Aliens? Probably. We know planets are common and there’s nothing to suggest that life could only evolve once. I’m skeptical of claims that any are actively visiting Earth, though.
Fairies, pixies, unicorns, djinn, etc.? No way. Gods at least have some ontological arguments in their favor: for example, is it more parsimonious to describe a universe that started existing out of nothing or a deity that exists outside of the universe’s constraints? Neither explanation is particularly satisfying, but at least both are considerable.
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Also, your god vs. universe started existing out of nothing (which isn’t a thing) is a false dichotomy.
Also,
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
For a given proposition, I don’t think it makes any sense to use “does it add anything to the discussion” as a criterion for dismissing it. The OP is asking about other claims of supernatural entities, which are simliar to gods at least in terms of their supernatural qualities. You don’t just get to dismiss them. So, rephrasing the OP’s question: given that you have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of deities and unicorns, why do you believe in one but not the other?
I’d be certainly willing to consider any other models you may have.
And yes, I do get to dismiss them, because this entire thread is a question of whether and what people believe, and OP asked me whether I believe in them, so I answered. I could believe in literally anything and it would fit the topic of this thread.
But to get more specific, I am a fallibilist: I believe that everything is ultimately unprovable, not just gods. The scientific method and deities are simply two models I find compelling enough to be worthy of my time and attention.
I already answered your specific question: the philosophical arguments that make consideration of deities compelling do not hold for fairies. As one of many examples, no one has ever advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for fairies. Without those, the claims are not at all similar, and I have found no compelling reason to contemplate the existence for unicorns or fairies.
No one has advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for a deity, either.
Regardless, thank you for being honest and admitting that you believe what you believe because of feelings and nothing more. I find it hard to have discussions with people who don’t care about the actual truth of what they believe, so I’m gonna disengage here. Have a good one.
Incorrect. There have been many ontological arguments: Wikipedia lists over a dozen formulations.
You not being convinced by any does not change the fact that they have been seriously proposed and discussed for the last 1000 years or so. And again, ontological arguments are just one of many different types.
I see you feel the need to project some notion of “feelings” onto me, which is not at all what fallibilism is. So not only did you attempt to start an argument on an explanatory thread, but now you’ve demonstrated you’ve misunderstood the replies, declared yourself winner of your own game, and are jotting off. So… congrats?
I was trying to disengage peacefully, and I honestly didn’t intend to insult you or declare myself “winner” of anything. But now you’re being dishonest, so you’re blocked. Again, have a good one.
I don’t think we need to get a semantic argument over whether the singularity that led to the big bang is the same as the universe or its own distinct thing. Matter, energy, hypothetical branes, or any other “stuff” of existence: do we have a mechanism for this that isn’t just turtles all the way down?
We don’t have to get into it, but neither of the options you just gave is the same as “universe from nothing,” which is what you said initially.
I think you’re implying that the claim “the matter and energy that comprise the universe has always existed” is a bad position. If I’m correct on that, why do you feel that way? I feel that it is the claim that best comports with our current understanding of the cosmos.
Curious how other untestable belief sit for you, always interesting to know!
I mean things like aliens, fairies, etc where the answers are equally unknowable
Aliens? Probably. We know planets are common and there’s nothing to suggest that life could only evolve once. I’m skeptical of claims that any are actively visiting Earth, though.
Fairies, pixies, unicorns, djinn, etc.? No way. Gods at least have some ontological arguments in their favor: for example, is it more parsimonious to describe a universe that started existing out of nothing or a deity that exists outside of the universe’s constraints? Neither explanation is particularly satisfying, but at least both are considerable.
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Also, your god vs. universe started existing out of nothing (which isn’t a thing) is a false dichotomy.
Also,
For a given proposition, I don’t think it makes any sense to use “does it add anything to the discussion” as a criterion for dismissing it. The OP is asking about other claims of supernatural entities, which are simliar to gods at least in terms of their supernatural qualities. You don’t just get to dismiss them. So, rephrasing the OP’s question: given that you have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of deities and unicorns, why do you believe in one but not the other?
I’d be certainly willing to consider any other models you may have.
And yes, I do get to dismiss them, because this entire thread is a question of whether and what people believe, and OP asked me whether I believe in them, so I answered. I could believe in literally anything and it would fit the topic of this thread.
But to get more specific, I am a fallibilist: I believe that everything is ultimately unprovable, not just gods. The scientific method and deities are simply two models I find compelling enough to be worthy of my time and attention.
I already answered your specific question: the philosophical arguments that make consideration of deities compelling do not hold for fairies. As one of many examples, no one has ever advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for fairies. Without those, the claims are not at all similar, and I have found no compelling reason to contemplate the existence for unicorns or fairies.
No one has advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for a deity, either.
Regardless, thank you for being honest and admitting that you believe what you believe because of feelings and nothing more. I find it hard to have discussions with people who don’t care about the actual truth of what they believe, so I’m gonna disengage here. Have a good one.
Incorrect. There have been many ontological arguments: Wikipedia lists over a dozen formulations.
You not being convinced by any does not change the fact that they have been seriously proposed and discussed for the last 1000 years or so. And again, ontological arguments are just one of many different types.
I see you feel the need to project some notion of “feelings” onto me, which is not at all what fallibilism is. So not only did you attempt to start an argument on an explanatory thread, but now you’ve demonstrated you’ve misunderstood the replies, declared yourself winner of your own game, and are jotting off. So… congrats?
I was trying to disengage peacefully, and I honestly didn’t intend to insult you or declare myself “winner” of anything. But now you’re being dishonest, so you’re blocked. Again, have a good one.
Well ok then.
Please point to a scientific hypothesis or theory that claims that the universe “started existing out of nothing.”
I don’t think we need to get a semantic argument over whether the singularity that led to the big bang is the same as the universe or its own distinct thing. Matter, energy, hypothetical branes, or any other “stuff” of existence: do we have a mechanism for this that isn’t just turtles all the way down?
We don’t have to get into it, but neither of the options you just gave is the same as “universe from nothing,” which is what you said initially.
I think you’re implying that the claim “the matter and energy that comprise the universe has always existed” is a bad position. If I’m correct on that, why do you feel that way? I feel that it is the claim that best comports with our current understanding of the cosmos.