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

[Interesting Ian]

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.

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.


If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

 

[Jon.]

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

Actually, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, Dawkins asserts that Narnia does not exist, not that places like Narnia do not exist. As you seem to understand when it is convenient to you, these are not the same thing.

If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

Had Dawkins said "We have no reason to believe that places like Narnia exist, and we should therefore act as though they do not exist", would that have made you happier, Ian?

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

Will people stop going on and on and on and on about irrelevancies?

I perfectly understand that it is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a negative.

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

 

[gnome]

Take 3:

Interesting Ian:

Please respond. If I don't want you to think I am claiming infinite knowledge, must I always say so?

Regarding "You can't prove a negative"... I would rephrase that to "You can't prove a negative in an infinite space." ... that is, if an infinite amount of evidence were needed to prove it.

I can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist ANYWHERE in all of reality... but I can prove that it's not in my room. Unless someone claims the EB is invisible...

 

[Interesting Ian]

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.

Fine, then go into detail about how it violates them. Otherwise people might think you're talking through your backside.

 

[Interesting Ian]

[/font][/color]

Actually, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, Dawkins asserts that Narnia does not exist, not that places like Narnia do not exist. As you seem to understand when it is convenient to you, these are not the same thing.

Jesus Christ! People on here are so incredibly stupid! I just cannot believe that human beings can be sooo stupid!

I just simply cannot believe it!

Absolutely incredible!

 

[alfaniner]

Or it could be an invisible elephant on another plane of existence. ...

Or he escaped through the wardrobe.

With the witch.

 

[uruk]

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

The burden of proof inevitably shifts to the proof for rather than the proof against. Why is that? Because things that exist are evident through proof and observation and interaction. Dawkins can make that claim that Narnia does not exist because to disprove Dawkins requires that you prove that a Narnia type world exists. Or at least show evidence supporting the Narnia type world exists. Dawkins proof is that there is no evidence and that the probability for the existance of a Narnia type world is so low as to be considered non existant.

If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

But the difference is that those thing have born out to exist by evidence and proof. If a Narnia type world does exist then there will be proof and evidence for its existance which remains to be discovered. If there is no evidence, then you cannot say that it does exist. (you know, innocent untill proven guilty or Non existant untill proven existant) You can only say that there is a possibility (or rather a probability) for a Narnia type world to exist. A possibility which can be strengthend if there are things which are known to exist which are similar to the characteristics of a Narnia type world. Say for instance a talking lion, or a piece of furniture that acts as a door way to an alternate universe, or that a form majic exists. But a lack of those things which support its existance decreases its possibility (or probablity) to exist. Things which which have a very low probablity of existance can pretty much be handled as if they do not exist at all. For example, there is a very small probability that something I drop will fall up, but that probability is so small that that I can safely say that it will never fall up.

Besides, it's more ludicrous to say that something exists for which there is no proof or evidence for it's existance. Otherwise You can't tell me that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist because how would you know that a horse with a single horn on it's head and is transparent to light in the visible spectrum but yet retains the characteristic of being pink cannot exist? Are there any half decent arguments which show that IPU do not exist?

 

[DreadNiK]

Will people stop going on and on and on and on about irrelevancies?

Since this entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of the burden of proof, I suggest you listen to yourself.

I perfectly understand that it is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a negative.

Some would say impossible.

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

[/QUOTE]

Most people won't care if you think they are an hopeless incorrigible idiot, since you somehow think that anyone saying 'Narnia doesn't exist' must then back themselves up or appear an idiot. At the very least, you are being extremely pedantic. Do you insist everyone makes certain they've qualified every single thing they say to you to avoid being an idiot in your eyes?

If I were to say, for example, that "Leprechauns don't exist" would you immediately assume I was an idiot for not saying "To the best of my knowledge, leprechauns don't exist"? What if I said all oranges are orange, would you insist that I actually said all oranges I have ever seen or heard of are orange?

Have you a point to this thread other than unbelievable pedantry?

 

[Goshawk]

People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever!

Yes, we can. That's because it's not our job to prove that things don't exist--it's your job to prove that things do exist. Read the manual, Ian.

I did not know that SpongeBob's house was made out of a pineapple. But that is probably because I no longer have preschoolers around.

So, Aggle-rithm, what's your excuse for knowing a thing like that?

 

[Belz...]

That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.

Actually, all he does is state the default position given the current evidence. Only by providing more evidence could you change the default position.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
That is not the original argument. As I keep saying, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not me that is asserting anything whatsoever. It is Dawkins.


Uruk
The burden of proof inevitably shifts to the proof for rather than the proof against. Why is that? Because things that exist are evident through proof and observation and interaction. Dawkins can make that claim that Narnia does not exist because to disprove Dawkins requires that you prove that a Narnia type world exists. Or at least show evidence supporting the Narnia type world exists. Dawkins proof is that there is no evidence and that the probability for the existance of a Narnia type world is so low as to be considered non existant.

You need to consult a dictionary to find out what the word "proof" means. A proof is not an assertion which has zero evidence to suppose it is true, and has zero reasons to suppose it is true. To assert something as being definitely true but without any reason or any evidence to support their assertion is, quite frankly, rank stupidity.

If the existence of a Narnia type world is of extremely low probability, then this is an assertion which simply must be justified. Otherwise why should myself or anyone else believe you?? People can pull as many assertions from their backsides as they like, but if they are wholly lacking any evidence and/or reasons to support their assertions, then it's just that i.e their backsides talking.

II
If he is saying that a definitive statement can be given that X does not exist if there is no evidence for X, then OK.

I remain, however, wholly unpersuaded. There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist. Indeed the supposition that we can declare that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to quite clearly ludicrous.

Uruk
But the difference is that those thing have born out to be true by evidence and proof.

Well yeah. So a 17th century Dawkins would have asserted mobile (cell) phones do not and cannot exist, meteorites cannot and do not exist, heavier than air flight cannot and never will exist, human beings travelling faster than 30mph cannot and never will exist.

If a Narnia type world does exist then there will be proof and evidence for its existance which remains to be discovered. If there is no evidence, then you cannot say that it does exist.

Good job that I never have then

 

[bruto]

Will people stop going on and on and on and on about irrelevancies?

I perfectly understand that it is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a negative.

But that's not my problem. If people go around asserting something doesn't exist, then they have the option of providing reasons or evidence to support their assertions. They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

So you keep saying, but you have not apparently provided any idea of what to you would constitute reasonable justification. I would say that the nonexistence of Narnia is unprovable, but hugely, overwhelmingly likely to the point of reasonable certainty, in part because as far as I know no sane human being has actually been there or anywhere like it, and because I am aware that the person who created Narnia intended it to be a literary fiction. This is not proof, but is it not good enough to work from?

Other magical realms, I would contend, are nearly as unlikely even though we cannot assign their authorship so convincingly. Mgical realms contradict what most of us consider to be the laws of physics and nature, and would require the addition of beliefs and principles we do not espouse. Nothing of this sort is provable, but if we have no positive reason to believe something does exist, and numerous reasons to believe that it is unlikely, why must we have a negative reason specific to that one thing? If I have good reasons for believing that there are no pink unicorns in general, must I come up with a locally specific reason why there is no pink unicorn in my bedroom?

Anyway, you allow that aside from evidence you would also accept reasons. I might, for example, state as my reason for believing that Narnia and other magical realms are nonexistent, the evidence-free reason that they contradict my religious beliefs. What if divine revelation has told me that these places cannot exist? I don't see any way that such a statement could be any less valid than any reason anyone could give for believing that they do exist, unless you can come up with some very reliable testimony or perhaps vacation snapshots from Narnia or whatever other magical realm you last visited. If something is entirely speculative, and unprovable, Why is "I don't believe in it" any less a reason than "I do believe in it?"

How about looking at it from the other side: what would induce you to consider seriously a claim that Narnia does exist? If I invited you to duck into my wardrobe (After you, sir...) would you do it? Why not? Are you actually not at all skeptical about the existence of Narnia, or are you playing a game?

 

[PixyMisa]

Induction.

Does Ian have me on ignore here as well?

 

[Bone_Vulture]

They can't provide evidence?? Fine! But they have to at least provide reasons! People can't just assert things like X doesn't exist and then provide no justification whatsoever! At least they shouldn't if they desire that other people, such as myself, to not consider them to be hopeless incorrigible idiots.

THAT'S RIGHT!

You better have a good reason for not believing that there is in fact an invisible pink elephant orbiting my bedroom!

 

[Cetecea]

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.

I propose you show me a single apple tree that is large enough to produce the wood needed to build a wardrobe that large...

 

[uruk]

You need to consult a dictionary to find out what the word "proof" means. A proof is not an assertion which has zero evidence to suppose it is true, and has zero reasons to suppose it is true. To assert something as being definitely true but without any reason or any evidence to support their assertion is, quite frankly, rank stupidity.

Hmmmm, proof , proof..ah here we go!
From dictionary.com:

"proof:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof. "

Since there is noone asserting or belivieving that a Narnia type world exist why would Dawkins have to go through the trouble of supporting his assertion? If someone came up with an objection I'm sure Dawkins might oblige. How about taking him to task personnaly? Otherwise you'll have to deal with the peanut gallery.

If the existence of a Narnia type world is of extremely low probability, then this is an assertion which simply must be justified. Otherwise why should myself or anyone else believe you?? People can pull as many assertions from their backsides as they like, but if they are wholly lacking any evidence and/or reasons to support their assertions, then it's just that i.e their backsides talking.

I believe that some here have been giving you arguments as to why a Narnia type world is improbable.

Well yeah. So a 17th century Dawkins would have asserted mobile (cell) phones do not and cannot exist, meteorites cannot and do not exist, heavier than air flight cannot and never will exist, human beings travelling faster than 30mph cannot and never will exist.

Well, for a 17th century Dawkins a cell phone would not exist, and since he would be long dead today, would never exist for him. (considereing that he would know what a cell phone was in the first place) Cell phones exist because someone born well after the 17th century invented a cell phone. If the cell phone was never invented the cell phone would never exist.
All those people were justified in thier claims because they were limited to what they knew. Time and discovery bore them out to be wrong. Just like today, we believe that man will never go faster than the speed of light because of what we understand about TLOP right now. We may achieve it, we may not. That is for future history to determin. But right now I can say the we will never go faster than the speed of light because everything we know tells us that we can't. I can be justified in saying that untill the day we actually do achieve FTL travel. Of course at that point the necessary understanding which would allow us to achieve FTL travel would be making itself evident and support for my assertion would be waning. Someone can't say with assurity that we will go faster than the speed of light because that only remains a possibility at this point. He can only be proven right when we actually do go FTL.

 

[Z]

Well, I see the hypocrite is slipping into his old tone of voice again - calling everyone idiots and stupid when it is he, himself, who is most deserving of such titles.

The burden of proof lies to the claimant of any given claim. As long as no one claims that Narnia is a real place, there is no need to prove it is not real. Just as it is not necessary to prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist, or that there are not, in fact, purple elephants in my underwear. The entire concept of 'prove this imaginary thing is not real' is a moronic way to approach a question to begin with.

Now, if someone comes along and makes a positive claim, such as "Narnia is a real place", it is the responsibility of the claimant to prove that Narnia does, indeed, actually exist. It is NEVER the responsibility of a claimant of a negative to prove a thing does NOT exist, unless they are attempting to refute evidence of an allegedly existential thing. For example, if we claim that Rhode Island does not actually exist, it is our responsibility at that point to refute all available evidence that says that Rhode Island exists; however, note that this absolutely REQUIRES that someone has made the positive claim that R.I. does, in fact, exist.

There have been many many things for which there has been no evidence for in human history, but which have eventually been shown to exist.

I almost let this one slip by... OK, Ian: name any ONE thing for which "there has been no evidence for in human history", which we nevertheless managed to be shown exists? I'm really curious how we can be shown something exists if absolutely no evidence for its existence exists?

 

[petre]

Ian, where is your proof for your claim that you are the lion from Narnia?

 

[delphi_ote]

Fine, then go into detail about how it violates them. Otherwise people might think you're talking through your backside.

Do I really need to explain to you in detail why a magical wardrobe to another world is not in accord with the known laws of physics?