say my purpose now is to provide a safe and supportive home for my children...but to what end?Objectively speaking, do we tell children that we have no idea why we are here, or do we tell them that everyone is special and can do great things for the world even without being noticed?How could you tell children there is no meaning to life? You may tell them you don't know, but perhaps they will find someone who claims they do. Children don't like not knowing, and honestly, adults don't either. That is what makes great scientists and philosophers and theologians. The rest of us have given up on the unanswered. We tend to let the petty and paltry daily grind get in the way of the real, big questions, because, yes, when you grow up there is so much more to deal with it almost does seem like life is just about work, laundry, social commitments...what?????Somehow, I don't see how anyone on this board could make a statement like 'I simply don't spend any time wondering about the big questions'. I thought that was the purpose of the board, oh well.

Technically it is a possibility. However given that nobody has ever managed to provide any objective or physical evidence for ghosts ever, despite numerous attempts and widespread familiarity with the concept it seems fair enough to dispute their existence.
I have never seen a black orchid. If I were to dispute their exitence however not only could it be pointed out to me that I have never looked in the right places, I could also be presented with a wealth of physical evidence as to their existence.
For this reason I do not believe in ghosts but I do beleieve in black orchids. You have quite neatly exposed the weakness of the faith based position. It is undoubtably true that belief in something will lead one to interpret subjective experiences as being consistent with that belief. This is regardless of whether or not the belief is factually true.
For this reason subjective and anecdotal accounts should not be treated as evidence for the existence of fairies, leprachauns or gods.
Physical evidence and the methods of science are the only reliable tools we have for determining what is true and what is not regards the physical world. Absolutely!! Both are equally unfounded but one has many more people duped.

I agree that anyone taking part in these debates must, almost by definition, have considered these questions and felt them worth considering whatever conclusions they eventually came to. I find the argument that we should advocate philosophies that provide answers (e.g. Christianity) simply because the idea of no absolute answers is too uncomfortable, horrifying?
What about the truth?
If the truth is that there are no sensible answers to such questions then that needs to be explained.
Indoctrinating children (or anyone else for that matter) into an unsubstantiated and irrational belief of supernatural beings purely to give meaning to their lives is no argument at all.
False belief will give false meaning.
Surely no meaning at all is better than that?????!!!!!!Anyway the idea that atheists wander aimlessly through life without meaning (as you are implying) is evidently foolish.
Equip children with the tools to ask the questions and deal with the answers.
Trust me that life without god but with purpose and meaning is more than possible. In fact better self defined real meaning than the delusional false meaning of the faithful.

Why wouldn't we be having this conversation? When I was a Christian I thought that feeling was the Holy Spirit entering my soul. When I was seriously considering Islam I thought it was the power of Allah and his benevolence. When I was a Buddhist I thought it was satori, when I was a spiritualist I thought it was the Cosmic Consciousness.How I interpreted the feeling depended on my belief system at the time. This isn't 'wow, look at the stars'. This is being reduced to tears at the shear intensity of life and the beauty of the cosmos. This is not a simple appreciation of nature, this is a temporary but very powerful cascade of emotions that cannot be described but can only be experienced.For all the attempted descriptions by religious people, it seems they experience God in a similar fashion that I did. Of course they don't, and I wasn't trying to say they do. They take the feeling of divinity they get from contemplating whatever it happens to be (in Francis Collins's case it wasn't stars it was a frozen waterfall if I recall correctly), and associate that with the descriptions of a great deity found in Bronze Age writings. Isn't really applicable here. For the example to be analagous it will have to take place at a haunted place. Then the excuse would be 'you are giving off negative thoughts' or some such. This is because in the example we are at the fairy tree and we are in the presence of God. We can be very quiet approaching the tree, or ask for a sign from God - but we'll always be too loud or not have enough 'Godsense'.Of course it is always a possibility that one of these random excuses turn out to be accurate, but there is no reason to believe them anymore than you would have any reason to believe me if I tell you about the gold coins that turn to brass when you open the purse. Why is it different when it is spoke aloud rather than written down on a sign?

Consider the favor returned. Personally I wouldn't consider someone who wastes their time wondering about questions to which answers can't be known to be particularly smart, or possessed of any particular curiosity into the world around us.What you're talking about isn't "deep"; it's the sort of freshman navel-gazing that gives the impressive appearance of depth.But anybody can ask questions that have no answer. That's the easiest thing in the world. Asking questions to which answers can be found is very difficult, indeed, and it's somewhat hilarious that the importance of these two very different activities are so often mistakenly reversed. I imagine we tell children whatever we think they need to hear, without much regard for what is true. Being an adult, however, means putting an end to childish things - like the arrogant assumption that the world exists for your convenience. We have a difference of opinion about what the "big questions" - worth spending time on - are. "What are species related?" is a big question. "What is the meaning of existence?" couldn't be a bigger waste of your time. Not really. What makes a great scientist is an adherence to the scientific method and a sense for what research will be fruitful.What makes for great philosophers and theologians is an incredible talent for making bullshit sound like wisdom.

Right. No one can, which is the point. Well, that's a nice ad hominem. But the fact is, there IS no meaning to life except for what we, as individuals, decide it is. If you decide to take your meaning of life from an old collection of books, that's your choice, but to someone who has no belief in such things, not much contemplation is really required. Right. And that doesn't take much thought at all. All it takes is a good moral background - which is irrelevant to belief in a deity or an old book. What further end is required to keep your kids safe and try to give them every opportunity possible? What greater end can you seek than improving the world in whatever way, large or small, you are able? Is there really a difference made when you are told to do so by your deity? Or is the promise of heaven your greater end? Either is irrelevant - the effect on the world is identical. False dilemma. We can tell them both. It is entirely true that there is no objective basis to assign any meaning to human existence other than "we're here, let's make the best of it." It is also true that individuals are unique, and are capable of making a difference in the world, great or small. Belief in a deity is irrelevant to these ideas. How could you tell your children there is no Santa Claus? You may tell them you don't know, but perhaps they will find someone who claims they do. So...belief in a deity is valid because it makes you feel better about the world. Believing I'm a multi-billionaire or that there is no such thing as poverty or world hunger or war makes me feel good, too - does that make it any more true? Do we tell our children such fantasies to make them feel better?

---

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

Anastasia,From what I quoted above (and from things you said elsewhere) I get the impression - correct me if I'm wrong - that you use the words 'falsify' and 'fallacy' slightly differently than is usual in science and logic, and because this is where I think some misunderstanding on your part stems from, I'll try to clear things up as best I can. If you already know everything I explain below, bear with me, maybe others will find it enlightening.The fact that you say 'are falsified' and not 'have been falsified' suggests to me that you think 'falsified' is simply a fancy word for 'false' or 'wrong'. Furthermore, the fact that you think that statements can be or not be fallacies, dependent on whether or not something 'is falsified' (or rather 'false'), strengthens this suggestion.First, 'falsified' does not simply mean 'false', it means that a statement, or a theory, has undergone a test to see whether or not it is true, and that the outcome of the test shows that it is, in fact, not true. So, something that 'has been falsified', is indeed false, but we know so because we have tested it.In science, one of the demands that is made of a theory is that it must be falsifiable, that is, it must be possible to devise a test that may tell us that the theory is false. Thus, if we perform the test, we will know either of two things: (1) "so far, the theory is not false" or (2) "the theory is definitely false". Both are OK, because either we have a theory we can still use, or we know how whatever the theory was about does not work. (Knowing how something does not work is useful information too.)Consequently, if a theory is not falsifiable - if it is not possible to think of a conclusive test - then we will not get to know either of those two things about the theory: we will not know that the theory is still useful, nor will we know that the theory is false. So, a theory which is not falsifiable does nothing to enhance our knowledge. We might as well discard it, and nothing would be lost.Second, a fallacy is an error of logic. If something is a fallacy, it is always a fallacy. It's fallaciousness does not depend on the truth of something else. Let me give an example: It may be true that Mr. Smith has said this, and it may also be true that Mr. Smith is indeed very famous, but the conclusion is still nonsense of course. This particular example is known as a fallacy of "appeal to authority". It is always a fallacy to reason like this, even is the conclusion is true, like in the following example: Rabbits a mammals alright, but not because Mr. Jones says so, they are because they are.Finally, to answer your question, the one I quoted above: no, I am not presuming anything to be false a priori, and do not conclude that "therefore all statements [about it] are fallacies". I am simply wondering why some people, who point out an ad hoc fallacy in one case - an obvious case - fail to see the same kind of ad hoc fallacy in another case - a case to which they themselves are partial (which may explain the oversight).If you have read this far, I thank you for your patience. I hope it has clarified a misunderstanding if there was one, and that you've not exploded with anger if there wasn't.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

- 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?