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

Interesting Ian said:
Jus' wondered if there were any arguments against the existence of world's only accessible via magic, that's all. So there isn't?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chance of existence of
ipu1.gif
=
flying-spaghetti-monster-sticker.gif
=
mid_left.jpg
=???
 
Last edited:
Amapola said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Antiquehunter said:
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.
Click to expand...

And who decides what is an extraordinary claim? Skeptics or seekers of the truth?
 
Jyera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Possible Universes mean they might exist. Some people believe there is a googolplex of parrellel Universes.
 
KingMerv00 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ian said:
You know, by chanting spells or whatever.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
Interesting Ian said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
FramerDave said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom