Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[Unveiled Artist]

I think my position is that we don't know what, exactly, "exists" outside of our limited realm of understanding and knowledge in our own little corner of the cosmos.

True. Why do we entertain god and not L/S if they both "may" exist outside of human understanding?

When I go through my day, I don't think about Spaghetti monsters nor do I think of god. If comparison makes sense, why the controversy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

Showing me that monster or a leprechaun would go a long way, obviously.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

That is not the point of such analogies at all.

The actual point of such analogies is NOT that spaghetti monsters or leprechauns don't exist.
It rather is that there are equal reasons to believe they DO exist, as there are for gods. Which is to say: none.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

knowledge is considered to be as infinite as the universe it describes
man is well known to be a finite creature, [universally accepted idea]
finite in knowledge
which simply implies that no man knows everything
which extended further would suggest that regardless of how detailed the clarity one assumes they have at any given moment, it should be assumed it is incomplete and imperfectly known [which would suggest that an open-minded "stance/mind-set" in forming suppositions and ideas would be more productive/useful ]
cartographers of "reality" are merely map-makers, and serviceable maps, while excellent tools are still only working titles so to speak since they can be revised or remade due to new information coming to light [history shows us, this happens constantly]

so do such "things" exist?
Maybe, in some sense.

Hmm. Is knowledge only confined to physics and things detectable to our five senses?

Do we, say, know another person loves us or we believe that he or she does?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe they don't exist because of absence of evidence only? In other words, is there a probability they could exist no matter how slim it may be?

The absence of evidence, is a reason to NOT believe they DO exist.

Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
But absence of evidence, most certainly isn't evidence of presence either......

The absence of evidence, for both leprechauns and gods, means that there is no reason to believe either exists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You do realize that at one time Leprechauns were once apart of the Celtic Religion and there God structure. All the myths Greek, Roman, Norse, Asian were all practiced Religions, their Gods the only true Gods. Christianity came much later and some of the biblical stories are retellings of those ancient myths with new names.

Yes. So, how does one's argument that because, say, Greek god don't exist support the similar claim that god does not exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Showing me that monster or a leprechaun would go a long way, obviously.

Since no one can show Leprechauns, monsters, and gods, how does comparing the two formers support the non-existence of the latter?

That is not the point of such analogies at all.

The actual point of such analogies is NOT that spaghetti monsters or leprechauns don't exist.

It rather is that there are equal reasons to believe they DO exist, as there are for gods. Which is to say: none.

It's saying the argument "Leprechauns don't exist therefore god does not exist." That argument doesn't prove anything. Why do many atheists use that as a support that god does not exist (they don't believe it does)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The absence of evidence, is a reason to NOT believe they DO exist.

Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
But absence of evidence, most certainly isn't evidence of presence either......

The absence of evidence, for both leprechauns and gods, means that there is no reason to believe either exists.

So, basically, you give a probability anything and everything could exist if there is evidence? (Literally or is that theoretically speaking?)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My issue here is likening the Gods to something that is physically contained within the Universe, such as a leprechaun or monster; when in reality the gods exist outside of, and encompassing all of our universe.

When you say "in reality", what you actually mean is "according to one particular definition of 'god'..."
A definition which, moreover, can't be verified or tested for accuracy.

Having said that, if this god is a theistic god (which is to say, he/she/it "intervenes" in observable reality), then that god has some kind of manifestation within this reality. A manifestation which should be detectable in some way, right?

If someone claims, for example, that god cured them of their cancer... curing a cancer is a physical process, right? It's a tumor that needs to disappear. Mechanics are involved in this. Wouldn't that then have to mean that this god, in some way, came into the universe and fiddled around with someone's DNA / cells / biology.

Why wouldn't such be detectable in some way?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do we, say, know another person loves us or we believe that he or she does?

I'ld say that we "know" that, with a certain level of uncertainty. That level of uncertainty is going to be based on the evidence we have for it.

See, if a person loves me, then that will be manifested in the way that person treats me, talks about me, behaves around me, etc.

A so-called "gold digger" might fake this love for you while having ulterior motives.
This could be tested by for example pretending to having lost all your money. If the person loves you, the money won't matter.

How people feel about you, in short, is generally demonstrated in their behavior towards you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My issue here is likening the Gods to something that is physically contained within the Universe, such as a leprechaun or monster; when in reality the gods exist outside of, and encompassing all of our universe.

One other thing. We haven't seen leprechauns and monsters in the physical universe, I don't believe. We haven't seen god either. We do see a lot of stories about him. I think leprechauns have more importance in some cultures than others. Monsters may be a symbol of danger and threat made into a compilation of things people think are scary. Likewise with god. It could be a symbol of love and experience that people think are (lbw) fulfilment. So, if they are both in the same category, how can some atheists use one to disprove the other's existence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since no one can show Leprechauns, monsters, and gods, how does comparing the two formers support the non-existence of the latter?

It doesn't and I already explained in subsequent posts how that is not at all the point of the analogy.
The analogy is about the reasons to believe such entities DO exist. Not that they don't exist. It is logically impossible to determine the non-existence of these things, btw.

It's saying the argument "Leprechauns don't exist therefore god does not exist." That argument doesn't prove anything.

I don't know anybody who makes that argument.
I know a lot of theists who pretend that that is the argument. It's called a strawman.

But it isn't the argument.
The argument with the comparison to leprechauns concerns the reason to believe they DO exist. Not reasons to believe they don't.

Why do many atheists use that as a support that god does not exist (they don't believe it does)

Which atheists are you talking about? I know of not a single one.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'ld say that we "know" that, with a certain level of uncertainty. That level of uncertainty is going to be based on the evidence we have for it.

There's no evidence for love. What you believe love is, on the other side of the would would probably be something totally different. So, love is subjective. Like god, there is no evidence for love. Like god, the evidence both parties have for god/love is subjective and maybe based on behaviors, feelings, and events that support what you believe about god or love. In itself, love means nothing.

See, if a person loves me, then that will be manifested in the way that person treats me, talks about me, behaves around me, etc.

Likewise with god.

A so-called "gold digger" might fake this love for you while having ulterior motives.
This could be tested by for example pretending to having lost all your money. If the person loves you, the money won't matter.

Depends on whose definition you're going by. But I get it.

How people feel about you, in short, is generally demonstrated in their behavior towards you.

The interpretation of that behavior depends on the culture rather than universal rule.

 

[QuestioningMind]

How do you compare the two?

One can't invalidate the other if both are in the same category. Do you think that L/S "could" exist? Is there a probability that they could? (Having no evidence doesn't prove L/S don't exist. We, humans, just don't have the ability to figure that out-right?)

The same way that I would compare leprechauns with magical pixies. BOTH are fantastical claims for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Yes, I think that it's POSSIBLE that leprechauns and a spaghetti monster exist, however the lack of any verifiable evidence for their existence means that I do NOT have a belief that they DO exist. I also think that it's POSSIBLE that some creator god exists, however the lack of any verifiable evidence for such a being's existence means that I do NOT have a belief that such an entity DOES exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, basically, you give a probability anything and everything could exist if there is evidence? (Literally or is that theoretically speaking?)

Not what I said at all.

I don't know in advance what "could" exist. "could" implies "possible".
We don't know what is "possible" in advance.

Take the theists that say that god is "outside" of the universe. Is that "possible"? Well - I don't know. I have no clue what, if anything, exists "outside" of the universe. In fact, I don't even know if the concept of "outside" the universe even makes sense in the first place.

To say such an entity is "possible", is just another claim that isn't supported by evidence at all.
I don't know if such a thing is "possible" at all. Such "possibilities" surely haven't been demonstrated, like... ever.
Instead, they are just "declared" by theists that use such a definition of their god.

Declaring things to being possible, doesn't mean they are actually possible.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How does that work, though?

Do you believe fairies could exist or do you know they do they not?

In this exact same vein, however, you should then make this same consideration (and allowances) about anything and everything that could potentially, plausibly, possibly, or even might exist. And because that list is limited only by your imagination, it contains infinitely many members.

THAT is precisely the problem being raised when comparing "God" to "fairies." You can compare God to anything at all that has any fantastical properties you will, but that we aren't sure exists or not (based on the evidence available) - and whether or not you choose to believe either thing ("God" or "[insert any one of a trillion inanities here]") carries just as much weight. Again... because the actual presence of the thing and the evidence available is entirely lacking.

So it isn't about the idea that "fairies don't exist" at all. That misses the point entirely. The point is, the likelihood of fairies existing is entirely on par with the likelihood of God existing. If you were to actually FIND AND PRESENT fairies, then guess what? They would then get promoted to a level of evidentiary support that BLOWS "GOD" OUT OF THE WATER.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It doesn't and I already explained in subsequent posts how that is not at all the point of the analogy.

The analogy is about the reasons to believe such entities DO exist. Not that they don't exist. It is logically impossible to determine the non-existence of these things, btw.

The analogy is about the argument and comparing god to a L/S is illogical.

If you were a christian, and I came to you and said "god does not exist because monsters don't exist" that fallacy doesn't support anything. Another persons says it compares to fanatical claims, but it doesn't support the non-existence of one thing to another just because its fanatical.

I don't know anybody who makes that argument.
I know a lot of theists who pretend that that is the argument. It's called a strawman.

But it isn't the argument.
The argument with the comparison to leprechauns concerns the reason to believe they DO exist. Not reasons to believe they don't.

You'd have to rephrase that last part.

Atheists use fallacies too, though. It's not just theists.

Which atheists are you talking about? I know of not a single one.

In the OP, I said don't take the generalization personally. I'm not one but there are many on RF that do. Can't look through all the search results, but that's not the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's no evidence for love

Off course there is...
The evidence is found in behavior. And in fact, we can even detect such feelings by putting a person under a brainscanner and then showing the person pictures and see which brain parts light up.

What you believe love is, on the other side of the would would probably be something totally different.

Not really.

So, love is subjective. Like god, there is no evidence for love

That's just blatantly false.

Surely through simple observation of a person's behavior towards another person, you can deduce if that person loves or hates that other person. Especially if you consider the extremes (for ease of making the point).

Like god, the evidence both parties have for god/love is subjective and maybe based on behaviors, feelings, and events that support what you believe about god or love. In itself, love means nothing.

No. You determine love by observing the behavior of an actual person doing and saying actual things.
There is no such observation you can do for a "god".

The interpretation of that behavior depends on the culture rather than universal rule.

Not really.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The analogy is about the argument and comparing god to a L/S is illogical.

If you were a christian, and I came to you and said "god does not exist because monsters don't exist" that fallacy doesn't support anything.

Then your OP is pointless, because nobody makes this "argument".
I'ld think that an OP that actually deals with arguments that people actually DO make, would be a bit more productive.

In the OP, I said don't take the generalization personally

I'm not taking it personally.
I'm just saying: nobody makes the argument you are talking about.

I'm not one but there are many on RF that do.

Who? Care to give a single example?

Can't look through all the search results, but that's not the point.

It is the point. Your OP at this point just reads like a strawman.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The same way that I would compare leprechauns with magical pixies. BOTH are fantastical claims for which there is no verifiable evidence.

How is god fanatical, though?

What are the characteristics of god that would be likened to those of leprechauns and magical pixes (maybe I should have added that one too

Yes, I think that it's POSSIBLE that leprechauns and a spaghetti monster exist, however the lack of any verifiable evidence for their existence means that I do NOT have a belief that they DO exist. I also think that it's POSSIBLE that some creator god exists, however the lack of any verifiable evidence for such a being's existence means that I do NOT have a belief that such an entity DOES exists.

Hmm. I personally believe possibilities are useless in some cases. Kind of like holding on to a string of possible truth. Are people comfortable that some things, like physics, just don't have probabilities: two and two will equal four. There is no probability that it will not?

I guess another way to put it is do some people trust their conclusions to that something does not exist without the constant need of evidence to disprove it?

(Trying to figure the right words)

 

[The Hammer]

When you say "in reality", what you actually mean is "according to one particular definition of 'god'..."

Having said that, if this god is a theistic god (which is to say, he/she/it "intervenes" in observable reality), then that god has some kind of manifestation within this reality. A manifestation which should be detectable in some way, right?

Why wouldn't such be detectable in some way?

When I say "in reality" I am referring to a concept of innangard (inside our control, and within our observable universe), and uttengard (outside of our control/ a part from our observable reality).

It very well may be detectable, but I do not think we have the ability to do so with our current scientific advances.

As far as leaving a signature that is observable within this physical plane, that may or may not happen, but I am of the inclination that the Gods have no need to leave traces behind, because what they do intervene with is not so directly as to leave a mark, it is psychically, they Will these changes into existence.