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

[PixyMisa]

And what you have demonstrated is that you are a complete knucklehead who simply fails to understand the most mind-numbingly simple things imaginable.

Such as?

 

[PixyMisa]

Virtually no one has made any worthwhile arguments which justifies their position that we know that Narnia type Worlds do not exist.

Induction.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You really don't understand the concept about not being able to prove a negative.

As for your throwing of the names retard, I find that ironic.

And I'm sick of telling people I don't care that some negatives (eg Narnia type worlds do not exist) are impossible to prove.

You can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

What is the problem with people here? What precisely are you lot objecting to?

That even though such worlds might well exist, you couldn't get there by magic??

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

That other worlds/Universes might well exist but that they wouldn't be anything like Narnia??

Why the hell not?? What is it about reality that forbids such type of worlds??

Or are people saying no other worlds/Universes apart from this exist full stop (or period as you denizens of the USA say)

Plenty of physicists speculate otherwise {shrugs}

I might well be a moron, but I'm a moron who has yet to receive any remotely satisfactory answers as to why Narnia type worlds couldn't exist.

 

[delphi_ote]

It's got nothing to do with whether all is mind or whatever. Once we reject any materialist metaphysic then anything is possible. Infinite possibilities abound. For a kick-off there's the possibility of an ultimate purpose to the Universe, our lives and all things, together with all this implies.

And possible that money will grow on trees and possible that you can fly.

Go try it, Ian. Go try to fly. Show these ignorant materialists your dedication to this premise.

 

[Ducky]

And I'm sick of telling people I don't care that some negatives (eg Narnia type worlds do not exist) are impossible to prove.

If you wish to dispute the statement to the negative (ie. narnia doesn't exist) then you must prove it does exist. You cannot provide evidence to prove a negative. So in short order, quit whining and prove other worlds exist and you can use magic to get to them and we'll stop giving you ◊◊◊◊ for posting logical fallacies.

You can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

I don't have to justify it. I am responding to your logically fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you wish to prove dawkins statement wrong, simply magically transport yourself to narnia or someplace like it. And please hurry.

What is the problem with people here? What precisely are you lot objecting to?

asked and answered many times in this thread. please reread.

That even though such worlds might well exist, you couldn't get there by magic??

Do you have evidence that this is true? If not, then quit being a pedant and attempting to have us prove a negative.

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

Prove us wrong. Go do some magic.

That other worlds/Universes might well exist but that they wouldn't be anything like Narnia??

You're repeating yourself. Please don't drool on your keyboard working yourself into a frenzy calling us all idiots.

Why the hell not?? What is it about reality that forbids such type of worlds??

Have you ever taken a physics class? Or do you just think it's as much the fiction of your CS Lewis book?

Or are people saying no other worlds/Universes apart from this exist full stop (or period as you denizens of the USA say)

Plenty of physicists speculate otherwise {shrugs}

1) I'm nto saying that.

2) what physicists? If you were to perhaps cite them then we could get into a meaningful discussion. However your general assertions mean nothing without any evidence.

I might well be a moron, but I'm a moron who has yet to receive any remotely satisfactory answers as to why Narnia type worlds couldn't exist.

Well that's a good start. You're past denial. Now stop being so frothing mad you're a moron and calling us all idiots and you'll get somewhere with this discussion.

 

[PixyMisa]

AYou can't prove there is no such types of world. But if you cannot even provide any reasons either, then you have not remotely justified the theis that such worlds are extremely unlikely.

Induction.

No, people are not saying that because they are saying that such worlds simply do not exist. So all this magic business is simply a red herring.

If they interact with our Universe, that violates all the laws of physics. Every single one.

If they don't interact with our Universe, they don't exist.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Induction.

Yeah, induction told us at the beginning of the 20th Century that man powered flight is impossible.

Induction tells us nothing here. It just tells us that reality operates in uniform ways. How does that have any implication for the possibility of other worlds??

Why don't you try to give some type of meaningful answer instead of uttering one single word.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah, induction told us at the beginning of the 20th Century that man powered flight is impossible.

Nope.

Induction tells us nothing here. It just tells us that reality operates in uniform ways. How does that have any implication for the possibility of other worlds??

No evidence has ever been found of any magic of any sort. Therefore, induction leads us to believe that there is none.

Why don't you try to give some type of meaningful answer instead of uttering one single word.

Because you don't read those.

 

[Interesting Ian]

If you wish to dispute the statement to the negative (ie. narnia doesn't exist) then you must prove it does exist. You cannot provide evidence to prove a negative. So in short order, quit whining and prove other worlds exist and you can use magic to get to them and we'll stop giving you ◊◊◊◊ for posting logical fallacies.

I must prove it exists? That's mighty funny. I believe that no Narnia type worlds exist. Indeed I don't believe in the existence of any other physical worlds. Yet I am required to prove they exist to show that your statement that you know they don't exist is unjustified.

Jesus, are you for real??

 

[PixyMisa]

I must prove it exists? That's mighty funny. I believe that no Narnia type worlds exist. Indeed I don't believe in the existence of any other physical worlds.

Well, that's a refreshing change.

Yet I am required to prove they exist to show that your statement that you know they don't exist is unjustified.

Induction.

 

[Ducky]

I must prove it exists? That's mighty funny. I believe that no Narnia type worlds exist. Indeed I don't believe in the existence of any other physical worlds. Yet I am required to prove they exist to show that your statement that you know they don't exist is unjustified.

Jesus, are you for real??

Ok I'm going to go slowly through this so you can understand:

You cannot prove a negative. If a statement to the negative is made that you wish to dispute, then you must prove the positive.

For example, in order to dispute my statement "There is no Narnia-like world" then you would have to show evidence for narnia type world.


If you don't believe that Narnia like worlds exist, then what the hell have you been blathering about for 5 pages?


ETA:

Asking Jesus if he is for real, by the way, has never gotten a response. If Jesus tells you he is for real, please let us know.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Induction.



If they interact with our Universe, that violates all the laws of physics. Every single one.

But objects still fall, mobile phones still work, the Earth still orbits the Sun etc. Indeed the world acts as if many laws of physics are not in fact violated.

The so called laws of physics are simply descriptions of the way reality operates. Thus reality cannot violate physical laws because they simply describe what happens in reality. If other worlds influence our one, or if consciousness influences the world, then that's just the way reality is. To say that such things violate physical laws demonstrates a profound ignorance of what so-called physical "laws" are.

If they don't interact with our Universe, they don't exist.

That is just a facile wholly unsubstantiated assertion.

You know where you can stick your logical empiricism.

 

[PixyMisa]

But objects still fall, mobile phones still work, the Earth still orbits the Sun etc. Indeed the world acts as if many laws of physics are not in fact violated.

The so called laws of physics are simply descriptions of the way reality operates. Thus reality cannot violate physical laws because they simply describe what happens in reality. If other worlds influence our one, or if consciousness influences the world, then that's just the way reality is. To say that such things violate physical laws demonstrates a profound ignorance of what so-called physical "laws" are.

Nope.

Our laws of physics describe a Universe that is not interacting with magical worlds. Our laws of physics are, when we test them, an incredibly accurate description of the Universe. Therefore the Universe is not interacting with magical worlds.

That is just a facile wholly unsubstantiated assertion.

No. It's basic logic.

You know where you can stick your logical empiricism.

Ah. You don't like basic logic then?

If Narnia does not interact with our Universe, if no-one from here can go there (or vice-versa), if no substance or signal or information can pass from one to the other, then it doesn't exist. Because to exist is to interact, and Narnia don't.

 

[PixyMisa]

By the way, Ian, you yourself believe that magical worlds don't exist.

Why?

 

[hellaeon]

ok...

Ian bloke

I can understand I think what you mean perhaps in the sense, are there planets or the like out there where such things are possible?

Im of the opinion a strong no, since what we know of the physics and other sciences about us that rules our lives enables us to determine cosmology and the like. We know the way planet and stars traverse in advance, how they form etc, due to the laws of nature about us and our solar system assumed the same for them and thus known the same. With this in mind, its easy to assume the domino effect of the natural laws around us would surely then apply elsewhere (at the least as a starting point). This is why I myself struggle to imagine worlds as fortold in our fiction. There would be vast differences in climate, life, elements etc but magic and such is supernatural, which needs to come the proof table, where science is and where supernatural fails. Science shows us all these things and based on that, you can safey assume specifics such as fictional worlds are non existant as a starting base.

I hope that makes sense, im typing fast whilst at work

However the universe is an amazing place....

My two cents

 

[Interesting Ian]

If you don't believe that Narnia like worlds exist, then what the hell have you been blathering about for 5 pages?

What have I been blathering about?? I've been blathering about skeptics mysterious knowledge on this issue.

I don't know whether Narnia type Universes exist. I don't know whether any other Universes exist. I said I believe not, but that's purely guesswork! It's just a guess on my part. I simply don't possess the knowledge of skeptics on this issue.

However I was anxious to learn so this is why I asked how you know that Narnia type worlds do not exist. Their answer? Your answer? (you all speak with one voice as if you're just one entity with one mind!)

The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!

Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!

Yeah right

 

[PixyMisa]

Addressing this in a little more detail, though I don't know why:

But objects still fall, mobile phones still work, the Earth still orbits the Sun etc. Indeed the world acts as if many laws of physics are not in fact violated.

That's exactly the point.

The so called laws of physics are simply descriptions of the way reality operates. Thus reality cannot violate physical laws because they simply describe what happens in reality.

The laws of physics are not the fundamental rules that govern the Universe; they are our statements of those rules. If the laws of physics were being violated, we would know they were wrong, that they were not an accurate description of reality. Newton wrote the book on orbital mechanics; his laws were indeed violated because they didn't accurately describe what happens in reality.

So of course it is possible for physical laws to be violated - if the laws in question are wrong.

But - and it is important to note this - the laws we presently have, although they don't represent a single complete theory of physics, are a very very very accurate description of reality.

If other worlds influence our one, or if consciousness influences the world, then that's just the way reality is.

Use the subjunctive, Ian.

The point is, reality is not that way, other worlds do not influence this one, and consciousness does not influence the world (other than through the motor neurons). We know this because the laws of physics that we have say that this is not the case, and yet accurately describe the Universe.

To say that such things violate physical laws demonstrates a profound ignorance of what so-called physical "laws" are.

Nope.

Our laws of physics, our statements of how the Universe works, preclude the interaction of our Universe with magical worlds. As I said, magical worlds violate all the laws of physics. If magical worlds were interacting with our Universe, all the laws of physics would be wrong.

But what we find is the opposite; that the laws of physics are right.

This implies, inductively, that there are no magical worlds.

 

[Ducky]

What have I been blathering about?? I've been blathering about skeptics mysterious knowledge on this issue.

I don't know whether Narnia type Universes exist. I don't know whether any other Universes exist. I said I believe not, but that's purely guesswork! It's just a guess on my part. I simply don't possess the knowledge of skeptics on this issue.

However I was anxious to learn so this is why I asked how you know that Narnia type worlds do not exist. Their answer? Your answer? (you all speak with one voice as if you're just one entity with one mind!)

The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!

Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!

Yeah right

You are still asking to prove a negative.

You really don't get that do you?

 

[PixyMisa]

You are still asking to prove a negative.

You really don't get that do you?

No, he doesn't.

Ian, if anyone had ever presented any evidence of magical worlds, or of magic in general, then we would be willing to consider the possiblity of their existence. Or, if the evidence was convincing, we would actually accept their existence.

But:

(a) There is no such evidence. None. Not one jot.
(b) If magical worlds existed, the Universe would be different to the way we observe it to be.

Therefore: No magical worlds.

That's what Dawkins said, and what any sane adult understands.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Nope.

Our laws of physics describe a Universe that is not interacting with magical worlds. Our laws of physics are, when we test them, an incredibly accurate description of the Universe. Therefore the Universe is not interacting with magical worlds.

Just like what a 17th Century physicist would say regarding the proposal that Neutrinos exist, and virtual particles exis,t and a million other things we now deem to exist but which they didn't recognise as existing.

If you went back in time and told someone like Galileo about all of our technology, how much would you think he would believe? If he was at all like you than absolutely none of it!

By the way, Ian, you yourself believe that magical worlds don't exist.

Why?

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!".

Likewise if we'd have both lived in the 17th Century, and a time traveller travelled back in time from the 21st Century and told us all about her technological world, I would be very "sceptical" (original meaning of the word), but I wouldn't react like you and say it's absolutely impossible!

That's the difference between me and "skeptics" such as yourself.