What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[The Grand Nudger]

If god could be talked into existence, you would have done it by now Statler.

My wife has just helped me to understand your stunningly elegant view of the world:

Unless we see it with our own eyes
A bear doesn't shit in the woods.

Forget god, this was a question worth answering. The world thanks you. I'm off to develop a laxative to help all those constipated bears. Back later.

[Statler Waldorf]

If god could be talked into existence, you would have done it by now Statler.

My wife has just helped me to understand your stunningly elegant view of the world:

Unless we see it with our own eyes
A bear doesn't shit in the woods.

Forget god, this was a question worth answering. The world thanks you. I'm off to develop a laxative to help all those constipated bears. Back later.

With all due respect to your wife, she's wrong. You can believe a bear is taking a poo in the woods upon faith all you want. You just have no scientific evidence or logical proof to believe so. I encourage you guys to admit you believe things upon faith; it takes all of your ammunition away when debating Christians.

[edk]

Oh my, we actually agree on something? Although when you say things like the laws of logic are independent of the universe you are not sounding like much of a naturalist. Do you have proof they exist though?

Concepts exist when you think about them. I don't think I can prove logic exists to you better than you do yourself every time you think it.

So you admit there is a good chance that your senses are not reliable and you are experiencing a reality that is not actually real?

No, I admit there is an unquantifiable chance. But when I say "God doesn't exist", I mean in the reality that I can see. There's no point arguing about an outer reality that may or may not exist and is impossible to experience.

I didn’t say infallible, I said reliable. There is no way to prove our memories are reliable, even though we all live like we believe it is true.

Replace infallible with reliable then; I don't think that human memories are totally reliable, but they are a good starting point. See also my previous point.

If you actually believed this though you could not learn or know anything because the principle of induction would have no foundation. I have a feeling that you do not jump off of tall buildings because you assume the law of gravity works the same today as it did yesterday and will work the same tomorrow as it did today. There is no way to logically prove this to be true, even though everyone lives like they believe it is true.

For something to be true I accept empirical as well as logical proof; it is impossible to learn anything about the world using only logic with no empirical basis on which to base one's logical reasoning.

Not a true circular argument, although it has a circular nature to it, I will grant you that. I can use what I have read in the Bible as a new primary axiom to provide a foundation for my initial presuppositions. Everyone has to engage in somewhat of a circular argument sooner or later. It’s not an invalid argument it just can’t be used to prove anything to anyone else.

The argument is circular. You hold an axiomatic belief which is derived from a source verifiable only if that axiomatic belief is true. It still requires itself to be true in order to be shown to be true.

Actually logic and reason are very much a part of it. In fact, in an atheistic universe you’d have no reason to even believe in logic, much less use it. So by doing this, you are acting in a manner that assumes we do not live in an atheistic universe, that there are laws of logic that transcend time and nature and we should use them to discern truth. There is a Biblical basis for that belief, there has never been a naturalistic one.

I believe that there are laws of logic that transcend time and nature, just as the laws of maths for example transcend time and nature, but I don't believe they govern or necessarily apply to the universe, but rather that they can be used to build, from empirical evidence, theories as to how the world works, and to promote or refute those theories. There are infinite possible concepts that transcend time and nature; they don't have to apply to anything real. We just use the ones that do.

---

With all due respect to your wife, she's wrong. You can believe a bear is taking a poo in the woods upon faith all you want. You just have no scientific evidence or logical proof to believe so. I encourage you guys to admit you believe things upon faith; it takes all of your ammunition away when debating Christians.

> You just have no scientific evidence or logical proof to believe so.
This is where you went wrong. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that bears do shit in the woods. There is no evidence to suggest that a god exists, let alone that he is the God of your Bible and that he does everything it says he does.

[Ant]

@ edk141 : *Why* do you believe that logic and mathematics transcend time and nature? Why can we not regard each as an internally consistent human construct based on formalising rational argument or reifying counting? Why invoke some kind of Platonic ideal?

It strikes me that several posters are throwing around “logical proof” a lot re science. In fact science does not *prove* anything, but continually seeks to falsify or validate hypotheses, hypotheses which are based on empirical evidence and have empirically testable predictions, to build theories and models that provide the best explanation of reality in light of our current state of empirical knowledge. All theories and models — and scientific “laws” — are in principle tentative and may be revised or discarded in light of new empirical evidence. Hence, science only appraches “the Truth” asymptotically. However, some theories (e.g. evolution, quantum theory, gravity) are so comprehensively validated, that to regard them as untrue, to expect that they might be wholly discarded, is irrational. Note also that some old models are still valid within certain bounds. Newtonian gravitation is still an applicable model for most quotidian purposes.

Empirical evidence is not restricted to our own (imperfect) senses. We can use instruments to extend the kinds of evidence that is available to us. Thus, it is no harder for a blind person to empirically demonstrate the existence of light than it is for a sighted person to empirically demonstrate the existence of ultrasound. (However, they could never experience the *quality* of light as a sighted person can, but that is quite another matter.)

Philosophical naturalism grounds the scientific method. While Statler and others might argue that it is not logically proven, we can take it as a hypothesis; and because we are having this conversation (that is, because science works!), it is a hypothesis that has been consistently validated. Yes, it might be falsified if some supernatural hypothesis is validated, but, well, that hasn’t happened yet.

The question is, is any supernatural hypothesis coherent? The very word suggests that it is outside the purview of science, but really, that’s the point. It was coined to provide a refuge for the things supposed to be “beyond” science.

Nevertheless, if a “supernatural” entity exists and intercedes in the natural world — such intercession including any kind of communication with us — then it must have natural effects that are amenable to scientific inquiry. The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on.

Of course, if a “supernatural” entity exists but doesn’t intercede in the natural world (as in deism), that is beyond scientific inquiry, but, then, why should we care?

On a completely different topic, returning to the OP, the fact that the Bible contains a mixture of formats (poems, proverbs, biography, etc.) doesn’t disqualify it from being a fantasy book, in the same way that Ursula K. LeGuin’s _Always Coming Home_ is not not a science-fiction book.

This was my first post here. Thank you.

/@

---

… multi-verses exist …

Which kind of multiverse(s) are you thinking about here, Statler?

/@

[edk]

*Why* do you believe that logic and mathematics transcend time and nature? Why can we not regard each as an internally consistent human construct based on formalising rational argument or reifying counting? Why invoke some kind of Platonic ideal?

It strikes me that several posters are throwing around “logical proof” a lot re science. In fact science does not *prove* anything, but continually seeks to falsify or validate hypotheses, hypotheses which are based on empirical evidence and have empirically testable predictions, to build theories and models that provide the best explanation of reality in light of our current state of empirical knowledge. All theories and models — and scientific “laws” — are in principle tentative and may be revised or discarded in light of new empirical evidence. Hence, science only appraches “the Truth” asymptotically. However, some theories (e.g. evolution, quantum theory, gravity) are so comprehensively validated, that to regard them as untrue, to expect that they might be wholly discarded, is irrational. Note also that some old models are still valid within certain bounds. Newtonian gravitation is still an applicable model for most quotidian purposes.

Those were Statler's words, not mine, but I agree with them for the most part. I believe logic like "A = B and B = C therefore A = C" transcends time and nature because it doesn't really exist, it's a concept which incidentally often applies to reality. I don't believe that logic is embedded in the fabric of the universe or some such. I don't believe either that a logical proof on its own is worth the paper it's written on; evidence is required as a basis for it. For example, if I know empirically that the theory of relativity is correct, I can logically extend that to saying it is impossible to reach the speed of light.

Empirical evidence is not restricted to our own (imperfect) senses. We can use instruments to extend the kinds of evidence that is available to us. Thus, it is no harder for a blind person to empirically demonstrate the existence of light than it is for a sighted person to empirically demonstrate the existence of ultrasound. (However, they could never experience the *quality* of light as a sighted person can, but that is quite another matter.)

I tried to make this point several pages back (using electricity and ultraviolet as examples). Hopefully you put it better than me.

Philosophical naturalism grounds the scientific method. While Statler and others might argue that it is not logically proven, we can take it as a hypothesis; and because we are having this conversation (that is, because science works!), it is a hypothesis that has been consistently validated. Yes, it might be falsified if some supernatural hypothesis is validated, but, well, that hasn’t happened yet.

The question is, is any supernatural hypothesis coherent? The very word suggests that it is outside the purview of science, but really, that’s the point. It was coined to provide a refuge for the things supposed to be “beyond” science.

Nevertheless, if a “supernatural” entity exists and intercedes in the natural world — such intercession including any kind of communication with us — then it must have natural effects that are amenable to scientific inquiry. The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on.

Of course, if a “supernatural” entity exists but doesn’t intercede in the natural world (as in deism), that is beyond scientific inquiry, but, then, why should we care?

And if its existence or lack thereof does not affect us in any way, they are equivalent as far as science is concerned.

[Ant]

Thanks, edk141. Really only the first para was directed at you. Most of the rest was with Statler in mind, and sometimes Rhythm. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. I was on the mobile version of the blog which doesn`t seem to support quoting.

… I don't believe either that a logical proof on its own is worth the paper it's written on; evidence is required as a basis for it. …

Well, I certainly agree with this!

I tried to make this point several pages back (using electricity and ultraviolet as examples). Hopefully you put it better than me.

You did, and I got it. I thought an analogy with something other than another EM radiation might be more convincing.

IAnd if its existence or lack thereof does not affect us in any way, they are equivalent as far as science is concerned.

Just so!

/@

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me get this straight. You think that if you find one atheist who believes things for which there is no proof that all criticism of your ill thought out god will vanish in a puff of equivocacy?

hock:

---

It seems to me that you are not concerned with the validity of your beliefs, at least not as concerned as you are about whether or not atheists can question them. Perhaps I'll have a Muslim relay my criticism, or a Pagan. What brand of theist would you rather hear my objections from?

Catch you when you return.

[TheAtheistTroll]

I'm just mad that this guy is soiling the reputation of the best muppets

[Anymouse]

Let me get this straight. You think that if you find one atheist who believes things for which there is no proof that all criticism of your ill thought out god will vanish in a puff of equivocacy?

hock:

---

It seems to me that you are not concerned with the validity of your beliefs, at least not as concerned as you are about whether or not atheists can question them. Perhaps I'll have a Muslim relay my criticism, or a Pagan. What brand of theist would you rather hear my objections from?

Catch you when you return.

Kudos from the token Wiccan in these parts.

[Minimalist]

You can believe a bear is taking a poo in the woods upon faith all you want. You just have no scientific evidence or logical proof to believe so.

Jesus fucking christ Waldork. So you think that every time National Geo goes out in the woods to film a show about bears they never catch one taking a dump? Do you think they sit there with their cameras and wait for the bears to do something cute or maybe they just turn the camera on and EDIT the film later?
After all, can't have geniuses like you seeing a bear shit on camera!

So here, just for you, is SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE that bears shit in the woods!