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

aggle-rithm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
drkitten said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh yes? I hope you have some evidence that I made such an assertion.
 
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.
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Tut!
Shame!

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

NARNIA

:D
.
 
Last edited:
Interesting Ian said:
And who decides what is an extraordinary claim? Skeptics or seekers of the truth?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Interesting Ian said:
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...

I know, I know. But that's a book, Ian. A book.
 
Kochanski said:
Ok.…This is just dumb, I am going back to playing with my cards, far more interesting … than this nonsense.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Belz... said:
Funny thing about the burden of proof, is that everyone thinks it's not on them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
Johnny Pixels said:
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
Click to expand...

Or it could be that the elephant is invisible and incorporeal
 
Johnny Pixels said:
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
Click to expand...

Or it could be an invisible elephant on another plane of existence. You can't prove it isn't. ;)
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom