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

Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps if you weren't so prejudice and you actually READ his book and understood the CONTEXT of what was said, perhaps you would not be so peeved about a single quote taken OUT of CONTEXT.

To be persuaded, you need to actually READ the book and understand what he is saying. You are asking him for evidence when you haven't even read what he has written.

Try spending a little less time posting nonsense and actually READ the book.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
They all die in the end? Cripes! I only read a couple of the books. Ah yes, they all die in the end. "I'm the author and I want to stop writing and I don't know what else to do."

Feh, indeed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I feel that way about Hamlet too. What a total cop-out.

Come on, Paul - you can't take the ending out of context like that and summarily judge that the author was lazy. Given the Christian undertones of the book, it was an entirely reasonable ending.
 
Interesting Ian said:
That should be more likely the conclusion of a materialist based metaphysic.
Click to expand...
Oh, of course not.

Tell you what - you stop putting words in materialist's mouths, and I'll stop putting words in your mouth. Deal?


So. Getting back to the original topic.

There are so many levels of possible discussion about the existence of Narnia that it is hard to know where to begin.

Narnia as an idea obviously exists. C.S. Lewis thought it up and wrote it down.

Narnia, or a Narnia-like place, as a place is highly doubtful but not impossible, given that any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. There could be a whole race of Aslans with transporter technology, for instance. They just beamed the dead Aslan off the Stone Table and then beamed another, living, Aslan down.

Oops, company's arrived, I have to go.
 
Beleth said:
Come on, Paul - you can't take the ending out of context like that and summarily judge that the author was lazy. Given the Christian undertones of the book, it was an entirely reasonable ending.
Click to expand...
You mean it matched the lazy Christian cop-out of fixing everything with some judicious deaths? :D

~~ Paul
 
Interesting Ian said:
The world as interpreted by materialists/atheists has nothing to offer. It is a cold impersonal place where all hope, wonder and purpose is banished.
Click to expand...

Oh, you are so wrong there I just don't know where to begin. The universe is full of wonder. Full of amazing things to see and know and scientists are working every day of their lives to find out about it. Look up at the stars one evening and you will be struck by the awe of a universe that is vast and unexplored. Much to wonder about there. Much still to explore here on our own planet, too. New forms of life that live in extreme climates are redefining what we think of as life and what qualifies as conditions where life could exist.

How limiting is the view that "god did it", end of story, nothing to think about, nothing else to know, nothing else to learn, there is a bleak and narrow existence if I ever saw one. Wonder stops when you are given all the answers and are told you have no need to look elsewhere for them.

Where is purpose if you live this life only waiting for an "afterlife" where you will be rewarded for your existence here? Living life knowing there is nothing after this means we make the most of our time. Enjoy every moment, treasure each relationship, knowing that what we do now is the only thing that matters. If we are fortunate we leave a legacy of children or work that lives on and gives us life after we are gone, but we know that what is most important is making what we do count.

And hope abounds when there is much still to see and know. Hope that humans can learn about the universe and our own world. Hope that knowing we get only one chance at life that we will work our best and living in peace and with respect to all others on our world. Hope that knowing we each have the ability to contribute to life here in our own way and to determine our own path while we live and hope that it will make a difference.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Yes, qualia are simply presumed to exist. He and I take the existence of qualia as being absolutely 100% certain.
Click to expand...
Yah, but why? There is zero evidence that they exist.

And yes, it is true that the existence of qualia necessitates that materialism is false.
Click to expand...
Because they are defined that way, yes.

In other words qualia is simply consciousness so long as we understand that when we say consciousness, we are not talking about physical events in the brain, but rather the raw feel of consciousness or experiences. I take it an an axiom that I at least am conscious and have experiences).
Click to expand...
Qualia are not just conscious experience, but irreducible conscious experience. In that article, for example, the author states that even if we show exactly how brain activity gives rise to our experience, we haven't explained the existence of qualia. Since we (in that case) have explained everything for which there is subjective or objective evidence, we can only conclude that qualia don't exist.

It's circular. Assume that experience cannot be explained by any material property or process, then show that this means that experience cannot be explained by any material property or process. The logical fallacy practically leaps of the page and smacks you in the face, but you think it somehow disproves materialism. :nope:
 
Interesting Ian said:
I feel that such a world doesn't exist, but I deny that we can say that we either know it, or can claim that it's overwhelming improbable (how does one calculate probabilities in such a scenario??).
Click to expand...

Ian, I don't know why you keep bringing that one up. What we feel is irrelevant to this discussion. Simple fact is, there is nothing to lead us to believe that Narnia exists, and at least one piece of evidence (it is the invention of a human author) to lead us to believe it doesn't.

Of course, I'm not saying that it is absolutely impossible that it exists, just practically impossible.

Interesting Ian said:
Ah! I think I now understand why PixyMisa was going on about induction all the time. If X is some putative physical existent in the world which no one has ever experienced, then clearly, through inductive reasoning, the probability of X actually existing is small.

Unfortunately another world, should it exist, is not something within our physical Universe. Therefore this line of argument achieves nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's different. It might not be part of our physical universe, but it's within our realm of understanding and reasoning.
 
Interesting Ian said:
The problem here is that not one single person arguing against me understands the difference between knowing something does not exist, and saying it is impossible it does not exist!
Click to expand...

Well, if you KNOW it doesn't exist, then you can SAY it.

I believe we can return from the afterlife. I believe in reincarnation.
Click to expand...

Although that's a completely different subject, I must ask: Why ? Aside from wishful thinking, what reasons would make you believe in that kind of thing ?

As I keep saying, the fact that it is wholly undetectable gives no reason whatsoever to suppose it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but one may argue that, for all practical reasons, it doesn't. Now, I don't do that, but I'll say that, if it's wholly impossible to detect, then it is scientifically useless, unfortunately. I, for one, would like to be able to travel to other worlds, see the future, or become a Super-Saiyan. I must face the facts, however.

You skeptic guys certainly seem to enjoy discussing uninteresting things! How many posts are there in this thread so far?
Click to expand...

I find few subjects completely uninteresting, even the pointless ones. Must be the geek in me.

Interesting Ian said:
Perhaps this is connected in some way to your vehement dismissal of the possibility of an afterlife.
Click to expand...

Again, how would an afterlife work ? How can you afterlive if your brain is dead ?
 
Interesting Ian said:
Well it almost certainly is wrong. As all our previous models in the history of science have been wrong, then by inductive reasoning it seems reasonable to presume our current model is wrong too.
Click to expand...

They weren't all wrong. Many of them needed adjustment. By your reasoning, we know nothing and can never know more, which is patently false. We know more now than before.

But it is wrong. My consciousness which is non-physical, is causally efficacious. I am demonstrating this right now by typing out my message. This proves the world is not physically closed. This is proof for the supernatural. Follow and read the link in my sig.
Click to expand...

What ? How can you claim this ?

Now, your signature:

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~elitzua/consciousness.htm

Begins so:

If something strange and unexplained persists, would its mere persistence make it natural? That would be the case for the layperson, but the scientist and philosopher should know better. Commonness should never allow us to get used to the miraculous.
Click to expand...

Alarm bells go off immediately. Then this is his conclusion:

I have consciousness, which is very mysterious and intriguing, yet, totally incapable of exerting any influence on my body. My consciousness can’t make me move a finger, sigh, blink, – nothing.
Click to expand...

What a funny thing to say. I move my finger, but I have no idea why ? Or is he just saying that consciousness does not exist ? If the latter, then why do you say it supports your position ?

I prefer this link, myself:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

Interesting Ian said:
If for example there wasn't any galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon this would mean that our local group of galaxies is at the centre of the Universe. This goes against the principle that the Universe is homogeous.
Click to expand...

There is no center of the universe, Ian. The universe is NOT homogeneous. Read up.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Yah, but why? There is zero evidence that they exist.


Because they are defined that way, yes.


Qualia are not just conscious experience, but irreducible conscious experience.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same thing. By definition qualia are not reducible.

In that article, for example, the author states that even if we show exactly how brain activity gives rise to our experience, we haven't explained the existence of qualia. Since we (in that case) have explained everything for which there is subjective or objective evidence, we can only conclude that qualia don't exist.
Click to expand...

There is no subjective experience according to materialism. Consiciousness does not exist. If consciousness does exist then materialism is necessarily false. You've admitted it yourself.
 
Originally Posted by Ian :
And yes, it is true that the existence of qualia necessitates that materialism is false.

We have waited years for a proof of this assertion, since it is not an empirical claim. The proof does not appear to be forthcoming.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with PixyMisa. He agrees that the existence of qualia necessitates materiliam is false. Obviously if you do not agree with him and me then you should read the link in my sig.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I was agreeing with PixyMisa. He agrees that the existence of qualia necessitates materiliam is false. Obviously if you do not agree with him and me then you should read the link in my sig.
Click to expand...
That's just sad, Ian. You are so desperate for somebody to agree with you that you will claim Pixy as a fellow believer, in spite of the obvious evidence (such as his most recent post) that he agrees with you about practically nothing.

You should get yourself a dog.
 
Belz... said:
I prefer this link, myself:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
Click to expand...
Great link. One of the things I've argued with Ian (and others) about is that its the failure modes of the brain that give us our best evidence that mind is brain function.

Only problem is that some of those failure modes give me the creeps. Permanent severe anterograde amnesia - eeek! :eye-poppi
 
Interesting Ian said:
WOW! I thought you were espousing eliminitivist materialism. If you believe in qualia after all, then the argument via the link in my sig stands.
Click to expand...
No.

Consciousness is real.

Qualia are a construct of immaterialism or dualism, and have no meaning at all under materialism. They are certainly not required for consciousness.
 
Ian, I don't see how it is possible to read my posts and come to the conclusion that I agreed with you. I really don't. Could you explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom