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

No reason at all! Simply a guess on my part. Nothing more. The difference between me and you is that if I were to put on a magic ring and were whisked to another Universe, I would be surprised, amazed even, but I wouldn't splutter "this is impossible!".
.....
That's the difference between me and "skeptics" such as yourself.

I wouldn't splutter anything in such a case. I would simply look for a logical explanation for what I am experiencing.

Why? Not because I'm a party pooper, but because I've learned that the ONLY way to effectively cope with the outside world is to deal with it in terms of what we know and understand, not on what we wish the world to be.
 
No I am not saying that, or indeed anything remotely like it.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Of course you can bloody disbelieve things without proving they don't exist!

Are you crazy??

Is anyone on this thread arguing against me able to comprehend simple English sentences??

No wonder people think I'm stupid if they imagine I'm saying anything of the sort!

Ian,

Maybe we can simplify this.

Here is what (I believe) the position of most skeptics is on this subject:

1. We do not believe that Narnia-type worlds exist.
2. We are willing to be shown otherwise.
3. We are not willing to waste time speculating about it until such evidence is forthcoming.

Fair enough?
 
How can you possibly ridicule someone by saying that they think they're superior when you exhibit so little respect for anyone else, here ? You keep calling people idiots and ignoring everything they say, and then you have the gull to use that kind of sarcasm ?

But no ones saying anything. No one has put forth any arguments to justify their claim to knowledge. People are simply ignoring me -- or at least they're ignoring my arguments. They seem to think I'm saying the most ridiculous things.

I think its overwhelmingly likely that the precise place called Narnia doesn't exist.

I think it's reasonable to suppose no Narnia type place exists. It is an a priori reasonable position to adopt in my opinion until, and if, evidence to the contrary should turn up.

I don't believe that any other physical Universe exists, but here this is simply guesswork on my part. The fact that other physical Universes might be in principle completely inaccessible gives zero reasons to suppose they do not exist. Otherwise we would have to declare that galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon do not exist!

My objection is to people declaring they know that no Narnia type worlds exist.

Now it is perfectly reasonable to say they know this if they can either provide reasons or evidence. But no-one has supplied either of these. Simply saying "induction" refers to the feeling (yes feeling!) that the future will resemble the past. This has zero relevance to the issue of other worlds/Universes.

So my objection is that people are saying they know things, and that I must prove that a Narnia type world exists in order to show they don't know it. The stupidity of this is quite frankly beyond belief.
 
The guy writing a review of Richard Dawkin's book "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder" on the following page:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0009.html

states Dawkin's states in his book that:

“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.”

Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's apparently knows doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion? If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?

Ian's original post.

Now, let's look carefully at the quote from Dawkins, shall we, class?

“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.”

Here, Dawkins is clearly not stating that he knows these things are absolutely not real; however, it is also clear that he is stating that these things don't seem to exist in the adult world; in other words, there is no objective evidence in the adult world of fairies, Father Christmas, Toyland, Narnia, the Happy Hunting Grounds, angels, etc. All he's doing is stating the default position, that these things are not known to exist in this adult world... not that he knows they don't exist absolutely.

So, basically, Ian, you're battling a straw man that even you don't fully agree with.

However, if he had come outright and said, "I know that there is no Narnia," I do agree he would need to justify that apparently certain knowledge. But he didn't say that... you've put words into his metaphorical mouth.

Simply put, though, you cannot prove a negative. The best you can do is attempt to refute someone's proof of a positive. In other words, first someone has to make a positive claim ('Narnia exists'), and put forth some manner of evidence (burden of proof); then we can attempt to refute that evidence. But that can never fully disprove the negative.

The fact that you're arguing at all about it proves that a) you're a hypocrite; b) you just plain like to argue; and c) you're still as mind-bogglingly idiotic as ever.
 
Let me quote a bit more of Dawkins:
I love my parents for taking me for a ride, high as a kite, through the treetops; and for telling me about the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, about Merlin and his spells, about baby Jesus and the Three Wise Men. All these stories enrich childhood and, together with so many other things, help to make it, in memory, a time of enchantment. 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. But there are also no devils, no hellfire, no wicked witches, no ghosts, no haunted houses, no daemonic possession, no bogeymen or ogres. Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive. But there are warm, live, speaking, thinking, adult bedfellows to hold, and many of us find it a more rewarding kind of love that the childish affection for stuffed toys, however soft and cuddly they may be. Not to grow up properly is to retain our ‘caterpillar' quality from childhood (where it is a virtue) into adulthood (where it becomes a vice). In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our caterpillar nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists and quacks.
It's clear that this entire statement is allegorical in the sense of having a spiritual meaning over and above its literal meaning. I don't think we should infer from this statement anything about Dawkins' opinion on the logical possibility of a Narnia-like world.

~~ Paul
 
Ok Ian, you've got seven pages of text to comb now. Let me give you a task that you may actually be able to handle:

Locate within these pages a single quote where it is asserted that it is not possible for a world like Narnia to exist.

There have been many postings now, some empassioned and lacking logic, and it is entirely possible someone has actually made this statement (I haven't checked throuroughly yet). Please point one out before you post anything else. If after all this time no one has claimed this, then you'll look pretty silly continuing to argue against something no one has said, won't you?

I'll give you a hint, Dawkins never claimed it. If you need me to make that clearer, I can.
 
Like I've been saying Ian. A person can be justified in saying that something does not exist if there is no evidence to support it's existance. That person can also be justified in saying the something will never exist if the existance of that thing goes against what is known at the time. Wether he's right or wrong is to history to decide.

The multiple universe hypothesis (it is not yet a theory by definition) simply says that givin that this univers arose why not others. This says nothing about "all possible" universes. The parrallel universe hypothesis has even less support for it. Everything else is just mere guess and fanciful hypothesising. It's not yet a theory because there is no known way to test it.

As far as we know, inorder for a universe to exist it has to have the at least the same properties as this univers. (i.e. the same physical laws) As far as our knowledge of the working of this universe goes, you change any one thing in the laws of physics and no universe happens. No star formation, no planet formation, no formation of elements or atomic structure, zip, nada, nothing. Not even talking lions.
Something like "majic" would violate some physical laws (or the ways that our universe is observed to work; for the pendaticaly afflicted) like entropy, or thermodynamics, mass, gravity, relativity, etc..
Take for instance the wardrobe. Yes, space/time wormholes are theoreticaly (the "common" definition) possible, but if you've read Kip Thorne's discription of what it takes to produce a wormhole you would know that applewood has none of those properties. And again "majic" violates how we know the universe works.

You see, with all this going against the possible existance of a Narnia type world along with the lack of any evidence supporting evidence one can safely say that a narnia type world does not exist.
 
So basically, an inability or unwillingness to read Dawkins accurately, or for that matter, to understand anybody's posts, results in a very impolite rant by Ian that nobody but him can understand a plain English sentence? Sounds like business as usual.
 
But no ones saying anything. No one has put forth any arguments to justify their claim to knowledge. People are simply ignoring me -- or at least they're ignoring my arguments. They seem to think I'm saying the most ridiculous things.

I'm not ignoring you. Sarcasm and bad jokes aside, I've basically been saying that : science works with evidence, basically. We cannot infer much about the universe without some form of evidence. Because it would be quite unwieldy to believe in every theory that anyone can throw around, we are quite justified in believing, or saying, that there are, for example, no Narnia-like worlds simply because we don't have any evidence for them.

It is in NO WAY the same as saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Narnia-like worlds to exist, thought it seems, a priori, somewhat unlikely that a world would exist that would be exactly like a fictional universe thought up by a human author.

I think it's reasonable to suppose no Narnia type place exists. It is an a priori reasonable position to adopt in my opinion until, and if, evidence to the contrary should turn up.

I don't believe that any other physical Universe exists, but here this is simply guesswork on my part. The fact that other physical Universes might be in principle completely inaccessible gives zero reasons to suppose they do not exist. Otherwise we would have to declare that galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon do not exist!

I'm with you, here.

My objection is to people declaring they know that no Narnia type worlds exist.

That's the distinction I'm making: saying "there are no Narnia type worlds." and "It is impossible that Narnia type worlds exist." is not the same thing.
 
The multiple universe hypothesis (it is not yet a theory by definition) simply says that givin that this univers arose why not others. This says nothing about "all possible" universes. The parrallel universe hypothesis has even less support for it. Everything else is just mere guess and fanciful hypothesising. It's not yet a theory because there is no known way to test it.

To be fair, however, it seems reasonable to assume that a great number of universes are more likely than a single one.

As far as we know, inorder for a universe to exist it has to have the at least the same properties as this univers. (i.e. the same physical laws) As far as our knowledge of the working of this universe goes, you change any one thing in the laws of physics and no universe happens. No star formation, no planet formation, no formation of elements or atomic structure, zip, nada, nothing. Not even talking lions.

Can't fully agree there, Uruk. I, for one, can't claim to know what kind of universe would spring from ANY change in one of the physical laws... not that I know all of them, also.
 
Is anyone on this thread arguing against me able to comprehend simple English sentences??

No wonder people think I'm stupidQUOTE]

Well, yeah. You apparently think its worth deabting whether fantastical universes may exist or not. Which is a bit stupid in MY OWN opinion... EVIDENCE please.
 
Ok Ian, you've got seven pages of text to comb now. Let me give you a task that you may actually be able to handle:

Locate within these pages a single quote where it is asserted that it is not possible for a world like Narnia to exist.

I don't need to comb through it. No one has said it.

There have been many postings now, some empassioned and lacking logic, and it is entirely possible someone has actually made this statement (I haven't checked throuroughly yet). Please point one out before you post anything else. If after all this time no one has claimed this, then you'll look pretty silly continuing to argue against something no one has said, won't you?

I have not argued against it, nor do I intend to argue against it.

Yet another example of skeptics trying to divert attention from the issue at stake.
 
Like I've been saying Ian. A person can be justified in saying that something does not exist if there is no evidence to support it's existance.

If this means no more than a tentative hypothesis which you would be more than willing to abandon should you happen upon appropriate evidence or compelling reasoning, then fine. If it is a knowledge claim, then it isn't.
 
Something like "majic" would violate some physical laws (or the ways that our universe is observed to work; for the pendaticaly afflicted) like entropy, or thermodynamics, mass, gravity, relativity, etc..

Yeah, like quantum mechanics violates Newtonian mechanics.

You're talking complete nonsense unless you suppose that the physical laws as we know them completely 100% describe reality.

And don't forget the underdetermination by theory thesis.

Take for instance the wardrobe. Yes, space/time wormholes are theoreticaly (the "common" definition) possible, but if you've read Kip Thorne's discription of what it takes to produce a wormhole you would know that applewood has none of those properties. And again "majic" violates how we know the universe works.

I don't care because I reject the notion that current physical laws entirely accurately describe reality.
 
Yet another example of skeptics trying to divert attention from the issue at stake.

The issue at stake being your own misrepresentation of Dawkins' views?

Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's[sic] apparently knows (italics in original -- drk) doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's [sic]come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion?

Dawkins never made the assertion you claim he did. By your own admission, no one on this thread has made the assertion you claim.

As it happens, I have very good reason for rejecting the claim that Narnia exists. It's fictitious. It's imaginary. I have the author's own words on that -- read "Fern Seed and Elephants," in the collection of the same name. I have no evidence to support the claim that Lewis was either lying or deluded when he wrote that Narnia was imaginary. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that Narnia does not, in fact, exist.

Since a primary defining property of Narnia is that it is fictitious, any "Narnia-like" world is also, by definition, fictitious and equally does not exist.
 
It's not really like that at all. QM and classical physics are both consistent with observation. Talking lions (just for instance) are not.

We're not talking about talking Lions. We're talking about whether physical laws as currently known can be violated. We can only assert they can't be by supposing that these current physical laws are a 100% accurate description of reality.
 
I think what Ian is trying to ask is:

"Why is it a legitimite opinion to assume that narnia-type worlds do not exist until evidence suggests they do?"

The rationalistic answer would be: because it is parsimonious.

Which leads to the further ( and I think core ) issue: why is rationalistic thinking better than magical thinking?
 

Back
Top Bottom