How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist? [Archive]

Goshawk

10th January 2006, 04:45 PM

You cannot prove a negative, Ian. You can't prove that something does not exist--you can only prove that something does exist.

Thus your OP's point is kinda moot, IMO.

"How do we know that there isn't any such thing as Narnia?" We don't. There may be a Narnia somewhere, and it's just that nobody has come up with any proof of its existence yet. So what? [shrug]

If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?
No. Because you can't prove that something doesn't exist.

Less than five years ago, there would have been many more than half-decent arguments against the existence of water on Mars. It's pointless to go by what "half-decent" arguments against something are out there, because as new data comes in, it can change, literally, overnight.

I'm sorry, I don't see where you're going with this, Ian. Did you just wanna shoot the breeze about the book, or the review, or Narnia, or Dawkins, or atheism, or what? I'm not surprised that the ID author of "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0268034710/103-6875541-3937418?v=glance&n=283155) wouldn't like a book that says that God did not design everything personally from scratch.

Euromutt

10th January 2006, 05:04 PM

Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's apparently knows doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion? If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?Yes, let's keep this simple. If you're going to try and discredit Dawkins, you're obliged to attack what he actually says. Dawkins doesn't say there are no world/universes like Narnia; he says there is no Narnia specifically.

Based on articles such as this Guardian article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,6000,1657200,00.html) on the Ulster landscape which inspired C.S. Lewis in giving shape to Narnia, or this "For Dummies" piece (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-3206.html) on whether the Narnia series was intended to be allegorical, it's safe to say that the status of Narnia as fictional has never been in question. After all, a discussion on whether or not a particular work is (intended to be) allegorical presupposes that the work in question is fiction. And if Lewis himself said Narnia was fictional, I'm much inclined to take his word for it.

That's the simple answer.

Jeff Corey

10th January 2006, 05:09 PM

Who is this "Dawkins"? The OP dealt with "Dawkin's" who way or may not exist, unless you are a hopelessly silly materialist.

Outhere

10th January 2006, 05:14 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

10th January 2006, 05:23 PM

Give it up, folks. We shall have a world where:

$\forall x\, \exists x {\rm ~unless~} x {\rm~has~been~disproven}$

~~ Paul

Rat

10th January 2006, 05:39 PM

Is anyone arguing that Narnia actually does exist? If not, then this whole discussion is moot.
Surely all the good discussions are on matters moot? Or are you complaining about the apostrophe abuse and then abusing the word moot? Or is it that I am out of touch, and the dictionaries are now allowing the use of this word to mean pointless, as opposed to debatable?

Cheers,
Rat.

JLam

10th January 2006, 05:43 PM

Odin

10th January 2006, 05:44 PM

It used to exist until the Invisible pink unicorn (PBUH) ate it.

Jeff Corey

10th January 2006, 05:47 PM

Wot, the apostrophe?

Jon.

10th January 2006, 05:48 PM

Surely all the good discussions are on matters moot? Or are you complaining about the apostrophe abuse and then abusing the word moot? Or is it that I am out of touch, and the dictionaries are now allowing the use of this word to mean pointless, as opposed to debatable?

Cheers,
Rat.

Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot), dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot), and Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) all do. The OED (http://http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=moot&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname), however, does not.

I would argue that the OED is, sadly, out of touch with current usage of the word, at least in North America. Here, a "moot point" is generally seen as one with no practical value.

Jeff Corey

10th January 2006, 05:56 PM

I thought it referred to an ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of the shire. Why would they have a pointless bloody meeting? Hadn't they better things to do, like flogging the peasants, serfs and kine?

Dr Adequate

10th January 2006, 06:21 PM

William of Occam must be turning in his grave.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 06:23 PM

There is no evidence of Narnia. Anyone who claims Narnia exists will be asked to provide evidence of it. If they cannot do so, their claim can be dismissed.

Shifting the burden of proof. If the claim is that you know Narnia type worlds do not exist, then you must present arguments or/and evidence. Furthermore these arguments or/and evidence must be sufficiently compelling to justify the assertion we know that Narnia type worlds do not exist.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 06:26 PM

Back to the point.

Is anyone arguing that Narnia actually does exist? If not, then this whole discussion is moot.

Somebody is asserting that narnia type worlds do not exist; namely Richard Dawkins. I was wondering if he or anyone else can justify his assertion.

Ian, please clarify. Are you claiming that Narnia does exist, or simply that it might exist?

It's not important what I believe.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 06:32 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

10th January 2006, 06:42 PM

Jus' wondered if there were any arguments against the existence of world's only accessible via magic, that's all. So there isn't?
Okay, now I'm getting freaked out by the weird apostrophe stuff. You want to know if there are any arguments against the existence of places that can only be reached by magic. What does it mean to get someplace by magic?

~~ Paul

HeyLeroy

10th January 2006, 06:45 PM

Paul hit the nail. First, 'magic' must be demonstrable.

gnome

10th January 2006, 06:57 PM

Dawkins stated it doesn't exist. If he has no arguments or evidence why should anyone believe him?

Jus' wondered if there were any arguments against the existence of world's only accessible via magic, that's all. So there isn't?

If it makes you feel better, any time someone says something doesn't exist, you can presume they mean, "as far as is reasonably known to current human knowledge". But of course I don't know everything that could possibly be known. Is it really reasonable to make people always tack on, "but of course I don't know everything that could possibly be known." explicitly? That would make conversations a little lengthy... but of course I don't know everything that could possibly be known about conversations.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:08 PM

If Narnia existed, it must be a place created by an Oxford don where no one uses an apostrophe other than to show possession (not the demonic kind) or as a contraction, as in It's for "it is." For god's sake, what is being taught in English classes these days, in this wicked world?

Jesus Christ.

I was thinking he was called Dawkin and not Dawkins.

Having said that I certainly do not rate my English Language skills particularly highly. I can't remember ever getting taught any grammar, and if I did I certainly didn't listen. The only subjects I had any remote interest in at school were mathematics and physics. I scarcely ever listened in any other subject and I only passed in those 2 subjects. And I never did any homework for any subject. However, compared to the English Language skills of the average person on the Net I think you should devote your energy to criticising someone else.

Or you could actually make a stab at answering my question :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:13 PM

Jeff Corey

10th January 2006, 07:13 PM

... And I never did any homework for any subject...
Their's a lots of that goin around.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:21 PM

Okay, now I'm getting freaked out by the weird apostrophe stuff. You want to know if there are any arguments against the existence of places that can only be reached by magic. What does it mean to get someplace by magic?

~~ Paul

You know, by chanting spells or whatever.

The wardrobe which they went through to get into Narnia was made from the wood from an apple tree grown from an apple originally obtained from Narnia. Because the apple was obtained very shortly after Narnia was created by magic, the apple itself was magic. Thus the wardrobe made out of the tree grown from the apple might have had an affinity for where it ultimately originated from. Hence when the children entered the wardrobe they were pulled into Narnia (albeit only sometimes).

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:25 PM

If it makes you feel better, any time someone says something doesn't exist, you can presume they mean, "as far as is reasonably known to current human knowledge".

No they don't mean that. They mean what they say.

Spektator

10th January 2006, 07:25 PM

I get this weird image in my mind: Galilee, 32 A.D.

Listener: "Dawkin, is it right to--"

Jesus: "What did you call me?"

Listener: "Uh, Dawkin?"

Jesus: "Please don't call me that. You can call me Jesus Christ if you want."

Listener: "Jesus Christ." [Aside, to a disciple] "I thought he was called Dawkin."

Disciple: "He gets that a lot."

Bone_Vulture

10th January 2006, 07:32 PM

No they don't mean that. They mean what they say.

Look, we might as well start arguing whether biblical events occured or not. There's no positive scientific evidence to be found, so it all boils down to faith.

What next, should we start questioning people who say dragons do not exist? :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:33 PM

Peoples' fixation on my grammatical skills proves I've won the argument :)

Goshawk

10th January 2006, 07:33 PM

Dawkins stated it doesn't exist.
No: Dawkins' statement was that in his opinion, Narnia does not exist. He is in no position to make a definitive statement as to whether or not Narnia exists, because he has no evidence for the non-existence of Narnia, because you cannot have evidence that something does not exist. See? You can only have evidence that something exists. That's what the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" MEANS, Ian.

And just because someone says a thing does not exist, does not automatically make it not exist. Just because someone says there is no water on Mars does not automatically make there be no water on Mars. For decades we assumed, lacking evidence to the contrary, that there was no water on Mars, but we had no evidence that there was no water on Mars.

Bone_Vulture

10th January 2006, 07:36 PM

Peoples' fixation on my grammatical skills proves I've won the argument :)

I see no correlation. Where is your proof?

Spektator

10th January 2006, 07:36 PM

I'm not fixating on Ian's grammatical skills, and I'm not arguing with him.

JLam

10th January 2006, 07:39 PM

Jyera

10th January 2006, 07:42 PM

Dawkins stated it doesn't exist. If he has no arguments or evidence why should anyone believe him?
Here's my POV.
I think Ian rightly pointed out that unless Richard Dawkins present strong arguement or evidence, his assertion have to be discounted.

Moveover, there is no necessity for me to rely so heavily of Richard Dawkins.
I rely on other sources of evidence.

Somebody is asserting that narnia type worlds do not exist; namely Richard Dawkins. I was wondering if he or anyone else can justify his assertion.
I think I could.

Firstly, the context in real life is that there is a movie and book called "Narnia", featuring the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I would bet each one of us have had enough experience opening wardrobe, that we know there is no magical land within any wardrobe.

If it is that particular Wardrobe that is accessible to Narnia, it certainly exist within a movie studio. And I think no one has step forward to say such a really magic wardrobe exists.

There is no winning application to JREF million dollar challenge on the claim by anyone to own a wardrobe that goes to Narnia.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:43 PM

I see no correlation. Where is your proof?

People are a laugh a minute on here! None of you guys ever present any proof, so why is it I am always obliged to do so?

The evidence is suggestive in that people are focusing on irrelevant issues i.e my grammatical skills

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:50 PM

Is it really necessary to use the qualifier "as far as I know" following every single statement?

Ian, I will make the statement that there are no miniature twin brothers of Arnold Schwarzenegger living in your sock drawer, too small to be seen even by a scanning electron microscope.

As far as I know, anyway.

Do you require proof that such miniature Schwarzeneggers do not exist, or will you accept that as a safe bet, given what you know about the universe?

We know through experience of the world that this is unlikely.

Other worlds are certainly a tangible possiblity. We can't dictate what they must be like and so another world might or might not be similar to Narnia.

Reaching them by magic? I agree that this would be unlikely if it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that magic never works. Do you have any peer reviewed references?

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 07:53 PM

Firstly, the context in real life is that there is a movie and book called "Narnia", featuring the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I would bet each one of us have had enough experience opening wardrobe, that we know there is no magical land within any wardrobe.

But the wardrobe was made from magic wood grown from a magic apple obtained from Narnia at the dawn of its birth.

gnome

10th January 2006, 07:57 PM

No they don't mean that. They mean what they say.

So unless they ALWAYS tack on the disclaimer that they don't have infinite knowledge, you believe they think they do?

Antiquehunter

10th January 2006, 08:01 PM

Somebody is asserting that narnia type worlds do not exist; namely Richard Dawkins. I was wondering if he or anyone else can justify his assertion.

Dawkins' position is specific: "The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”

At no point does Dawkins state there are no 'Narnia type' worlds. He says there is no Narnia and no Toyland. C.S. Lewis never suggested for a second that Narnia is real, I have yet to hear from a 'Lucy' suggesting they have the magic wardrobe - I think that observable evidence indicates there is no Narnia - Dawkins' point proven.

As to the non-existence of Narnia type worlds, I'd suspect Dawkins is (as am I) highly doubtful that they exist.

Ian - are you trying to turn this into an atheist vs agnostic argument? Something along the lines of "You cannot prove there is no Narnia-type fantasy world, so you have to remain open to the idea?"

Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence. IF there is a Narnia type world out there, the burden of proof lies with its inhabitants to show us the wardrobe. In the absence of any compelling reason to 'believe' in 'LikeNarnia Land' and with all observable evidence suggesting that wardrobes tend to have solid back walls, not witches distributing boxes of funky turkish delight - I think most rational thinkers, Dawkins included, would be comforatable in stating that no Narnia type worlds exist.

Bone_Vulture

10th January 2006, 08:30 PM

People are a laugh a minute on here! None of you guys ever present any proof, so why is it I am always obliged to do so?

I presented an argument, are you going to counter it?

The evidence is suggestive in that people are focusing on irrelevant issues i.e my grammatical skills

That's your interpretation, not evidence.

PixyMisa

10th January 2006, 08:49 PM

Induction.

No claim of magic has ever been borne out.

Therefore no claim of magic will ever be borne out.

Therefore there is no Narnia.

We could be wrong. But we're not, because the idea is silly.

bruto

10th January 2006, 08:50 PM

Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot), dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot), and Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) all do. The OED (http://http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=moot&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname), however, does not.

I would argue that the OED is, sadly, out of touch with current usage of the word, at least in North America. Here, a "moot point" is generally seen as one with no practical value.

That's the Compact Edition of the OED you're getting there. The proper dead tree version does add as its last synonym, "doubtful," and the instances cited do suggest that in actual use this doubtfulness was often used with a sense of irony. "My Lords and gentlemen," says he, "it is a very moot point to which of those causes we may ascribe the universal dulness of the Irish." (Swift)

Taken as meaning that a moot point is always debatable, and thus irresoluble and essentially pointless, I would suggest that the common usage seen in Goshawk's original instance is permissible. The question of whether chicken or egg came first is classically moot.

FramerDave

10th January 2006, 08:54 PM

Let me just make sure I have this straight...

Sane (I assume) adults are actually proposing that a world invented by a fiction writer, one that can only be accessed through a magical wradrobe, really exists? And someone assumes this to be true because nobody has taken the trouble to seriously investigate it and prove it false?

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Interesting Ian

10th January 2006, 08:55 PM

Dawkins' position is specific: "The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”

At no point does Dawkins state there are no 'Narnia type' worlds.

It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect.

Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.

What constitutes a fantastic claim depends upon the Weltanschauung lens through which one views the world.

IF there is a Narnia type world out there, the burden of proof lies with its inhabitants to show us the wardrobe. In the absence of any compelling reason to 'believe' in 'LikeNarnia Land' and with all observable evidence suggesting that wardrobes tend to have solid back walls, not witches distributing boxes of funky turkish delight - I think most rational thinkers, Dawkins included, would be comforatable in stating that no Narnia type worlds exist.

Does the same apply to all other possible Universes?

PixyMisa

10th January 2006, 08:59 PM

It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect.

And your evidence for this assertion is?

What constitutes a fantastic claim depends upon the Weltanschauung lens through which one views the world.

:notm

Does the same apply to all other possible Universes?

Skwerdle fnardlish.

Amapola

10th January 2006, 09:06 PM

No they don't mean that. They mean what they say.

Dude. Listen to yourself - one minute you say the above, and then when someone says he meant there is no Narnia you say -

It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect

But that is NOT what Dawkins said - he said NARNIA. Maybe you should read the OP again.

Jyera

10th January 2006, 09:27 PM

But the wardrobe was made from magic wood grown from a magic apple obtained from Narnia at the dawn of its birth.
You need to show the undeniable "persistence".
What you said above has no "persistence" in reality.

Show me a magic wardrobe, apple tree that will be there day after day after day. Show me magic that works in a persistent fashion.
Bring me to the place called Narnia, and bring me there again tommorow.
Build me a magic wardrobe.

I bet the persistent thing we could find are Narnia story books, and Narnia DVD video disks. One charactistic of Narnia, is the persistent lack of a real life talking lion. And persistent lack of talking lion remains so day after day after day. It is Really just fictional.

The persistent tangible things about Narnia, as well as the "persistent lack-of", jointly, defines Narnia. As much as a sponge full of holes defines a sponge.

Jeff Corey

10th January 2006, 09:27 PM

...What constitutes a fantastic claim depends upon the Weltanschauung lens through which one views the world...
Astounding insight! Ones world view depends upon ones world view.

Jyera

10th January 2006, 09:35 PM

...Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence. ....
I understand what you mean. But seriously it tickled me.

Fantastic is derived from Fantasy.

So your sentence is abit akin to saying that, Claims that contains much fantasy need to be justified by fantasised evidence. :)
Which I don't think that's what you meant.

Antiquehunter

10th January 2006, 09:40 PM

I was trying to remember the exact Carl Sagan quote - perhaps it was 'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'. (I don't have my books here in Kabul.)

Anyways - I trust you got my drift.

TjW

10th January 2006, 09:40 PM

Jyera

10th January 2006, 09:53 PM

Does the same apply to all other possible Universes?
I take "possible universe" to mean non-existence but nevertheless, realistically imagined.

"Possible" and "persistence" I feel are 2 very important words.
Importance of "Possible" is "overated".

Possible universe are not as important as "persistent" universe.
If Narnia creatures like talking lion and centaur start walking out into our world, and interact with us, it is much more real than an imagined universe.

In fact, persistence fiction of Narnia, with it's widely published books and movie, is much more "real" than an imaginary universe within the mind of a single unknown person in timbukto.

KingMerv00

10th January 2006, 10:07 PM

Shifting the burden of proof. If the claim is that you know Narnia type worlds do not exist, then you must present arguments or/and evidence. Furthermore these arguments or/and evidence must be sufficiently compelling to justify the assertion we know that Narnia type worlds do not exist.

This is just silly. Of course the burden is on you. It is an impractical impossibility to disprove an infinite number of theories. You seem to think the burden is on us just because you asked a question first.

Presumably, you do not believe in Narnia. Why not?

Also, prove to me you aren't Odin.

Euromutt

10th January 2006, 10:07 PM

Dawkins stated it doesn't exist. If he has no arguments or evidence why should anyone believe him?Dawkins may not state arguments or evidence, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Rather, I would surmise that he does not bother to state them because they are blindingly obvious to anyone with a mental age over eight years old. There is no positive evidence of the non-existence of Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc. etc. et-sodding-cetera, but they are known to be the product of human imagination, and nobody in his mind accuses people of being unreasonable for stating that these entities do not exist.

Jyera

10th January 2006, 10:13 PM

It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect.

I'm interested to know, what was it that, you think Richard Dawkins rejected; that which made his philosophical interpretation of reality incorrect.

Kochanski

10th January 2006, 10:23 PM

Shifting the burden of proof. If the claim is that you know Narnia type worlds do not exist, then you must present arguments or/and evidence. Furthermore these arguments or/and evidence must be sufficiently compelling to justify the assertion we know that Narnia type worlds do not exist.

Ok, this is just stupid, you are talking about a work of FICTION since when do we have to prove that a FICTIONAL world does not exist? Do we have to prove that Middle Earth doesn't exist too? Or Discworld? Or Ooopaloompa land?

This is just dumb, I am going back to playing with my cards, far more interesting building Lotus legal L5R decks than this nonsense.

Jeff Corey

10th January 2006, 10:26 PM

Oh no? You mean the Stars Wars universe doesn't exist and Ian is not Jar Jar Blinks?
Mr. Bill voice:OOOH NOOO

Kochanski

10th January 2006, 10:38 PM

Oh no? You mean the Stars Wars universe doesn't exist and Ian is not Jar Jar Blinks?
Mr. Bill voice:OOOH NOOO

Ah, if he was Aerosith would have such fun with him ;)

Back to cards now.....

Pastor Bentonit

10th January 2006, 10:41 PM

This is just silly. Of course the burden is on you. It is an impractical impossibility to disprove an infinite number of theories. <snip>

Also, prove to me you aren't Odin.
Ah, but he is Odin, a particularly amusing troll.

delphi_ote

10th January 2006, 11:31 PM

Jus' wondered if there were any arguments against the existence of world's only accessible via magic, that's all. So there isn't?

So if we want to be precise, we should probably say that we don't know if there are any worlds only accessible via magic, not that these other worlds don't exist. It would totally alter our understanding of the universe if we somehow found one, but they may well be out there.

That said, until someone sells me a wardrobe with another universe inside, I'll go ahead and assume they don't exist.

Odin

11th January 2006, 04:40 AM

Also, prove to me you aren't Odin.

Interesting Ian is not is not to my knowledge my sock puppet, though there is still slight possibility.:D

Odin

11th January 2006, 04:42 AM

Chance of existence of
http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu1.gif=http://www.merch-bot.com/images/bumper-stickers/sm/flying-spaghetti-monster-sticker.gif=http://www.walden.com/images/narnia/main/mid_left.jpg=???

gnome

11th January 2006, 06:35 AM

No they don't mean that. They mean what they say.

So unless they ALWAYS tack on the disclaimer that they don't have infinite knowledge, you believe they think they do?

(i'm getting Deja Vu here)

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 06:42 AM

Dude. Listen to yourself - one minute you say the above, and then when someone says he meant there is no Narnia you say -

But that is NOT what Dawkins said - he said NARNIA. Maybe you should read the OP again.

He said:

"The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”

Now it is absolutely absurd to suggest that he was merely talking about a specific place that somebody made up. First of all it would be entirely uninteresting to say that Narnia doesn't exist since no one has ever declared otherwise. Secondly the context makes it clear anyway. 'No Narnia exists, no Toyland exists, no angels exist'? He's clearly talking about the general case in all these instances.

Suppose that there does indeed exist a Universe very similar to Narnia with talking animals blah blah, suppose there do exist entities extremely similar to traditional angels but differing in some totally trivial detail. Suppose there is a "toyland" but not exactly the same "toyland" as . .er . .Enid Blyton made up in her Noddy books? Faraway tree books? (or is it some other toyland he's talking about?). So toys are sentient in this land but it differs in some trivial detail from the toyland made up in Blyton's books. Teddy and Dolly are not sentient, but Barbie might well be??? Jeez!!

Are you seriously suggesting that he's quite happy to suppose all these type of things might exist and he literally simply means the examples he gives?? Of course not! He's asserting none of these type of things exist! Otherwise what he's saying is entirely vacuous.

sphenisc

11th January 2006, 06:45 AM

I would think C.S Lewis knew if it existed,and to my memory he was a writer of childrens fiction,which kind of gives it away.

Not necessarily, not all aspects of a work need to be fictional in order for it to be described as fiction. Ian Rankin's fictional detective Rebus is based in Edinburgh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/excessbaggage/index_20050101.shtml

[Note to self : Sometimes I am too anal.]

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 06:46 AM

I was trying to remember the exact Carl Sagan quote - perhaps it was 'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'. (I don't have my books here in Kabul.)

Anyways - I trust you got my drift.

And who decides what is an extraordinary claim? Skeptics or seekers of the truth?

SirPhilip

11th January 2006, 06:48 AM

Somebody is asserting that narnia type worlds do not exist; namely Richard Dawkins. I was wondering if he or anyone else can justify his assertion.

It's not important what I believe.
I take it you really liked the movie, didn't you?

PixyMisa

11th January 2006, 06:51 AM

And who decides what is an extraordinary claim?

Me.

(Monday to Friday, 8 AM to 4 PM AEST, anyway. 1900-XTRORD. Premium rates apply.)

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 06:52 AM

I take "possible universe" to mean non-existence but nevertheless, realistically imagined.

"Possible" and "persistence" I feel are 2 very important words.
Importance of "Possible" is "overated".

Possible universe are not as important as "persistent" universe.
If Narnia creatures like talking lion and centaur start walking out into our world, and interact with us, it is much more real than an imagined universe.

In fact, persistence fiction of Narnia, with it's widely published books and movie, is much more "real" than an imaginary universe within the mind of a single unknown person in timbukto.

Possible Universes mean they might exist. Some people believe there is a googolplex of parrellel Universes.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 06:53 AM

This is just silly. Of course the burden is on you. It is an impractical impossibility to disprove an infinite number of theories. You seem to think the burden is on us just because you asked a question first.

Presumably, you do not believe in Narnia. Why not?

Also, prove to me you aren't Odin.

Dawkins stated none of these exist. So he has absolutely no reason or evidence for such an assertion apart from saying if they do exist I should prove it?

UrsulaV

11th January 2006, 06:53 AM

I take it you really liked the movie, didn't you?

Well, in all fairness, the faun was pretty hot...

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 06:58 AM

I take it you really liked the movie, didn't you?

I haven't seen it. Nor am I interested in watching it.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th January 2006, 06:58 AM

You know, by chanting spells or whatever. Like "oogah boogah baloney"? Do you have an example of a spell that works?

No they don't mean that. They mean what they say. Not me, babe. I mean what Gnome said. In fact, you can prepend "In my opinion" to every damn thing I say.

People are a laugh a minute on here! None of you guys ever present any proof, so why is it I am always obliged to do so? We don't think there is proof! That's why we're telling you to add various conditions to our statements.

But the wardrobe was made from magic wood grown from a magic apple obtained from Narnia at the dawn of its birth. It's a work of fiction.

Ian, if you want to assume that everything not illogical exists unless proven otherwise, really, be our guest. We don't care. And if you want to find every statement that anyone has ever uttered that seems to contradict that idea, really, go to town. We still don't care. When will we care? When you offer evidence.

~~ Paul

aggle-rithm

11th January 2006, 07:04 AM

He said:

"The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”

Now it is absolutely absurd to suggest that he was merely talking about a specific place that somebody made up. First of all it would be entirely uninteresting to say that Narnia doesn't exist since no one has ever declared otherwise. Secondly the context makes it clear anyway. 'No Narnia exists, no Toyland exists, no angels exist'? He's clearly talking about the general case in all these instances.

I agree that he's not talking about a specific place. All the things he refers to here -- Father Christmas, Toyland, Narnia, guardian angels, etc. -- are things that children believe in because we are all hard-wired for magical thinking when we are young. What Dawkins is saying is that we (mostly) leave these things behind when we grow up.

(Come to think of it...the Bible says the same thing!)

Beliefs that come about through magical thinking are no longer useful when we grow up and have to deal with the real world. It's not necessarily that they aren't true (although they probably aren't), they just have no relevance in the here and now.

(Edited to add: )

To be fair, I haven't read Dawkins book yet. But it's on my list!

(Edited to add the apostrophe)

(Edited yet again to remove the unintended smiley-face)

aggle-rithm

11th January 2006, 07:11 AM

You know, by chanting spells or whatever.

The wardrobe which they went through to get into Narnia was made from the wood from an apple tree grown from an apple originally obtained from Narnia. Because the apple was obtained very shortly after Narnia was created by magic, the apple itself was magic. Thus the wardrobe made out of the tree grown from the apple might have had an affinity for where it ultimately originated from. Hence when the children entered the wardrobe they were pulled into Narnia (albeit only sometimes).

Does anyone else get a bad case of MEGO when people start explaining the mechanics of make-believe processes? May as well describe how the builders erected Sponge Bob's house out of a pineapple.

Antiquehunter

11th January 2006, 07:17 AM

Sponge Bob is real. No one can prove that Sponge Bob type alternate reality worlds do not exist so Bikini Bottom lives on.

-Mr. Crab (with his head in the sand)

drkitten

11th January 2006, 07:43 AM

Sane (I assume) adults are actually proposing that a world invented by a fiction writer, one that can only be accessed through a magical wradrobe, really exists?

No. Interesting Ian is proposing that a world invented by a fiction writer, one that can only be accessed through a magical wardrobe, really exists.

Check Ian's posting history before you make presumptions of sanity.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 07:44 AM

I agree that he's not talking about a specific place. All the things he refers to here -- Father Christmas, Toyland, Narnia, guardian angels, etc. -- are things that children believe in because we are all hard-wired for magical thinking when we are young. What Dawkins is saying is that we (mostly) leave these things behind when we grow up.

(Come to think of it...the Bible says the same thing!)

Beliefs that come about through magical thinking are no longer useful when we grow up and have to deal with the real world.

Yes precisely! I haven't read the book (I haven't read any of his books, nor do I ever intend to. The guy's an idiot) but to me it's extremely clear that he means that none of these type of things exist. He's saying that all these things which we wished and hoped to be true, or exist, don't actually exist. Not just Narnia and Toyland but any other Universe which one can enter through magical means. Narnia, Charn (the Universe where the "white Witch" originally comes from), or whatever do not exist. None of them do, not just Narnia!

We had a propensity to believe that such places might well exist when we were children, but when we grew up we realised they didn't exist. That is to say that I suspect his point is that when we are adults we have the intelligence to realise that these type of places do not exist. However even as adults we still have psychological yearnings for the world to be a more magical interesting place than what cold reality indicates, and this is why we believe in a God looking after us, and a "life after death" where we will meet our loved ones when we die and live in profound happiness for eternity. But it's our immaturity and lack of intelligence which makes us believe in such things. Science tells us what the world is like, and it just ain't like that.

That's what it seems to me he is driving at.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 07:54 AM

No. Interesting Ian is proposing that a world invented by a fiction writer, one that can only be accessed through a magical wardrobe, really exists.

Check Ian's posting history before you make presumptions of sanity.

Oh yes? I hope you have some evidence that I made such an assertion.

uruk

11th January 2006, 08:15 AM

I think Dawkins can claim that places like Narnia and Toy Land do not exist because they are admitted works of fiction. I'm sure we can claim that the planet Tatooine does not exist because George Lucas admittedly created the fictional planet. He also does not claim that Tatooine actually exists.

Now lack of evidence is not evidence for non existance, but on the other hand you cannot claim that something exists unless you have proof or evidence for it's existance. You can only claim a possibly to exist.

Having said that, we come to the arena of "probability to exist".

I can claim that a Narnia type world has an extremely low probablity of existance as to be practicaly zero because of the improbable nature of all the characteristics that make up it's existance. (i.e. talking lions, majic, access via an article of furnature, etc.) There has been no recorded or proven instances of a lion with excellent english diction or an article of furnature which posseses a passage way to an alternate universe within its confines or an irrefutable example of majic and soforth. Untill there is some sort of proof for it's existance I can can safely claim that a Narnia type world does not exist with a reasonable level of assurity because of the extremely low level of probability for the existance of a Narnia type world. But I will add that if you can show me proof I will reasses my evaluation.

Remember the argument is not wether a Narnia type world exists or not, just wether I can claim that it does not exist or not.

Hastur

11th January 2006, 08:32 AM

We had a propensity to believe that such places might well exist when we were children, but when we grew up we realised they didn't exist. That is to say that I suspect his point is that when we are adults we have the intelligence to realise that these type of places do not exist. However even as adults we still have psychological yearnings for the world to be a more magical interesting place than what cold reality indicates, and this is why we believe in a God looking after us, and a "life after death" where we will meet our loved ones when we die and live in profound happiness for eternity. But it's our immaturity and lack of intelligence which makes us believe in such things. Science tells us what the world is like, and it just ain't like that.

That's what it seems to me he is driving at.

And . . . the point of this whole diatribe of yours is . . . what, Ian? Even if such parallel universes exist, so what? They do not intrude upon or otherwise affect ours in any manner that we have ever observed. Therefore, applying parsimony, they just as well may not exist. This is only an intellectual exercise that has meaning to Ivory-Tower-types like philosophers and poseurs like you, Ian

H3LL

11th January 2006, 08:34 AM

Tut!
Shame!

Narnia does exist, and you can visit it. Did no one check?

NARNIA (http://www.coloridellumbria.com/narni.html)

:D
.

Kochanski

11th January 2006, 08:39 AM

And who decides what is an extraordinary claim? Skeptics or seekers of the truth?

And why do you differentiate between Skeptics and seekers of the truth? Skeptics are seeking the truth, always, looking for proof of what is claimed. Seeking scientific evidence of things.

You can NOT scientifically prove the existence of a FICTIONAL world. You can prove that someone wrote it, created it in their brain and described it and told stories about it on paper, but that is as far as it goes.

Get over Dawkins' literary allusions. Stop nitpicking, sheesh, you belong with the catagory of card players who will argue over the meaning of the word "the". There are better things you can do with your life and I am off to do them.

petre

11th January 2006, 08:40 AM

Dawkins did not claim that worlds like Narnia do not exist. Dawkins claimed that "in the adult world", worlds like Narnia do not exist. By this he means in the world model used by productive adults, the existance of fantasy worlds is deemed false as a means to simplify decisions. For example, I did not waste any time this morning considering whether or not to try out my closet (I lack a wardrobe) as a portal to Narnia. I simply went about my day.

Just as "in everyday life" gravity is a force acting on objects that makes them fall downwards. Though in reality gravity is more like a bending of space that produces the illusion of acceleration in objects obeying their inertia, that does not invalidate my original sentence.

Therefore, since Ian has requested evidence, I shall provide some. I am an adult (I suppose we could debate that point, but perhaps some will accept that on faith) and in my world view, worlds like Narnia do not exist. I maintain potentiality models in which they do exist, but I do not use them with observations to make predictions about future events.

alfaniner

11th January 2006, 10:14 AM

How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

I just know.

Prove that I don't.

Belz...

11th January 2006, 10:38 AM

Shifting the burden of proof. If the claim is that you know Narnia type worlds do not exist, then you must present arguments or/and evidence.

Funny thing about the burden of proof, is that everyone thinks it's not on them. Let's just assume, for a second, that everyone has the burden of proof:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL NARNIA.

There.

Other worlds are certainly a tangible possiblity. We can't dictate what they must be like and so another world might or might not be similar to Narnia.

I agree, however. Given that there probably are other "universes" like our own, an infinity even, it's surely likely that ONE of them will be like Narnia. However, chances are you can't travel to it by "magic". I don't think supernatural forces can exist in ANY universe.

But the wardrobe was made from magic wood grown from a magic apple obtained from Narnia at the dawn of its birth.

I know, I know. But that's a book, Ian. A book.

sackett

11th January 2006, 10:41 AM

Ok.…This is just dumb, I am going back to playing with my cards, far more interesting … than this nonsense.

And yet you came back.

And I don’t blame you. I always open an Interesting Ian thread because, dammit, he’s interesting! Or rather, the patient explanations he provokes are interesting -- and informative. I’d know even less than I do but for reading refutations of Ian’s implacable stupidities.

We should remember that the lens Implausible Ion sees through is frequently the bottom of a bottle. (He’d admit this, and proudly, if he didn’t have me on iggy.)

Drunk or otherwise (note that I don’t use the word “sober”), Iain is useful. The arguments smarter people bounce off his solid bone enter the minds of many a lurker, and do some good out in the world. I’d be sorry to see him leave.

Something else about Ian: He’s utterly fearless, he’s crazy-brave. He’s the sort of guy you put in the first wave of an infantry attack. Yes, he’ll have his tin hat strapped on sideways; yes, he’ll shed loose gear with every sturdy step; no, you wouldn’t give him any command more complicated than “Charge!” But no matter what, he’ll keep advancing, bayonet fixed. Do I sound a little admiring? Well, I am.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 12:09 PM

Funny thing about the burden of proof, is that everyone thinks it's not on them.

Skeptic: X does not exist.

II: Oh I see. Em . . .what makes you say that?

Skeptic: I do not need to give any reasons since the concept of X is an extraordinary one.

II: But that's just it. You might think it is an extraordinary notion to suppose that X exists, but I don't. Anyway, this is besides the point. If you assert that X exists that you must give some evidence and/or reasons.

Skeptic: One cannot prove a negative.

II: Well you can eg you can prove there is not a elephant in your bedroom right now by simply opening your bedroom door and looking inside.

But anyway, what it boils down to is that you personally have a conviction that X does not exist, and yet you are quite unable to provide any reasons or to give any evidence to support your assertion.

Skeptic: Yes that is correct.

II: Fair enough. End of thread.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th January 2006, 12:19 PM

II: Well you can eg you can prove there is not a elephant in your bedroom right now by simply opening your bedroom door and looking inside. Yeah, and if you ever make a claim about the existence of a specific, unitary object with directions on how to find it, I'm happy to undertake the burden of opening the door and checking. But that's not the sort of claim you make, is it?

In fact, how about this Narnia thing? Let's say Dawkins was talking about the specific, unitary, fictitious Narnia in the books. I'm happy to undertake the burden of proof. Where is the wardrobe? I'll open the door and check.

~~ Paul

uruk

11th January 2006, 12:36 PM

KingMerv00

11th January 2006, 12:48 PM

But anyway, what it boils down to is that you personally have a conviction that X does not exist, and yet you are quite unable to provide any reasons or to give any evidence to support your assertion.

Do you really go around believing in everything? Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff? How do YOU determine what exists and what doesn't?

You still haven't shown to me why you aren't Odin. (The Norse god, not the poster.)

Johnny Pixels

11th January 2006, 12:49 PM

Well you can eg you can prove there is not a elephant in your bedroom right now by simply opening your bedroom door and looking inside.

You mean right now? The elephant might cease to exist in my bedroom in the time between 'right now' and me opening the door, or he could've walked through my wardrobe into Narnia of course

VoloVersio

11th January 2006, 01:06 PM

You mean right now? The elephant might cease to exist in my bedroom in the time between 'right now' and me opening the door, or he could've walked through my wardrobe into Narnia of course

Or it could be that the elephant is invisible and incorporeal

Bone_Vulture

11th January 2006, 01:11 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th January 2006, 01:11 PM

The Invisible Pink Elephant Orbiting Ian's Bedroom.*

~~ Paul

* With apologies to Melendwyr.

Belz...

11th January 2006, 01:14 PM

Skeptic: X does not exist.

II: Oh I see. Em . . .what makes you say that?

We have no evidence to suggest that it does. Provide evidence, otherwise everything is possible, and nothing needs to be proven.

delphi_ote

11th January 2006, 01:35 PM

But anyway, what it boils down to is that you personally have a conviction that X does not exist, and yet you are quite unable to provide any reasons or to give any evidence to support your assertion.

Too bad your arguments fall flat when you insert a real opponent in there instead of a strawman.

What reasons do we have to believe that Narnia or a place like it don't exist? It violates all known laws of physics. All experimental knowedge mankind has gained so far tells us you can't climb through a wardrobe and end up in a magical world.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 01:53 PM

The argument should go:

Skeptic: X does not exist

II: why is that?

Skeptic: Because there is no evidence to support it existance. And besides the characteristics of X requires the existance of other things which have not shown to be true or to exist either.

II: But the lack of evidence does not mean that something does not exist.

Skeptic: True, but you cannot say that a thing exists if you do not have evidence to support it existance. So I am justified in saying that X does not exist unless you have any evidence to say otherwise.

II: Ok smarty pants prove to me that Narnia does not exist.

Skeptic: Like Paul said, show me the wardrobe and we'll check it out.

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

Jon.

11th January 2006, 02:20 PM

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

Actually, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, Dawkins asserts that Narnia does not exist, not that places like Narnia do not exist. As you seem to understand when it is convenient to you, these are not the same thing.

If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

Had Dawkins said "We have no reason to believe that places like Narnia exist, and we should therefore act as though they do not exist", would that have made you happier, Ian?

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 02:24 PM

Yeah, and if you ever make a claim about the existence of a specific, unitary object with directions on how to find it, I'm happy to undertake the burden of opening the door and checking. But that's not the sort of claim you make, is it?

In fact, how about this Narnia thing? Let's say Dawkins was talking about the specific, unitary, fictitious Narnia in the books. I'm happy to undertake the burden of proof. Where is the wardrobe? I'll open the door and check.

~~ Paul

Will people stop going on and on and on and on about irrelevancies?

I perfectly understand that it is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a negative.

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

gnome

11th January 2006, 02:27 PM

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 02:29 PM

Too bad your arguments fall flat when you insert a real opponent in there instead of a strawman.

What reasons do we have to believe that Narnia or a place like it don't exist? It violates all known laws of physics.

Fine, then go into detail about how it violates them. Otherwise people might think you're talking through your backside.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 02:34 PM

[/font][/color]

Actually, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, Dawkins asserts that Narnia does not exist, not that places like Narnia do not exist. As you seem to understand when it is convenient to you, these are not the same thing.

[color=black][font=Verdana]

Jesus Christ! People on here are so incredibly stupid! I just cannot believe that human beings can be sooo stupid!

I just simply cannot believe it!

Absolutely incredible!

alfaniner

11th January 2006, 02:35 PM

Or it could be an invisible elephant on another plane of existence. ...

Or he escaped through the wardrobe.

With the witch.

uruk

11th January 2006, 02:38 PM

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.
The burden of proof inevitably shifts to the proof for rather than the proof against. Why is that? Because things that exist are evident through proof and observation and interaction. Dawkins can make that claim that Narnia does not exist because to disprove Dawkins requires that you prove that a Narnia type world exists. Or at least show evidence supporting the Narnia type world exists. Dawkins proof is that there is no evidence and that the probability for the existance of a Narnia type world is so low as to be considered non existant.

If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.
But the difference is that those thing have born out to exist by evidence and proof. If a Narnia type world does exist then there will be proof and evidence for its existance which remains to be discovered. If there is no evidence, then you cannot say that it does exist. (you know, innocent untill proven guilty or Non existant untill proven existant) You can only say that there is a possibility (or rather a probability) for a Narnia type world to exist. A possibility which can be strengthend if there are things which are known to exist which are similar to the characteristics of a Narnia type world. Say for instance a talking lion, or a piece of furniture that acts as a door way to an alternate universe, or that a form majic exists. But a lack of those things which support its existance decreases its possibility (or probablity) to exist. Things which which have a very low probablity of existance can pretty much be handled as if they do not exist at all. For example, there is a very small probability that something I drop will fall up, but that probability is so small that that I can safely say that it will never fall up.

Besides, it's more ludicrous to say that something exists for which there is no proof or evidence for it's existance. Otherwise You can't tell me that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist because how would you know that a horse with a single horn on it's head and is transparent to light in the visible spectrum but yet retains the characteristic of being pink cannot exist? Are there any half decent arguments which show that IPU do not exist?

DreadNiK

11th January 2006, 02:53 PM

Will people stop going on and on and on and on about irrelevancies?

Since this entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of the burden of proof, I suggest you listen to yourself.

I perfectly understand that it is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a negative.

Some would say impossible.

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.
[/QUOTE]

Most people won't care if you think they are an hopeless incorrigible idiot, since you somehow think that anyone saying 'Narnia doesn't exist' must then back themselves up or appear an idiot. At the very least, you are being extremely pedantic. Do you insist everyone makes certain they've qualified every single thing they say to you to avoid being an idiot in your eyes?

If I were to say, for example, that "Leprechauns don't exist" would you immediately assume I was an idiot for not saying "To the best of my knowledge, leprechauns don't exist"? What if I said all oranges are orange, would you insist that I actually said all oranges I have ever seen or heard of are orange?

Have you a point to this thread other than unbelievable pedantry?

Goshawk

11th January 2006, 03:02 PM

People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever!
Yes, we can. That's because it's not our job to prove that things don't exist--it's your job to prove that things do exist. Read the manual, Ian.

I did not know that SpongeBob's house was made out of a pineapple. But that is probably because I no longer have preschoolers around.

So, Aggle-rithm, what's your excuse for knowing a thing like that? :D

Belz...

11th January 2006, 03:04 PM

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

Actually, all he does is state the default position given the current evidence. Only by providing more evidence could you change the default position.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 03:04 PM

II
That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

Uruk
The burden of proof inevitably shifts to the proof for rather than the proof against. Why is that? Because things that exist are evident through proof and observation and interaction. Dawkins can make that claim that Narnia does not exist because to disprove Dawkins requires that you prove that a Narnia type world exists. Or at least show evidence supporting the Narnia type world exists. Dawkins proof is that there is no evidence and that the probability for the existance of a Narnia type world is so low as to be considered non existant.

You need to consult a dictionary to find out what the word "proof" means. A proof is not an assertion which has zero evidence to suppose it is true, and has zero reasons to suppose it is true. To assert something as being definitely true but without any reason or any evidence to support their assertion is, quite frankly, rank stupidity.

If the existence of a Narnia type world is of extremely low probability, then this is an assertion which simply must be justified. Otherwise why should myself or anyone else believe you?? People can pull as many assertions from their backsides as they like, but if they are wholly lacking any evidence and/or reasons to support their assertions, then it's just that i.e their backsides talking.

II
If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

Uruk
But the difference is that those thing have born out to be true by evidence and proof.

Well yeah. So a 17th century Dawkins would have asserted mobile (cell) phones do not and cannot exist, meteorites cannot and do not exist, heavier than air flight cannot and never will exist, human beings travelling faster than 30mph cannot and never will exist.

If a Narnia type world does exist then there will be proof and evidence for its existance which remains to be discovered. If there is no evidence, then you cannot say that it does exist.

Good job that I never have then :rolleyes:

bruto

11th January 2006, 03:04 PM

Will people stop going on and on and on and on about irrelevancies?

I perfectly understand that it is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a negative.

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

So you keep saying, but you have not apparently provided any idea of what to you would constitute reasonable justification. I would say that the nonexistence of Narnia is unprovable, but hugely, overwhelmingly likely to the point of reasonable certainty, in part because as far as I know no sane human being has actually been there or anywhere like it, and because I am aware that the person who created Narnia intended it to be a literary fiction. This is not proof, but is it not good enough to work from?

Other magical realms, I would contend, are nearly as unlikely even though we cannot assign their authorship so convincingly. Mgical realms contradict what most of us consider to be the laws of physics and nature, and would require the addition of beliefs and principles we do not espouse. Nothing of this sort is provable, but if we have no positive reason to believe something does exist, and numerous reasons to believe that it is unlikely, why must we have a negative reason specific to that one thing? If I have good reasons for believing that there are no pink unicorns in general, must I come up with a locally specific reason why there is no pink unicorn in my bedroom?

Anyway, you allow that aside from evidence you would also accept reasons. I might, for example, state as my reason for believing that Narnia and other magical realms are nonexistent, the evidence-free reason that they contradict my religious beliefs. What if divine revelation has told me that these places cannot exist? I don't see any way that such a statement could be any less valid than any reason anyone could give for believing that they do exist, unless you can come up with some very reliable testimony or perhaps vacation snapshots from Narnia or whatever other magical realm you last visited. If something is entirely speculative, and unprovable, Why is "I don't believe in it" any less a reason than "I do believe in it?"

How about looking at it from the other side: what would induce you to consider seriously a claim that Narnia does exist? If I invited you to duck into my wardrobe (After you, sir...) would you do it? Why not? Are you actually not at all skeptical about the existence of Narnia, or are you playing a game?

PixyMisa

11th January 2006, 03:16 PM

Induction.

Does Ian have me on ignore here as well?

Bone_Vulture

11th January 2006, 03:20 PM

They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide [B]reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

THAT'S RIGHT!

You better have a good reason for not believing that there is in fact an invisible pink elephant orbiting my bedroom! :rolleyes:

Cetecea

11th January 2006, 03:39 PM

The wardrobe which they went through to get into Narnia was made from the wood from an apple tree grown from an apple originally obtained from Narnia.

I propose you show me a single apple tree that is large enough to produce the wood needed to build a wardrobe that large...

uruk

11th January 2006, 03:42 PM

You need to consult a dictionary to find out what the word "proof" means. A proof is not an assertion which has zero evidence to suppose it is true, and has zero reasons to suppose it is true. To assert something as being definitely true but without any reason or any evidence to support their assertion is, quite frankly, rank stupidity.
Hmmmm, proof , proof..ah here we go!
From dictionary.com:

"proof:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof. "

Since there is noone asserting or belivieving that a Narnia type world exist why would Dawkins have to go through the trouble of supporting his assertion? If someone came up with an objection I'm sure Dawkins might oblige. How about taking him to task personnaly? Otherwise you'll have to deal with the peanut gallery.

If the existence of a Narnia type world is of extremely low probability, then this is an assertion which simply must be justified. Otherwise why should myself or anyone else believe you?? People can pull as many assertions from their backsides as they like, but if they are wholly lacking any evidence and/or reasons to support their assertions, then it's just that i.e their backsides talking. I believe that some here have been giving you arguments as to why a Narnia type world is improbable.

Well yeah. So a 17th century Dawkins would have asserted mobile (cell) phones do not and cannot exist, meteorites cannot and do not exist, heavier than air flight cannot and never will exist, human beings travelling faster than 30mph cannot and never will exist. Well, for a 17th century Dawkins a cell phone would not exist, and since he would be long dead today, would never exist for him. (considereing that he would know what a cell phone was in the first place) Cell phones exist because someone born well after the 17th century invented a cell phone. If the cell phone was never invented the cell phone would never exist.
All those people were justified in thier claims because they were limited to what they knew. Time and discovery bore them out to be wrong. Just like today, we believe that man will never go faster than the speed of light because of what we understand about TLOP right now. We may achieve it, we may not. That is for future history to determin. But right now I can say the we will never go faster than the speed of light because everything we know tells us that we can't. I can be justified in saying that untill the day we actually do achieve FTL travel. Of course at that point the necessary understanding which would allow us to achieve FTL travel would be making itself evident and support for my assertion would be waning. Someone can't say with assurity that we will go faster than the speed of light because that only remains a possibility at this point. He can only be proven right when we actually do go FTL.

11th January 2006, 04:33 PM

Well, I see the hypocrite is slipping into his old tone of voice again - calling everyone idiots and stupid when it is he, himself, who is most deserving of such titles.

The burden of proof lies to the claimant of any given claim. As long as no one claims that Narnia is a real place, there is no need to prove it is not real. Just as it is not necessary to prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist, or that there are not, in fact, purple elephants in my underwear. The entire concept of 'prove this imaginary thing is not real' is a moronic way to approach a question to begin with.

Now, if someone comes along and makes a positive claim, such as "Narnia is a real place", it is the responsibility of the claimant to prove that Narnia does, indeed, actually exist. It is NEVER the responsibility of a claimant of a negative to prove a thing does NOT exist, unless they are attempting to refute evidence of an allegedly existential thing. For example, if we claim that Rhode Island does not actually exist, it is our responsibility at that point to refute all available evidence that says that Rhode Island exists; however, note that this absolutely REQUIRES that someone has made the positive claim that R.I. does, in fact, exist.

There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist.

I almost let this one slip by... OK, Ian: name any ONE thing for which "there has been no evidence for in human history", which we nevertheless managed to be shown exists? I'm really curious how we can be shown something exists if absolutely no evidence for its existence exists?

petre

11th January 2006, 06:21 PM

Ian, where is your proof for your claim that you are the lion from Narnia?

delphi_ote

11th January 2006, 06:42 PM

Fine, then go into detail about how it violates them. Otherwise people might think you're talking through your backside.

Do I really need to explain to you in detail why a magical wardrobe to another world is not in accord with the known laws of physics?

gnome

11th January 2006, 06:42 PM

Guess I don't get an answer. As has been said in another forum... Evasion noted.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th January 2006, 06:46 PM

Do I really need to explain to you in detail why a magical wardrobe to another world is not in accord with the known laws of physics?
Yes, yes you do.

~~ Paul

PixyMisa

11th January 2006, 07:01 PM

Not that it will do any good.

delphi_ote

11th January 2006, 07:02 PM

Yes, yes you do.

~~ Paul

If anyone actually does that, I'm afraid we're going to have to re-think the whole "homo sapiens are the most intelligent species" hypothesis. I propose felis silvestris catus.

Dunstan

11th January 2006, 07:31 PM

Well yeah. So a 17th century Dawkins would have asserted mobile (cell) phones do not and cannot exist, meteorites cannot and do not exist, heavier than air flight cannot and never will exist, human beings travelling faster than 30mph cannot and never will exist.

I doubt it. In his presentation at TAM3, Dawkins drew a distinction between the paranormal and the "perinormal."

I'm going on memory here, but I believe he defined the paranormal as (roughly) "things for which there is no evidence and for which we do not expect to find evidence because it would contradict a great deal of existing, reliable evidence."

The "perinormal" was (again, roughly and from memory) "things for which there is no evidence, but for which evidence might someday be found without contradicting existing, reliable evidence."

Dawkins even speculated that the JREF Challenge could someday be won by such a "perinormal" claim.

So I doubt that your hypothetical 17th Century Dawkins would be so quick to exclude the possibilities you list.

HeyLeroy

11th January 2006, 07:37 PM

(snip) I haven't read the book (I haven't read any of his books, nor do I ever intend to. The guy's an idiot) (snip)

Very open-minded. Having not read his books, on what do you base your opinion?

Since this entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of the burden of proof, I suggest you listen to yourself.
(snip)
Have you a point to this thread other than unbelievable pedantry?

:clap:

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 07:44 PM

Do I really need to explain to you in detail why a magical wardrobe to another world is not in accord with the known laws of physics?

Don't try to worm out of your position. You said that the very existence of a world like Narnia violates all known laws of physics. So we can, for the sake of argument, suppose that magic doesn't exist. We can even suppose that such a world or worlds (Universes) are completely inaccessible.

Now what I want to know is how the existence of Universes similar to Narnia violates all physical laws??

Laws are just descriptions of reality. Reality has no obligation to constrain itself to act in accordance with what modern western science dictates.

A question: What about Robert J. Sawyer's 3 novels regarding a parallel Universe where Neanderthals became the dominant humans with a technological society, and where we died out? Does such a Universe also violate all physical laws?

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 07:47 PM

Take 3:

Interesting Ian:

Please respond. If I don't want you to think I am claiming infinite knowledge, must I always say so?

Regarding "You can't prove a negative"... I would rephrase that to "You can't prove a negative in an infinite space." ... that is, if an infinite amount of evidence were needed to prove it.

I can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist ANYWHERE in all of reality... but I can prove that it's not in my room. Unless someone claims the EB is invisible...

What do you want me to respond to? There's nothing for me to say. As I said, people simply need to provide reasons or evidence to justify the assertion that Narnia type worlds do not exist. I see nothing of any relevance in your posts to this question.

Interesting Ian

11th January 2006, 07:49 PM

Very open-minded. Having not read his books, on what do you base your opinion?

On reading various articles written by him and from seeing him on numerous TV programmes.

PixyMisa

11th January 2006, 07:52 PM

Laws are just descriptions of reality.

Yes.

Reality has no obligation to constrain itself to act in accordance with what modern western science dictates.

Obviously not. Rather, the reverse is true. Science (the "modern western" attribution is nonsensical) is constrained to describe reality.

Since it does so, extremely successfully, and since it makes no allowance at all for gateways in wardrobes leading to magical worlds, we conclude that such things do not exist.

A question: What about Robert J. Sawyer's 3 novels regarding a parallel Universe where Neanderthals became the dominant humans with a technological society, and where we died out? Does such a Universe also violate all physical laws?

No.

It just doesn't exist.

KingMerv00

11th January 2006, 08:59 PM

Ian, your problem seems to be that Dawkins did not qualify his statement.

Fine, he was wrong not to do so. Are we done now?

Jyera

11th January 2006, 09:06 PM

...snipe... . As I said, people simply need to provide reasons or evidence to justify the assertion that Narnia type worlds do not exist. I see nothing of any relevance in your posts to this question.
Ian asserted that Dawkins referred to "No Narnia type world exists" when Dawkins asserted that "(there is) No Narnia". What Dawkins really meant, have to be verified by Dawkins. Since Dawkins isn't here, it won't be useful to speculate.

And I would say that, so far, Ian have not achieve success in convincing all here that Dawkins meant "No Narnia type world".

Ian need to decide now his options:
(1) To continue to try to convince others about what he thinks Dawkins meant.
Or
(2) To continue to discuss about the existence of "Narnia type world"/"place like Narnia" and exclude any discussion about Dawkins' opinion.

Ian need to decide. Because ...
(1) he is the thread starter. And we ought to respect his intended areas of discussion.
(2) The thread title is "How do we know that places like Narnia do not exists?" Not "Did Dawkins ....." .
(3) If Ian err by placing counter-productive distraction of talking about Dawkins, he need to be aware and to stop it.

Ian, if you indeed do NOT want to talk about Dawkins. Then it would be your responsibility to define "places like Narnia" or "Narnia type world" so that fruitful discussion can be conducted.

"Places like Narnia" has to be defined by Ian or by Dawkins depending on Ian's intend. Since Dawkins isn't here, it is meaningless to get Dawkins to define it. And thus it falls on Ian shoulder to define it.

We should all wait for Ian to give us an anchor to the definition of "place like Narnia".

Antiquehunter

11th January 2006, 09:06 PM

Ian, your problem seems to be that Dawkins did not qualify his statement.

Fine, he was wrong not to do so. Are we done now?

Actually - I don't think Dawkins should have to qualify every literary statement he prints in a book. A scientific declaration - absolutely. But IN MY OPINION - anyone reading Dawkins' works who sincerely believes that Narnia-type places may exist, or that it is relevant to allow for their existence using obscure logic (because of multiple universes etc...) is a nutbar.

delphi_ote

11th January 2006, 11:21 PM

Don't try to worm out of your position. You said that the very existence of a world like Narnia violates all known laws of physics. So we can, for the sake of argument, suppose that magic doesn't exist. We can even suppose that such a world or worlds (Universes) are completely inaccessible.

Now what I want to know is how the existence of Universes similar to Narnia violates all physical laws??

Laws are just descriptions of reality. Reality has no obligation to constrain itself to act in accordance with what modern western science dictates.

A question: What about Robert J. Sawyer's 3 novels regarding a parallel Universe where Neanderthals became the dominant humans with a technological society, and where we died out? Does such a Universe also violate all physical laws?

Well that post was certainly all over the place. Careful. You keep throwing it into random gears like that and you'll ruin the transmission.

I think you're asking me for a list of all of the laws of physics and how a fantasy novel violates each of them. Grown ups have better things to do with their time. If you want a starting place, an ocean going vessel cannot fit inside a wardrobe. If you need more than that, you're on your own.

As for your random name dropping of some particular novel by Sawyers, why does it matter? It's a book. It's not real. Maybe you'll have to cry yourself to sleep a few nights at that revelation, but you'll get over it like you got over Santa not being real. Or did I just ruin that for you, too?

Ignoring that bit of pedantry and moving on to the bit about the universe not being obligated to follow the laws of physics the evil European closed minded devils invented just to restrict you free thinkers (translating what you meant by "western science" there,) if you can show me an instance of reality not conforming to the laws of physics, we'll talk. Until then, I'll be busy with the rest of the scientists trying to learn more and make our world a better place (you know, the REAL world. Not Narnia.)

Yeah_Right

12th January 2006, 12:22 AM

Well, approaching this from another direction, we can assume that Dawkins thought about the existence of Narnia like worlds, and given the lack of evidence, he concluded there are no Narnia like worlds. Just like any sane adult would.

Even if there were such worlds, how would we get to them? Unless there was some sort of inter-dimensional device that created a portal to these other worlds. I'm not really talking magic here, more of something based on physics and science of course. But such a machine is extremely unlikely, rather like a wardrobe created from a magical apple tree. But assuming the worlds are magical, I think it's safe to assume they don't exist. My reason for saying this? Lack of evidence. And, of course, there's no way to say that magic even exists let alone using it to travel to other realms.

Belz...

12th January 2006, 05:52 AM

What do you want me to respond to? There's nothing for me to say. As I said, people simply need to provide reasons or evidence to justify the assertion that Narnia type worlds do not exist. I see nothing of any relevance in your posts to this question.

As it's been explained to you, although it is POSSIBLE that Narnia exists, assuming there are an infinity of other universes covering all possible laws and configurations, there is simply no evidence that there ARE other universes, or that there specifically is a NARNIA. Until such evidence is shown, it is reasonable to conclude that it does not exist. Otherwise we'd be believing in every piece of fiction even thought up. Get it ?

Loon

12th January 2006, 06:04 AM

The half-decent argument for the non-existence of Narnia (and any other wardrobe bound universes) is that we have yet to detect even the smallest shred of evidence for them. The only reason we might think they exist at all is because some guy said "Hey! This would be a neat way to write an allegory about Jesus."

It's certainly possible that there multiple fantastic universes in each bit of furninture. But until we we find some reason to think they actually are there (as opposed to finding ways to dance around all the stuff we know about how the universe works in hope of finding a kingdom in the cupboard), my money sits firmly on "Narnia doesn't exist."

Jekyll

12th January 2006, 06:12 AM

gnome

12th January 2006, 06:32 AM

What do you want me to respond to? There's nothing for me to say. As I said, people simply need to provide reasons or evidence to justify the assertion that Narnia type worlds do not exist. I see nothing of any relevance in your posts to this question.

Please, try to engage your memory. When I asked if Dawkins had to proclaim his lack of infinite knowledge, to keep you from interpreting his statement as a claim that he DID have infinite knowledge, you said that he meant what he said. I'm asking now if that is a universal standard--if language disclaiming infinite knowledge must be appended to statements that are known for all practical purposes to be true, but cannot be disproven without infinite knowledge.

THAT is what I want you to respond to--can someone say "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist"... or do they have to say "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but only as far as we know, in this infinite universe somewhere there could be an Easter Bunny."?

Tricky

12th January 2006, 06:43 AM

THAT is what I want you to respond to--can someone say "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist"... or do they have to say "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but only as far as we know, in this infinite universe somewhere there could be an Easter Bunny."?
Actually, we do have evidence the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

Not any more, at least.
http://img39.exs.cx/img39/7854/easterbunny16tg.jpg

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th January 2006, 06:45 AM

If you want a starting place, an ocean going vessel cannot fit inside a wardrobe. If you need more than that, you're on your own.
D00d, it's a portal.

~~ Paul

aggle-rithm

12th January 2006, 07:03 AM

What reasons do we have to believe that Narnia or a place like it don't exist? It violates all known laws of physics. All experimental knowedge mankind has gained so far tells us you can't climb through a wardrobe and end up in a magical world.

Not only does Narnia defy the laws of physics, it defies the rules of simple logic. For instance, is Narnia a universe, or just a small country? At different times in the books, it is described as both. So which is it? Is there a country Narnia within a universe Narnia?

I think the answer is: If you have to ask, you're missing the point. It's a children's story. The places and situations are created soley as story-telling devices. I think Lewis was interested in telling moral tales first, creating vivid imagery second, and was concerned with the logic of his make-believe world last of all.

THAT is why I think this whole discussion is fairly pointless. But then, perhaps I'M missing the point.

aggle-rithm

12th January 2006, 07:08 AM

On reading various articles written by him and from seeing him on numerous TV programmes.

Does he send coded messages to you with hand signals? You could sue for that, you know.

Lothian

12th January 2006, 07:25 AM

Dawkins said “The adult world may seem a cold and empty place” he is talking about how adults (with a few exceptions) do not believe in fairies, Santa and Narnia (due to the lack of evidence not dues to the lack of their existence). He then goes on to say however that the world is not cold and empty but fascinating and wonderful.

The point he makes is not that there is no Narnia nor that there is no evidence for Narnia. He makes the point that if people want their wonder gene satisfied they only need to look at what the real world has to offer.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 07:36 AM

Not only does Narnia defy the laws of physics, it defies the rules of simple logic.

Which laws of physics does it defy and how? How can a different Universe defy physical laws in our Universe.

Also what rules of logic does it defy?

For instance, is Narnia a universe, or just a small country?

It's a country. Therte's also Archenland and umm . .can't remember. Loads of places. I can tell you haven't read the books! But we'll call it the Narnia world/Universe lacking any other name.

At different times in the books, it is described as both. So which is it? Is there a country Narnia within a universe Narnia?

Yes.

I think the answer is: If you have to ask, you're missing the point. It's a children's story. The places and situations are created soley as story-telling devices. I think Lewis was interested in telling moral tales first, creating vivid imagery second, and was concerned with the logic of his make-believe world last of all.

THAT is why I think this whole discussion is fairly pointless. But then, perhaps I'M missing the point.

I still fail to understand the rules of logic it contravenes. Could you name these logical rules and how it contravenes them?

And can someone tell me if parrallel worlds like Robert Sawyer's Neanderthal Universe could not exist?

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 07:38 AM

Lothian

12th January 2006, 07:48 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.Very good Ian you are getting the idea. Now Richard Dawkins is saying that it seems that way to you but in fact the world is a wonderful place and science (as opposed to wishful thinking) is the key to this magical world

Dr Adequate

12th January 2006, 07:50 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished. ... and where all the inhabitants are made entirely of straw.

Ersby

12th January 2006, 07:52 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.

:D

Well, at least this explains why Ian's so angry all the time.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th January 2006, 07:54 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.
Let's assume this absurd description for a moment. I'll ask you one more time: How does a world where everything is Mind and I live forever improve the situation? Can I have some specifics?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 07:58 AM

Tricky

12th January 2006, 08:01 AM

:D

Well, at least this explains why Ian's so angry all the time.
Good point. He reminds me of...

Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.

Miniver loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would send him dancing.

Miniver sighed for what was not,
And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
And Priam's neighbors.

Miniver mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
And Art, a vagrant.

Miniver loved the Medici,
Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.

Miniver cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing:
He missed the medieval grace
Of iron clothing.

Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.

Miniver Cheevy, born too late,
Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Miniver coughed, and called it fate,
And kept on drinking.

-- Edwin Arlington Robinson (http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/index_poet_R.html#Robinson)

Belz...

12th January 2006, 08:13 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.

Ridiculous. The materialistic world is a wonderful and fascinating place. Purpose ? What better world than one in which you can decide your own purpose ?

Belz...

12th January 2006, 08:15 AM

To be replaced by despair. It is inimical to the yearning spirit.

Is that what bugs you ? I don't understand why people who find the real world too bleak decide to intentionally try to see the imaginary as actual. Thinking about things does not make it true.

Really, Ian. You're not that "Interesting" at all.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 08:19 AM

Is that what bugs you ? I don't understand why people who find the real world too bleak decide to intentionally try to see the imaginary as actual. Thinking about things does not make it true.

Really, Ian. You're not that "Interesting" at all.

The real world is not too bleak. Reason shows that the materialist/atheist Weltanschauung is flat out wrong (as I have shown many times on here). Moreover the collective experience of mankind throughout history and across all cultures testifies against this modern western Weltanschauug.

Godmode

12th January 2006, 08:24 AM

There's just as much proof for narnia as there is for god. A book. And if I had to choose between the 2, I'd choose Narnia, it's far more entertaining and well written. :)

After reading that book I was constantly flinging open doors hoping. Not believing, mind you, but hoping that there'd be something magical behind it. There's nothing wrong with imagining things, as long as you don't believe it's reality.

Dr Adequate

12th January 2006, 08:58 AM

To be replaced by despair. It is inimical to the yearning spirit.
That depends on what you yearn for.

I like real stuff. Tastes differ.

Bone_Vulture

12th January 2006, 09:23 AM

The real world is not too bleak. Reason shows that the materialist/atheist Weltanschauung is flat out wrong (as I have shown many times on here). Moreover the collective experience of mankind throughout history and across all cultures testifies against this modern western Weltanschauug.

Fancy word translation offered by dictionary.com. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Weltanschauung)

world·view Pronunciation Key (wûrldvy)
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

bruto

12th January 2006, 09:28 AM

I still have not seen a satisfactory answer why, given the lack of credible evidence that there actually are places like Narnia, why simply "I do not believe in it" is not a complete enough answer to the issue of whether one believes in it. If even a little bit of evidence suggests that Narnia or its like would violate our rational expectations of how the world behaves, then "I do not believe in it" trumps "I believe in it" unless some other evidence or experience changes the balance. Faith is not the default position.

12th January 2006, 09:34 AM

Jon.

12th January 2006, 09:55 AM

There's just as much proof for narnia as there is for god. A book.

Gee, do you think this might be the reason for II's posts on this thread?;)

UrsulaV

12th January 2006, 10:01 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.

That's nice, but the fact that you want wonder does not constitute proof of the existence of Narnia.

I might think it were more wonderous if rhinos were hot pink, but no matter how much I want the hope and wonder of the pink rhino, rhinos will obstinately continue to be brownish-grey, because reality is not predicated on what I think would be cool.

Belz...

12th January 2006, 10:10 AM

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 10:12 AM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th January 2006, 10:17 AM

Belz...

12th January 2006, 10:24 AM

This has nothing to do with my statement since I am not offering it as an argument. It was simply an observation. I have supplied a vast number of arguments which strongly suggest the materialist/atheist metaphysic is incorrect.

What, that there is no God and no spiritual world ? That there are no paranormal phenomena ? Is that what you're referring to ? Or did I miss something ? And, if I did, please provide ONE of those arguments.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 10:43 AM

Ian, I think you missed my question:

Let's assume your absurd description for a moment. I'll ask you one more time: How does a world where everything is Mind and I live forever improve the situation? Can I have some specifics?

~~ Paul

It's got nothing to do with whether all is mind or whatever. Once we reject any materialist metaphysic then anything is possible. Infinite possibilities abound. For a kick-off there's the possibility of an ultimate purpose to the Universe, our lives and all things, together with all this implies.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 10:45 AM

What, that there is no God and no spiritual world ? That there are no paranormal phenomena ? Is that what you're referring to ? Or did I miss something ? And, if I did, please provide ONE of those arguments.

What's a spiritual world?

A rejection of materialism does not necessitate a God, or paranormal phenomena or anything really. It allows for those possibilities though.

Belz...

12th January 2006, 10:57 AM

What's a spiritual world?

A rejection of materialism does not necessitate a God, or paranormal phenomena or anything really. It allows for those possibilities though.

Could you state your position clearly, then ?

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 11:14 AM

Could you state your position clearly, then ?

My position on what?? My beliefs about the purpose of life and the Universe?

gnome

12th January 2006, 11:17 AM

II: Your response to my clarifying questions? Tell you what, I won't pull the Claus thing on you. If you don't care to discuss it, just say so.

UrsulaV

12th January 2006, 11:18 AM

I have supplied a vast number of arguments which strongly suggest the materialist/atheist metaphysic is incorrect.

None of which I've found even remotely convincing, or in most cases, coherent. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th January 2006, 11:33 AM

It's got nothing to do with whether all is mind or whatever. Once we reject any materialist metaphysic then anything is possible. Infinite possibilities abound. For a kick-off there's the possibility of an ultimate purpose to the Universe, our lives and all things, together with all this implies. How do infinite possibilities help? What sort of ultimate purpose would make you feel better? Give me a couple of possibilities.

What does the "materialist metaphysic" have to do with anything? Regardless of your preferred metaphysic, there is either evidence for a greater purpose or there isn't. Where's the evidence?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 11:42 AM

How do infinite possibilities help? What sort of ultimate purpose would make you feel better? Give me a couple of possibilities.

What does the "materialist metaphysic" have to do with anything? Regardless of your preferred metaphysic, there is either evidence for a greater purpose or there isn't. Where's the evidence?

~~ Paul

It's an implicit feeling and knowing.

aggle-rithm

12th January 2006, 11:45 AM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.

Let's say that all the wonderful, magical things are true. Let's say that when we die we leave the "Shadowlands" and go to a wonderful, magical place where we can laugh and play and live forever.

What is there to hope for there? What is the purpose of life there?

This is not a rhetorical question. I would seriously like to hear your answer.

(I personally believe that hope, wonder and purpose are relative, and that this holds just as true in a materialistic universe as in a magical one.)

aggle-rithm

12th January 2006, 11:51 AM

That's nice, but the fact that you want wonder does not constitute proof of the existence of Narnia.

I might think it were more wonderous if rhinos were hot pink, but no matter how much I want the hope and wonder of the pink rhino, rhinos will obstinately continue to be brownish-grey, because reality is not predicated on what I think would be cool.

Interesting point. If rhinos WERE hot pink, we wouldn't all go around with silly smiles on our faces all the time, thinking, "Wow! Rhinos are hot pink!" It would be the norm. We would get used to it. We would see them once in a while on nature shows and think, "Huh! A pink rhino!" then go about our business.

I think in a like manner, if supernatural phenomena were proved to be true, it would get boring real quick. The woos would always strive for something that ISN'T demonstrable, and ignore those wondrous things that are. Just as they do now.

DreadNiK

12th January 2006, 12:02 PM

It's an implicit feeling and knowing.

And poof! your argument vanishes. Now that's magic...

uruk

12th January 2006, 12:13 PM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.
I'm sorry but I do not share this view that you have. I do not find this world to be cold and impersonal, without hope, without wonder, and without purpose. I define my purpose, I see wonder in everything around me, I find warmth and companionship easily. I see hope in world that is not controlled by a vengefull, inconsistant and vain diety that easily dismisses human life. I try to appreciate and enjoy this existance and not mope around and hope that there's a better one somewhere else.

uruk

12th January 2006, 12:21 PM

It's an implicit feeling and knowing.
Otherwise known as a "hunch". Yep, that's definitely an air tight rational argument that shows the materialistic/athiesitic Weltanschauug to be incorrect.

KingMerv00

12th January 2006, 12:25 PM

It's an implicit feeling and knowing.

:eye-poppi :wide-eyed :jaw: :jaw-dropp :yikes: :tr:

Belz...

12th January 2006, 01:12 PM

My position on what?? My beliefs about the purpose of life and the Universe?

What is the materialistic world-view and why don't you agree with it ?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th January 2006, 01:16 PM

It's an implicit feeling and knowing.
And why is this bit of mood-making not possible without the additional mood of idealism?

~~ Paul

12th January 2006, 01:31 PM

See, here's the problem:

Ian doesn't much like the real world. He would like to believe in a lot of things. Problem is, they don't exist, in a real world, unless he can first prove that the real world is not a naturalist/materialist one; then there's wriggle room for all sorts of nonsense.

So he grasps helplessly for terms like 'counter-intuitive' and 'implicit feeling', still apparently unable to realize these things have no validity in the real world.

...while hypocritically returning to a place he claimed to be done with. *shrug* Oh well..

Hastur

12th January 2006, 03:44 PM

:eye-poppi :wide-eyed :jaw: :jaw-dropp :yikes: :tr:

You just figured that out? ;)

hellaeon

12th January 2006, 04:09 PM

I hate these fence sitting arguements. It reminds me of blokes sitting around stoned all going oh wow about coincidences and the like. Its a friggin story. The world IS an INCREDIBLE and AMAZING place, beyond what we fantasize it to be. Biotechnology, Micro Biology, NanoTech, Personal Computers, Internet...F*k me, why do people want to live in a fantasy over this? Man, we are surrounded by the most incredible discoveries and the like, yet people still will clutch at straws. Pondering a story or a statement that cant be proved otherwise is not nearly as amazing as to me sitting on my laptop, watching live sport on a projector, hooked to my wireless network, remotely connected to my work pc, distributing applications across other pc's at work.

Ian, its an interesting thought, but surely not worthy of long term discussion. How about quantum mechanics?

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 04:22 PM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.

To be replaced by despair. It is inimical to the yearning spirit.
No. The world is a place of wonder and mystery, and you would realise this if you would just stop wishing it weren't true.

Edit: Hellaeon already said this better. :)

Pastor Bentonit

12th January 2006, 04:24 PM

It's an implicit feeling and knowing.
...and there he goes again, trolling a skeptics´ forum. Yawn. ;)

EVIDENCE!!!!!1!1oneone

That felt good.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 04:47 PM

UrsulaV

12th January 2006, 04:49 PM

Interesting point. If rhinos WERE hot pink, we wouldn't all go around with silly smiles on our faces all the time, thinking, "Wow! Rhinos are hot pink!" It would be the norm. We would get used to it. We would see them once in a while on nature shows and think, "Huh! A pink rhino!" then go about our business.

I think in a like manner, if supernatural phenomena were proved to be true, it would get boring real quick. The woos would always strive for something that ISN'T demonstrable, and ignore those wondrous things that are. Just as they do now.

*grin* Well, we could make a very small case that I might like the rhinos a tetch more on aesthetic grounds, but the point is well taken--wonder and hope rely more upon what we don't have than what we do have. Hell, we call kids who get everything they want "spoiled."

So by that logic, the world with the MOST potential hope and wonder would be where the least was actually real, namely the materialist nothin'-but-the-facts-ma'am one.* So if Ian was really a friend of hope and wonder, he'd be arguing against the reality of stuff like Narnia, and we should thus probably consider him a relentless foe of wonder by his insistence upon feelings proving things to be true and thus removing potential hope and wonder from the world.

*In the absence of a really stripped down minimalist world with very little in it, of course, rather like the Little Prince's planet.**

**I never particularly liked that book.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 04:50 PM

This has nothing to do with my statement since I am not offering it as an argument. It was simply an observation. I have supplied a vast number of arguments which strongly suggest the materialist/atheist metaphysic is incorrect.

Ian, what you have supplied is a vast number of arguments that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know little of philosophy, nothing of science, and less than nothing of mathematics, and resist all attempts to teach you anything of those subjects.

There is no magic, Ian. Until you realise that (something that most five-year-olds can understand), you will continue to spend much of your life walking into lamp-posts.

Ducky

12th January 2006, 04:53 PM

After reading this thread, my soon-to-be wife emailed me something so poignant to this thread that I have put the quote in my sig.

Ian: stop being a twat.

TobiasTheViking

12th January 2006, 04:54 PM

After reading this thread, my soon-to-be wife emailed me something so poignant to this thread that I have put the quote in my sig.

Ian: stop being a twat.
say hi from denmark
For no apparant reason :D

Ducky

12th January 2006, 04:56 PM

say hi from denmark
For no apparant reason :D

Will do! :)

Beleth

12th January 2006, 05:02 PM

The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.
Not any moreso than the world as interpreted by idealists/theists.

logical muse

12th January 2006, 05:03 PM

OK you want proof?

Well, I saw the movie, and the faun looked familiar. It only took me a moment to realise that he was really an actor! I recognised him from a TV show called Shameless, and in that show he has human legs!

Now, if Narnia was real, they'd have real fauns and not just human actors with human legs and have to use cgi to pretend they have faun legs.

I rest my case.

Oh I know what you're going to say, maybe all the real fauns were off sick that day and just because one faun was actually not real doesn't mean all fauns aren't real blah blah blah, but that's just backpedalling. You knew as soon as that actor appeared, that your precious Narnia was just a movie.

Goshawk

12th January 2006, 05:12 PM

I can't believe Ian has managed to harvest five pages of attention from an essentially nonsensical OP...

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 05:46 PM

After reading this thread, my soon-to-be wife emailed me something so poignant to this thread that I have put the quote in my sig.

Ian: stop being a twat.

"Putz"?? What the hell is a "putz" when it's all at home?? Tell her that I have less than zero interest in the opinions of retards.

That goes for the people on here too. Virtually no one has made any worthwhile arguments which justifies their position that we know that Narnia type Worlds do not exist.

I'm being a twat am I? Why? Because I'm not impressed with drivel and vacuous unsubstantiated assertions? Well, excuse me! :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 05:51 PM

Ian, what you have supplied is a vast number of arguments that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know little of philosophy, nothing of science, and less than nothing of mathematics, and resist all attempts to teach you anything of those subjects.

There is no magic, Ian. Until you realise that (something that most five-year-olds can understand), you will continue to spend much of your life walking into lamp-posts.

And what you have demonstrated is that you are a complete knucklehead who simply fails to understand the most mind-numbingly simple things imaginable.

I've given up trying to discuss anything with you a long long time ago.

You're a waste of space.

Ducky

12th January 2006, 05:58 PM

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1375491#post1375491):
The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.

Not any moreso than the world as interpreted by idealists/theists.

Certainly not for this idealist/theist.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:02 PM

And what you have demonstrated is that you are a complete knucklehead who simply fails to understand the most mind-numbingly simple things imaginable.
Such as?

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:03 PM

Virtually no one has made any worthwhile arguments which justifies their position that we know that Narnia type Worlds do not exist.
Induction.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 06:08 PM

You really don't understand the concept about not being able to prove a negative.

As for your throwing of the names retard, I find that ironic.

And I'm sick of telling people I don't care that some negatives (eg Narnia type worlds do not exist) are impossible to prove.

You can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

What is the problem with people here? What precisely are you lot objecting to?

That even though such worlds might well exist, you couldn't get there by magic??

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

That other worlds/Universes might well exist but that they wouldn't be anything like Narnia??

Why the hell not?? What is it about reality that forbids such type of worlds??

Or are people saying no other worlds/Universes apart from this exist full stop (or period as you denizens of the USA say)

Plenty of physicists speculate otherwise {shrugs}

I might well be a moron, but I'm a moron who has yet to receive any remotely satisfactory answers as to why Narnia type worlds couldn't exist.

delphi_ote

12th January 2006, 06:16 PM

It's got nothing to do with whether all is mind or whatever. Once we reject any materialist metaphysic then anything is possible. Infinite possibilities abound. For a kick-off there's the possibility of an ultimate purpose to the Universe, our lives and all things, together with all this implies.

And possible that money will grow on trees and possible that you can fly.

Go try it, Ian. Go try to fly. Show these ignorant materialists your dedication to this premise.

http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/temporary/PBF052BCTodayIamGoingtoFly.jpg

Ducky

12th January 2006, 06:18 PM

And I'm sick of telling people I don't care that some negatives (eg Narnia type worlds do not exist) are impossible to prove.

If you wish to dispute the statement to the negative (ie. narnia doesn't exist) then you must prove it does exist. You cannot provide evidence to prove a negative. So in short order, quit whining and prove other worlds exist and you can use magic to get to them and we'll stop giving you sh*t for posting logical fallacies.

You can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

I don't have to justify it. I am responding to your logically fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you wish to prove dawkins statement wrong, simply magically transport yourself to narnia or someplace like it. And please hurry.

What is the problem with people here? What precisely are you lot objecting to?

asked and answered many times in this thread. please reread.

That even though such worlds might well exist, you couldn't get there by magic??

Do you have evidence that this is true? If not, then quit being a pedant and attempting to have us prove a negative.

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

Prove us wrong. Go do some magic.

That other worlds/Universes might well exist but that they wouldn't be anything like Narnia??

You're repeating yourself. Please don't drool on your keyboard working yourself into a frenzy calling us all idiots.

Why the hell not?? What is it about reality that forbids such type of worlds??

Have you ever taken a physics class? Or do you just think it's as much the fiction of your CS Lewis book?

Or are people saying no other worlds/Universes apart from this exist full stop (or period as you denizens of the USA say)

Plenty of physicists speculate otherwise {shrugs}

1) I'm nto saying that.

2) what physicists? If you were to perhaps cite them then we could get into a meaningful discussion. However your general assertions mean nothing without any evidence.

I might well be a moron, but I'm a moron who has yet to receive any remotely satisfactory answers as to why Narnia type worlds couldn't exist.

Well that's a good start. You're past denial. Now stop being so frothing mad you're a moron and calling us all idiots and you'll get somewhere with this discussion.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:20 PM

AYou can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

Induction.

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

If they interact with our Universe, that violates all the laws of physics. Every single one.

If they don't interact with our Universe, they don't exist.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 06:20 PM

Induction.

Yeah, induction told us at the beginning of the 20th Century that man powered flight is impossible.

Induction tells us nothing here. It just tells us that reality operates in uniform ways. How does that have any implication for the possibility of other worlds??

Why don't you try to give some type of meaningful answer instead of uttering one single word.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:25 PM

Yeah, induction told us at the beginning of the 20th Century that man powered flight is impossible. Nope.

Induction tells us nothing here. It just tells us that reality operates in uniform ways. How does that have any implication for the possibility of other worlds?? No evidence has ever been found of any magic of any sort. Therefore, induction leads us to believe that there is none.

Why don't you try to give some type of meaningful answer instead of uttering one single word. Because you don't read those.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 06:25 PM

If you wish to dispute the statement to the negative (ie. narnia doesn't exist) then you must prove it does exist. You cannot provide evidence to prove a negative. So in short order, quit whining and prove other worlds exist and you can use magic to get to them and we'll stop giving you sh*t for posting logical fallacies.

I must prove it exists? That's mighty funny. I believe that no Narnia type worlds exist. Indeed I don't believe in the existence of any other physical worlds. Yet I am required to prove they exist to show that your statement that you know they don't exist is unjustified.

Jesus, are you for real??

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:27 PM

I must prove it exists? That's mighty funny. I believe that no Narnia type worlds exist. Indeed I don't believe in the existence of any other physical worlds.

Well, that's a refreshing change.

Yet I am required to prove they exist to show that your statement that you know they don't exist is unjustified.

Induction.

Ducky

12th January 2006, 06:30 PM

I must prove it exists? That's mighty funny. I believe that no Narnia type worlds exist. Indeed I don't believe in the existence of any other physical worlds. Yet I am required to prove they exist to show that your statement that you know they don't exist is unjustified.

Jesus, are you for real??

Ok I'm going to go slowly through this so you can understand:

You cannot prove a negative. If a statement to the negative is made that you wish to dispute, then you must prove the positive.

For example, in order to dispute my statement "There is no Narnia-like world" then you would have to show evidence for narnia type world.

If you don't believe that Narnia like worlds exist, then what the hell have you been blathering about for 5 pages?

ETA:

Asking Jesus if he is for real, by the way, has never gotten a response. If Jesus tells you he is for real, please let us know.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 06:36 PM

Induction.

If they interact with our Universe, that violates all the laws of physics. Every single one.

But objects still fall, mobile phones still work, the Earth still orbits the Sun etc. Indeed the world acts as if many laws of physics are not in fact violated. :rolleyes:

The so called laws of physics are simply descriptions of the way reality operates. Thus reality cannot violate physical laws because they simply describe what happens in reality. If other worlds influence our one, or if consciousness influences the world, then that's just the way reality is. To say that such things violate physical laws demonstrates a profound ignorance of what so-called physical "laws" are.

If they don't interact with our Universe, they don't exist.

That is just a facile wholly unsubstantiated assertion.

You know where you can stick your logical empiricism.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:41 PM

But objects still fall, mobile phones still work, the Earth still orbits the Sun etc. Indeed the world acts as if many laws of physics are not in fact violated. :rolleyes:

The so called laws of physics are simply descriptions of the way reality operates. Thus reality cannot violate physical laws because they simply describe what happens in reality. If other worlds influence our one, or if consciousness influences the world, then that's just the way reality is. To say that such things violate physical laws demonstrates a profound ignorance of what so-called physical "laws" are.

Nope.

Our laws of physics describe a Universe that is not interacting with magical worlds. Our laws of physics are, when we test them, an incredibly accurate description of the Universe. Therefore the Universe is not interacting with magical worlds.

That is just a facile wholly unsubstantiated assertion.

No. It's basic logic.

You know where you can stick your logical empiricism.

Ah. You don't like basic logic then?

If Narnia does not interact with our Universe, if no-one from here can go there (or vice-versa), if no substance or signal or information can pass from one to the other, then it doesn't exist. Because to exist is to interact, and Narnia don't.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:42 PM

By the way, Ian, you yourself believe that magical worlds don't exist.

Why?

hellaeon

12th January 2006, 06:47 PM

Ian bloke

I can understand I think what you mean perhaps in the sense, are there planets or the like out there where such things are possible?

Im of the opinion a strong no, since what we know of the physics and other sciences about us that rules our lives enables us to determine cosmology and the like. We know the way planet and stars traverse in advance, how they form etc, due to the laws of nature about us and our solar system assumed the same for them and thus known the same. With this in mind, its easy to assume the domino effect of the natural laws around us would surely then apply elsewhere (at the least as a starting point). This is why I myself struggle to imagine worlds as fortold in our fiction. There would be vast differences in climate, life, elements etc but magic and such is supernatural, which needs to come the proof table, where science is and where supernatural fails. Science shows us all these things and based on that, you can safey assume specifics such as fictional worlds are non existant as a starting base.

I hope that makes sense, im typing fast whilst at work

However the universe is an amazing place....

My two cents

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 06:50 PM

If you don't believe that Narnia like worlds exist, then what the hell have you been blathering about for 5 pages?

What have I been blathering about?? I've been blathering about skeptics mysterious knowledge on this issue.

I don't know whether Narnia type Universes exist. I don't know whether any other Universes exist. I said I believe not, but that's purely guesswork! It's just a guess on my part. I simply don't possess the knowledge of skeptics on this issue.

However I was anxious to learn so this is why I asked how you know that Narnia type worlds do not exist. Their answer? Your answer? (you all speak with one voice as if you're just one entity with one mind!)

The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!

Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!

Yeah right :rolleyes:

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:51 PM

Addressing this in a little more detail, though I don't know why:

But objects still fall, mobile phones still work, the Earth still orbits the Sun etc. Indeed the world acts as if many laws of physics are not in fact violated.

That's exactly the point.

The so called laws of physics are simply descriptions of the way reality operates. Thus reality cannot violate physical laws because they simply describe what happens in reality.

The laws of physics are not the fundamental rules that govern the Universe; they are our statements of those rules. If the laws of physics were being violated, we would know they were wrong, that they were not an accurate description of reality. Newton wrote the book on orbital mechanics; his laws were indeed violated because they didn't accurately describe what happens in reality.

So of course it is possible for physical laws to be violated - if the laws in question are wrong.

But - and it is important to note this - the laws we presently have, although they don't represent a single complete theory of physics, are a very very very accurate description of reality.

If other worlds influence our one, or if consciousness influences the world, then that's just the way reality is.

Use the subjunctive, Ian.

The point is, reality is not that way, other worlds do not influence this one, and consciousness does not influence the world (other than through the motor neurons). We know this because the laws of physics that we have say that this is not the case, and yet accurately describe the Universe.

To say that such things violate physical laws demonstrates a profound ignorance of what so-called physical "laws" are.

Nope.

Our laws of physics, our statements of how the Universe works, preclude the interaction of our Universe with magical worlds. As I said, magical worlds violate all the laws of physics. If magical worlds were interacting with our Universe, all the laws of physics would be wrong.

But what we find is the opposite; that the laws of physics are right.

This implies, inductively, that there are no magical worlds.

Ducky

12th January 2006, 06:55 PM

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 06:59 PM

You are still asking to prove a negative.

You really don't get that do you?
No, he doesn't.

Ian, if anyone had ever presented any evidence of magical worlds, or of magic in general, then we would be willing to consider the possiblity of their existence. Or, if the evidence was convincing, we would actually accept their existence.

But:

(a) There is no such evidence. None. Not one jot.
(b) If magical worlds existed, the Universe would be different to the way we observe it to be.

Therefore: No magical worlds.

That's what Dawkins said, and what any sane adult understands.

Interesting Ian

12th January 2006, 07:04 PM

Nope.

Our laws of physics describe a Universe that is not interacting with magical worlds. Our laws of physics are, when we test them, an incredibly accurate description of the Universe. Therefore the Universe is not interacting with magical worlds.

Just like what a 17th Century physicist would say regarding the proposal that Neutrinos exist, and virtual particles exis,t and a million other things we now deem to exist but which they didn't recognise as existing.

If you went back in time and told someone like Galileo about all of our technology, how much would you think he would believe? If he was at all like you than absolutely none of it!

By the way, Ian, you yourself believe that magical worlds don't exist.

Why?

No reason at all! Simply a guess on my part. Nothing more. The difference between me and you is that if I were to put on a magic ring and were whisked to another Universe, I would be surprised, amazed even, but I wouldn't splutter "this is impossible!".

Likewise if we'd have both lived in the 17th Century, and a time traveller travelled back in time from the 21st Century and told us all about her technological world, I would be very "sceptical" (original meaning of the word), but I wouldn't react like you and say it's absolutely impossible!

That's the difference between me and "skeptics" such as yourself.

Terry

12th January 2006, 07:13 PM

Just like what a 17th Century physicist would say regarding the proposal that Neutrinos exist,

erm, neutrinos were hypothesised to explain away a momentum defect in the observed particles in certain reactions. I don't think Newton would have had a problem with that, if he'd been shown the other particles.

PixyMisa

12th January 2006, 07:14 PM

Just like what a 17th Century physicist would say regarding the proposal that Neutrinos exist, and virtual particles exis,t and a million other things we now deem to exist but which they didn't recognise as existing.

No.

If you went back in time and told someone like Galileo about all of our technology, how much would you think he would believe?

If you told him about it, he would think you were crazy.

If I told him about it, he would be very excited indeed, because I would actually be able to explain it in a way that made sense based on his existing knowledge.

No reason at all! Simply a guess on my part. Nothing more. The difference between me and you is that if I were to put on a magic ring and were whisked to another Universe, I would be surprised, amazed even, but I wouldn't splutter "this is impossible!".

And how many times has this happened to you, or to anyone?

Induction, Ian.

Likewise if we'd have both lived in the 17th Century, and a time traveller travelled back in time from the 21st Century and told us all about her technological world, I would be very "sceptical" (original meaning of the word), but I wouldn't react like you and say it's absolutely impossible!

Depends on the time-traveller.

If we lived in the 17th century and a 21st-century Ian-analogue came back and told us about computers and supersonic aircraft and NDEs and telepathy and the immaterial nature of the world, we would probably have him committed to Bedlam. (Err, did that institution exist in the 17th century?)

On the other hand, if the 21st century Pixy-analogue came back and explained how to build internal combustion engines and generators and transformers and carbon-arc lamps and relays and radios - all possible with 17th century engineering, but not with 17th century science - then we would be well advised to accept his other statements.

That's the difference between me and "skeptics" such as yourself.

Indeedy-doodly.

Ducky

12th January 2006, 07:14 PM

Just like what a 17th Century physicist would say regarding the proposal that Neutrinos exist, and virtual particles exis,t and a million other things we now deem to exist but which they didn't recognise as existing.

If you went back in time and told someone like Galileo about all of our technology, how much would you think he would believe? If he was at all like you than absolutely none of it!

No reason at all! Simply a guess on my part. Nothing more. The difference between me and you is that if I were to put on a magic ring and were whisked to another Universe, I would be surprised, amazed even, but I wouldn't splutter "this is impossible!".

Likewise if we'd have both lived in the 17th Century, and a time traveller travelled back in time from the 21st Century and told us all about her technological world, I would be very "sceptical" (original meaning of the word), but I wouldn't react like you and say it's absolutely impossible!

That's the difference between me and "skeptics" such as yourself.

Strawman.

If presented with evidence of the existence of Narnia, or if whisked away in a magic portal to another dimension, then skeptics would most certainly rethink the position "There is no Narnia."

Which is why, if you contend that the statement "There is no Narnia" is wrong, you would have to then present evidence of Narnia's existence.

Belz...

12th January 2006, 07:29 PM

I've given up trying to discuss anything with you a long long time ago.

You're a waste of space.

How much time before Ian's suspended again ?

"Putz"?? What the hell is a "putz" when it's all at home?? Tell her that I have less than zero interest in the opinions of retards.

That goes for the people on here too. Virtually no one has made any worthwhile arguments which justifies their position that we know that Narnia type Worlds do not exist.

That you don't WANT to accept someone's argument does not make that argument bad.

Belz...

12th January 2006, 07:37 PM

You know where you can stick your logical empiricism.

Yes. Damn that logic!

And I'm sick of telling people I don't care that some negatives (eg Narnia type worlds do not exist) are impossible to prove.

So stop.

You can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

You mean you haven't read ANY of the posts on this thread ?

What is the problem with people here? What precisely are you lot objecting to?

You. Go away.

That even though such worlds might well exist, you couldn't get there by magic??

Iacchus might, actually.

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

You mean like those of the Pah Wraith cult ?

That other worlds/Universes might well exist but that they wouldn't be anything like Narnia??

Don't you just hate it when those things happen ? I mean, there's the pain, and the operation, and the swelling's pretty... oh... you said Narnia. Ok.

Why the hell not?? What is it about reality that forbids such type of worlds??

You mean, exactly like that invented, fictional world ?

Or are people saying no other worlds/Universes apart from this exist full stop (or period as you denizens of the USA say)

Engage!

Plenty of physicists speculate otherwise {shrugs}

Let'em.

I might well be a moron

Score ONE point for Ian.

but I'm a moron who has yet to receive any remotely satisfactory answers as to why Narnia type worlds couldn't exist.

Because you want them to.

Belz...

12th January 2006, 07:40 PM

The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!

Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!

Yeah right :rolleyes:

How can you possibly ridicule someone by saying that they think they're superior when you exhibit so little respect for anyone else, here ? You keep calling people idiots and ignoring everything they say, and then you have the gull to use that kind of sarcasm ?

You, Ian, are anything BUT "interesting".

sweetkb713

12th January 2006, 08:10 PM

Oh dear Lord.

KingMerv00

12th January 2006, 09:44 PM

I've had my limit of Ian on this thread. He is either not paying attention or is just dancing the dance of trolls.

Might as well make use of the bandwidth. Kitty posting time!

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Cats/Kitten-Ducks.jpg

http://pastorius.ddo.jp:8888/MT/archives/images/kitten-thumb.jpg (http://pastorius.ddo.jp:8888/MT/archives/images/kitten.jpg)

http://www.thepoorman.net/images/kitten_contenstant5.jpg

Antiquehunter

12th January 2006, 09:50 PM

What have I been blathering about?? I've been blathering about skeptics mysterious knowledge on this issue.

I don't know whether Narnia type Universes exist. I don't know whether any other Universes exist. I said I believe not, but that's purely guesswork! It's just a guess on my part. I simply don't possess the knowledge of skeptics on this issue.

However I was anxious to learn so this is why I asked how you know that Narnia type worlds do not exist. Their answer? Your answer? (you all speak with one voice as if you're just one entity with one mind!)

The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!

Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!

Yeah right :rolleyes:

Ian - 5 pages ago I asked if you were heading down the path of an atheist vs agnostic argument.

This is ridiculous. Take a step back and look at what you are suggesting. You are saying that I (a skeptic) cannot disbelieve in the non-existence of ANYTHING unless I can DISPROVE it? That a true skeptical position has to be one of 'Well, I can't disprove that there is no Santa, no Tribbles or Vulcans, no hobbits etc..." so I have to be open to the idea that they exist?

Where do you draw the line, Ian, and decide - 'OK, until I see some evidence that these things exist I'm just going to sit back and watch the movie.'

-AH.

delphi_ote

12th January 2006, 10:04 PM

Kitty posting time!

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20060111-MIDNIGHT.jpg
In honor of Ian's preference for fantasy worlds.

Kell

13th January 2006, 03:04 AM

I'm just gonna drop this word in here, cause I've been through all 6 pages of this ********* and I'm pretty sure no-one's used it yet:

parsimonious

Ok, carry on.

sphenisc

13th January 2006, 05:10 AM

Bone_Vulture

13th January 2006, 05:17 AM

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20060111-MIDNIGHT.jpg
In honor of Ian's preference for fantasy worlds.

Hey, that's Iacchus's cat! He took the pic to prove his cat "can" roll the dice and play Advanced "Dungeons" and Dragons!

Jekyll

13th January 2006, 06:07 AM

The difference between me and you is that if I were to put on a magic ring and were whisked to another Universe, I would be surprised, amazed even, but I wouldn't splutter "this is impossible!".

If I wandered through a doorway into a magical world filled with talking animals and fauns, I'd be worried about who'd spiked my coffee this morning.

avhienda

13th January 2006, 06:21 AM

"Putz"?? What the hell is a "putz" when it's all at home?? Tell her that I have less than zero interest in the opinions of retards.

That goes for the people on here too. Virtually no one has made any worthwhile arguments which justifies their position that we know that Narnia type Worlds do not exist.

I'm being a twat am I? Why? Because I'm not impressed with drivel and vacuous unsubstantiated assertions? Well, excuse me! :rolleyes:

(Dictionary.com)putz:

1. Slang. A fool; an idiot.
2. Vulgar Slang. A penis.

Take your pick.

And one thing retards have over you is that they listen when you talk to them. And also, "...when it's all at home?" What exactly do you mean there? (Not being snarky with the last question. I really can't figure it out. And I was actually at work when I made that observation.)

Honestly I'm not sure why anyone started to try to talk you out of your own drivel and vacuous unsubstantiated assertions...

sphenisc

13th January 2006, 06:26 AM

(Dictionary.com)putz:

1. Slang. A fool; an idiot.
2. Vulgar Slang. A penis.

Take your pick.

And one thing retards have over you is that they listen when you talk to them. And also, "...when it's all at home?" What exactly do you mean there? (Not being snarky with the last question. I really can't figure it out. And I was actually at work when I made that observation.)

Honestly I'm not sure why anyone started to try to talk you out of your own drivel and vacuous unsubstantiated assertions...

"When it's at home?"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/14/messages/127.html

avhienda

13th January 2006, 06:28 AM

"When it's at home?"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/14/messages/127.html

Got it. Thanks. :)

P.S.A.

13th January 2006, 07:45 AM

You know, many people in their day to day lives try to engage with as little outside their own personal circle as possible... They walk along, head mostly down, ears slightly detuned to the world... they assume the mantle of self effacement, for their own reasons, what ever they may be. But sometimes, they see something so offensive to all sense of human dignity, so outrageously wrong, Someone beating a child for asking for a lollipop perhaps, or abusing the elderly, that even those who would normally remain detached from it all will step up and say something...

And now here's Interesting Ian again. And his usual offensive and morally disgusting behaviour has drawn me out of lurking once more. And this is just one of his behavioural equivalencys of punching babies that did it:

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons!

Interesting Ian once accused me of enjoying cruelty towards animals. When pressed on where he got the evidence for that from, he refused to provide it. Then he tried to claim that he was a far more ethical person than I was, and would only eat endangered species, such as certain fish, "when they were on special offer". When I pointed out to him that fish were not only one of the most unethically farmed products around (they wouldn't be nearing extinction otherwise), and that fish get a far worse death than mass produced red meat (suffocation and gutting alive, where as cows and pigs take a quick clean bolt-gun to the head) Ian insisted that fish were a "lower form of life"...

...Here's where it shows the true disgusting hypocrisy of the man shows, beating Old Lady Morality over the head and riffling through her purse...

... he insisted that it was obvious that fish weren't as complex as red blooded animals. And no amount of asking to see the evidence of this comparitive lacking would encourage him. He just got angry, and abusive, and insulting... Just as he's doing here, in fact.

Look at him go... he hasn't read Dawkins, doesn't even know what his real name was, but assumes based upon a prejudicial set of beliefs and a few passing times he's seen the man, what exactly his argument against a "Narnia" type world is. He then refuses to listen to anyone pointing out why, with the known definition of "Narnia", Dawkins actually may feel the current laws of physics as they are known preclude such a world (the Universe may be close to infinite in size, but it doesn't have an infinite set of physical laws. It has just the one set, which allows for a (perhaps one day) definable range of reality.). Nope, instead he just gets belligerant and offensive and insists every one is an idiot because they can't say something which makes Ian and his Metamind feel special.

Let's see now: What else is he up to these days... well, he's got this lovely thread over here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50006

Yes folks... The facts that Ian resents anyone being able to identify him when he makes purchases, and that he also can't get any credit, even in this age where the credit card companies hold all the other cards and can almost always screw the money back out of you one way or another, are completely unrelated. And the fact that Ian has a history of alcholism, is clearly unable to relate to anyone else in a rational or responsible manner, and wants to be a (ahaha) Professional Gambler has got no bearing at all on the facts why he can't get a credit card. None what so ever. Can't you just imagine how happy you would be, as one of the approached bankers, to get a letter from Interesting Ian demanding you give him one?

"Dear Idiot,

You clearly know nothing about the way reality works if you don't understand how the laws of gambling allow someone to make a fortune. If it weren't for you skeptical materialistic bankers, many more people like me would have wonderful and interesting lives... as it is, I'll just take my money to someone who appreciates me, and doesn't turn me down for dates just because I do something with my hands, yes that's the reason, nothing else at all, I hate you all...

:(

Signed:

I refuse to sign my name"

You'd just hand money over by the truckload, wouldn't you?

Now in my situation, I've found that talking to people as people, having a sense of humility and decency, and yes, shamelessly appealing to their own desire to feel decent too, has got me credit I_I can only ever dream of. Because this is how the real world works. But you are all idiots if you don't try and make it work how Special_Ian demands that it should.

Indeed, the whole world is made so much better by us all being beaten over the head by a foul tempered and aggressive Ian, told we are monsters and cruel and destroy all of worth in life because we believe in such things as Science and Biology and Logic... Just because from his own experience of life is that there doesn't seem to be much love for people like him. And it's all our fault that this is so. Just as it's society's fault that you mug old ladies and eat endangered species. Yes it is.

Now watch as he declares me the stupidest person on the Earth again. But as I've got both credit and people who like "what I do with my hands", so perhaps I'm not, eh? As no doubt have the vast majority of you SKeptics, including Mr Dawkins and family. And this is, deep down, why he's really such an Angry Ian, and why he's not listening to anything you are telling him... Because he doesn't want to hear why he's alienated himself from reality, he wants to blame you because he is.

And his own individual Narnia just refuses to pop out of the wardrobe and save him.

:( :( :(

Interesting Ian

13th January 2006, 07:47 AM

Interesting Ian once accused me of enjoying cruelty towards animals.

Lying bastard.

Interesting Ian

13th January 2006, 07:56 AM

Ian - 5 pages ago I asked if you were heading down the path of an atheist vs agnostic argument.

This is ridiculous. Take a step back and look at what you are suggesting. You are saying that I (a skeptic) cannot disbelieve in the non-existence of ANYTHING unless I can DISPROVE it?

No I am not saying that, or indeed anything remotely like it.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Of course you can bloody disbelieve things without proving they don't exist!

Are you crazy??

Is anyone on this thread arguing against me able to comprehend simple English sentences??

No wonder people think I'm stupid if they imagine I'm saying anything of the sort!

aggle-rithm

13th January 2006, 08:04 AM

No reason at all! Simply a guess on my part. Nothing more. The difference between me and you is that if I were to put on a magic ring and were whisked to another Universe, I would be surprised, amazed even, but I wouldn't splutter "this is impossible!".
.....
That's the difference between me and "skeptics" such as yourself.

I wouldn't splutter anything in such a case. I would simply look for a logical explanation for what I am experiencing.

Why? Not because I'm a party pooper, but because I've learned that the ONLY way to effectively cope with the outside world is to deal with it in terms of what we know and understand, not on what we wish the world to be.

aggle-rithm

13th January 2006, 08:06 AM

No I am not saying that, or indeed anything remotely like it.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Of course you can bloody disbelieve things without proving they don't exist!

Are you crazy??

Is anyone on this thread arguing against me able to comprehend simple English sentences??

No wonder people think I'm stupid if they imagine I'm saying anything of the sort!

Ian,

Maybe we can simplify this.

Here is what (I believe) the position of most skeptics is on this subject:

1. We do not believe that Narnia-type worlds exist.
2. We are willing to be shown otherwise.
3. We are not willing to waste time speculating about it until such evidence is forthcoming.

Fair enough?

13th January 2006, 08:11 AM

Is anyone on this thread arguing against me able to comprehend simple English sentences??

I am, right now.

Hell, you don't even know what a putz is. What a putz.

Interesting Ian

13th January 2006, 08:13 AM

How can you possibly ridicule someone by saying that they think they're superior when you exhibit so little respect for anyone else, here ? You keep calling people idiots and ignoring everything they say, and then you have the gull to use that kind of sarcasm ?

But no ones saying anything. No one has put forth any arguments to justify their claim to knowledge. People are simply ignoring me -- or at least they're ignoring my arguments. They seem to think I'm saying the most ridiculous things.

I think its overwhelmingly likely that the precise place called Narnia doesn't exist.

I think it's reasonable to suppose no Narnia type place exists. It is an a priori reasonable position to adopt in my opinion until, and if, evidence to the contrary should turn up.

I don't believe that any other physical Universe exists, but here this is simply guesswork on my part. The fact that other physical Universes might be in principle completely inaccessible gives zero reasons to suppose they do not exist. Otherwise we would have to declare that galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon do not exist!

My objection is to people declaring they know that no Narnia type worlds exist.

Now it is perfectly reasonable to say they know this if they can either provide reasons or evidence. But no-one has supplied either of these. Simply saying "induction" refers to the feeling (yes feeling!) that the future will resemble the past. This has zero relevance to the issue of other worlds/Universes.

So my objection is that people are saying they know things, and that I must prove that a Narnia type world exists in order to show they don't know it. The stupidity of this is quite frankly beyond belief.

13th January 2006, 08:21 AM

The guy writing a review of Richard Dawkin's book "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder" on the following page:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0009.html

states Dawkin's states in his book that:

“The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”

Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's apparently knows doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion? If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?

Ian's original post.

Now, let's look carefully at the quote from Dawkins, shall we, class?

“The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”

Here, Dawkins is clearly not stating that he knows these things are absolutely not real; however, it is also clear that he is stating that these things don't seem to exist in the adult world; in other words, there is no objective evidence in the adult world of fairies, Father Christmas, Toyland, Narnia, the Happy Hunting Grounds, angels, etc. All he's doing is stating the default position, that these things are not known to exist in this adult world... not that he knows they don't exist absolutely.

So, basically, Ian, you're battling a straw man that even you don't fully agree with.

However, if he had come outright and said, "I know that there is no Narnia," I do agree he would need to justify that apparently certain knowledge. But he didn't say that... you've put words into his metaphorical mouth.

Simply put, though, you cannot prove a negative. The best you can do is attempt to refute someone's proof of a positive. In other words, first someone has to make a positive claim ('Narnia exists'), and put forth some manner of evidence (burden of proof); then we can attempt to refute that evidence. But that can never fully disprove the negative.

The fact that you're arguing at all about it proves that a) you're a hypocrite; b) you just plain like to argue; and c) you're still as mind-bogglingly idiotic as ever.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

13th January 2006, 08:31 AM

Let me quote a bit more of Dawkins:
I love my parents for taking me for a ride, high as a kite, through the treetops; and for telling me about the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, about Merlin and his spells, about baby Jesus and the Three Wise Men. All these stories enrich childhood and, together with so many other things, help to make it, in memory, a time of enchantment. The adult world may seem a cold and empty place, with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels- guardian or garden variety. But there are also no devils, no hellfire, no wicked witches, no ghosts, no haunted houses, no daemonic possession, no bogeymen or ogres. Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive. But there are warm, live, speaking, thinking, adult bedfellows to hold, and many of us find it a more rewarding kind of love that the childish affection for stuffed toys, however soft and cuddly they may be. Not to grow up properly is to retain our ‘caterpillar' quality from childhood (where it is a virtue) into adulthood (where it becomes a vice). In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our caterpillar nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists and quacks.
It's clear that this entire statement is allegorical in the sense of having a spiritual meaning over and above its literal meaning. I don't think we should infer from this statement anything about Dawkins' opinion on the logical possibility of a Narnia-like world.

~~ Paul

petre

13th January 2006, 08:40 AM

Ok Ian, you've got seven pages of text to comb now. Let me give you a task that you may actually be able to handle:

Locate within these pages a single quote where it is asserted that it is not possible for a world like Narnia to exist.

There have been many postings now, some empassioned and lacking logic, and it is entirely possible someone has actually made this statement (I haven't checked throuroughly yet). Please point one out before you post anything else. If after all this time no one has claimed this, then you'll look pretty silly continuing to argue against something no one has said, won't you?

I'll give you a hint, Dawkins never claimed it. If you need me to make that clearer, I can.

uruk

13th January 2006, 08:54 AM

Like I've been saying Ian. A person can be justified in saying that something does not exist if there is no evidence to support it's existance. That person can also be justified in saying the something will never exist if the existance of that thing goes against what is known at the time. Wether he's right or wrong is to history to decide.

The multiple universe hypothesis (it is not yet a theory by definition) simply says that givin that this univers arose why not others. This says nothing about "all possible" universes. The parrallel universe hypothesis has even less support for it. Everything else is just mere guess and fanciful hypothesising. It's not yet a theory because there is no known way to test it.

As far as we know, inorder for a universe to exist it has to have the at least the same properties as this univers. (i.e. the same physical laws) As far as our knowledge of the working of this universe goes, you change any one thing in the laws of physics and no universe happens. No star formation, no planet formation, no formation of elements or atomic structure, zip, nada, nothing. Not even talking lions.
Something like "majic" would violate some physical laws (or the ways that our universe is observed to work; for the pendaticaly afflicted) like entropy, or thermodynamics, mass, gravity, relativity, etc..
Take for instance the wardrobe. Yes, space/time wormholes are theoreticaly (the "common" definition) possible, but if you've read Kip Thorne's discription of what it takes to produce a wormhole you would know that applewood has none of those properties. And again "majic" violates how we know the universe works.

You see, with all this going against the possible existance of a Narnia type world along with the lack of any evidence supporting evidence one can safely say that a narnia type world does not exist.

bruto

13th January 2006, 08:54 AM

So basically, an inability or unwillingness to read Dawkins accurately, or for that matter, to understand anybody's posts, results in a very impolite rant by Ian that nobody but him can understand a plain English sentence? Sounds like business as usual.

Belz...

13th January 2006, 10:14 AM

But no ones saying anything. No one has put forth any arguments to justify their claim to knowledge. People are simply ignoring me -- or at least they're ignoring my arguments. They seem to think I'm saying the most ridiculous things.

I'm not ignoring you. Sarcasm and bad jokes aside, I've basically been saying that : science works with evidence, basically. We cannot infer much about the universe without some form of evidence. Because it would be quite unwieldy to believe in every theory that anyone can throw around, we are quite justified in believing, or saying, that there are, for example, no Narnia-like worlds simply because we don't have any evidence for them.

It is in NO WAY the same as saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Narnia-like worlds to exist, thought it seems, a priori, somewhat unlikely that a world would exist that would be exactly like a fictional universe thought up by a human author.

I think it's reasonable to suppose no Narnia type place exists. It is an a priori reasonable position to adopt in my opinion until, and if, evidence to the contrary should turn up.

I don't believe that any other physical Universe exists, but here this is simply guesswork on my part. The fact that other physical Universes might be in principle completely inaccessible gives zero reasons to suppose they do not exist. Otherwise we would have to declare that galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon do not exist!

I'm with you, here.

My objection is to people declaring they know that no Narnia type worlds exist.

That's the distinction I'm making: saying "there are no Narnia type worlds." and "It is impossible that Narnia type worlds exist." is not the same thing.