Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Nimos]

This would be where I disagree. Given our current understanding of reality today, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that such entities are even possible. We combine this with our factual understanding of both human psychology and the documented history of these kinds of beliefs, and we can disprove it to the very same degree to which we can disprove anything.

Are you saying you could disprove all God(s) or the possibility of the supernatural?

I agree with you that we can reach a conclusion that the supernatural, including God(s) still needs to be demonstrated and therefore we can ignore it in our quest to obtain knowledge.

But that is very different from concluding that it couldn't exist.

Again, you cannot ask this question in any serious regard if you are talking about truths that correspond and conform to real things that exist independently of abstract human thought. It can be a valid question in a discussion involving an abstract artificial construction of reality in which you establish the possibility of entities with non-real characteristics.

I think you might have misunderstood me and maybe we might not even disagree.

The boundaries are the supernatural, given we are talking about God(s). So my point is that if you come to me claiming that your God is to be taken seriously. Yet my supernatural unicorn is just silly then that is an issue.

Because the boundaries for the discussion are something that isn't demonstrated to be true in the first place. So you can't present any arguments that make your God more likely to be true than my unicorn.

So the real point here is not really about God(s) it's about one supernatural claim vs another, and then claiming that one of them is offensive against the other's claim, because one doesn't believe it or finds it silly, while still maintaining once own to be true.

 

[F1fan]

Has it not occurred to you that one reason that so many religions exist with different details is because God has sent many different Messengers who have established many different religions over the course of time?

No, because these are implausible as reasons. Even believers can't show your suggestion is likely.

Reasons for why religions exist, and why they are so different, points to how settlements and cultures evolved separated from others. Even the difference in human appearance is due to human populations being separated. Nothing suggests the many religions are a result of one God, or even many gods. There is nothing supernatural about any of the many thousands of religions and sects.

 

[MikeF]

Are you saying you could disprove all God(s) or the possibility of the supernatural?

Both. We know the provenance of entities described in religious myth, passed down and instilled in each successive generation, changing and evolving as societies change and grow over time. That is quite straightforward.

There is no such thing as "the supernatural". Either things exist as part of reality or they do not. Simply having the capacity to imagine an abstract construct does not give it existential value or possibility. We understand that our thought consists of abstractions, abstractions themselves having no physical properties or limits of association. We can mix and match them however we choose. The results of such mixing and matching have no correspondence or conformity to reality unless shown to do so.

I agree with you that we can reach a conclusion that the supernatural, including God(s) still needs to be demonstrated and therefore we can ignore it in our quest to obtain knowledge.

There is nothing to demonstrate. That is exactly the issue. I know I'm being a stickler here, but I think it is important. These words like "supernatural" and "God/s" carry heavy assumptions with their use, assumptions I and others flatly reject. Therefore, unless you know something beyond current objective understanding of reality, there is no supernatural nor any reason to give it the benefit of the doubt. In fact, it should be dismissed as the myth and fancy that it is.

The label "God/s" has quite a long history of labeling or pointing to mythical entities and should be treated as such. If you have a notion of something other than this to which you refer, I would ask that you attach a differentiating label to it so that we may keep clear what exactly is being talked about.

I think you might have misunderstood me and maybe we might not even disagree.

I think we disagree on what can and should be considered possible.

 

[Nimos]

There is nothing to demonstrate.

That is not for you to decide. Those making the claims have the "right" to demonstrate it if they are convinced it is true. You don't have to accept it or even take it seriously as long as such a demonstration is not provided.

You claim that it doesn't exist and therefore you have the burden of proof.

There is absolutely no way for you to conclude that there isn't something beyond our reality that defies all natural laws.

That is an equally amazing claim as to claim that God did it.

I think we disagree on what can and should be considered possible.

That we do. To me anything is possible until proven otherwise, thereby not saying that everything is equally likely to be true. But I wouldn't jump to a conclusion just because I find it unlikely if I couldn't provide conclusive proof for why I was correct.

That is basically what all religious people do, they jump to the conclusion that God is real, no different than jumping to the conclusion that no God exists.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

When they (the Atheism people) failed to give any positive " Evidence" for their own ism/s or no-isms, they used to see Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns or Flying Kettle in the air, but it is a thing of the past now, now they have got reformed, right?
It was a sort of their rhetoric, right?

If somebody still mocks at the believers with their rhetoric /rants, I don't mind, as it only exposes the hollowness of their ism/ianity, please, right?

If both sides are reasonable and respectful to one another, then it is a positive human trait to share and discuss one another's point of view, right?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see how it would be different. In both cases you have claim of which you are trying to decide if it is true or not.
In both cases you have mere anecdotes to decide on its truth value.
How is it different? Just claiming it is different is not enough.

It is different because it impossible to procure forensic evidence for God because God is not a physical entity, and it is impossible to have eyewitness testimony for God, since God can never be seen.

Why?

I just explained that above. In short, because God is not a human being, the evidence for God's existence cannot be the same as the evidence used to prosecute a human being in a court of law.

Then what is it based on, if not merely what the supposed "messengers" claim?

Baha'u'llah made claims in His Writings. Otherwise there would be NO WAY for anyone to know who He was claiming to be.

However, the 'claims' in His Writings ARE NOT the evidence that support His claims.

The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you tell the difference?

By looking at the religion and seeing if it is superstitious.

 

[MikeF]

That is not for you to decide. Those making the claims have the "right" to demonstrate it if they are convinced it is true. You don't have to accept it or even take it seriously as long as such a demonstration is not provided.

You claim that it doesn't exist and therefore you have the burden of proof.

There is absolutely no way for you to conclude that there isn't something beyond our reality that defies all natural laws.

That is an equally amazing claim as to claim that God did it.

I simply suggest to you that your comments are those developed from a religious paradigm. They are imbued with the bias entailed in the paradigm.

The concept of "beyond reality" seems quite oxymoronic. How can something be beyond all that exists? The concept of "natural law" is also an archaic notion formed out of a religious philosophical worldview.

That we do. To me anything is possible until proven otherwise, thereby not saying that everything is equally likely to be true. But I wouldn't jump to a conclusion just because I find it unlikely if I couldn't provide conclusive proof for why I was correct.

That is basically what all religious people do, they jump to the conclusion that God is real, no different than jumping to the conclusion that no God exists.

Anything is not possible though, is it. There are definite limitations inherent in the reality in which we exist. I advocate a reasoned and rational skepticism in ones approach to all things, an approach that encourages continual reevaluation of the assumptions and paradigms within which we formulate our understanding of the world and ourselves.

If it is your assessment based on my comments that I have jumped to the conclusion that no "God/s" exist other than as myth, so be it.

 

[MikeF]

If both sides are reasonable and respectful to one another, then it is a positive human trait to share and discuss one another's point of view, right?

Absolutely. That is the first step in moving beyond ones purely subjective perspective in order to create a more objective one.

 

[Trailblazer]

So I think a valid question you could ask yourself is how does a supernatural God differ from a supernatural unicorn? What is God capable of that the unicorn isn't?

A supernatural God is capable of a whole heck of a lot more than a supernatural unicorn since He is All-Powerful.

 

[Nimos]

I simply suggest to you that your comments are those developed from a religious paradigm. They are imbued with the bias entailed in the paradigm.

The concept of "beyond reality" seems quite oxymoronic. How can something be beyond all that exists? The concept of "natural law" is also an archaic notion formed out of a religious philosophical worldview.

Because it is not relevant what the attributes are. Meaning whether it is beyond all that exists or simply a big foot running around in a forest. It is about making claims and not providing proof for them.

I don't think "beyond reality" is, we have no clue what is beyond our Universe if anything, or even how it got into existence. I think one could make a valid argument that our Universe is our reality, what was going on before or "outside" it, is not. There could be things going on that control our reality, yet we will never know given we can't look past our creation, at best we can reach the Big Bang assuming that is correct, and even that is impossible due to physical cosmic whatever preventing it (You will have to look it up for a better explanation as I can't remember the details)

Yet, if I should accept your claim and what you say is true, then what is beyond our Universe? how did it come into existence? What is the explanation? At that point, everything is guesswork and that is where God(s) are placed.

Anything is not possible though, is it. There are definite limitations inherent in the reality in which we exist.

Agree. We have to follow the physical laws because we exist in the Universe. But that doesn't mean that everything has to adhere to those laws if they exist outside or in a parallel universe or whatever.

I advocate a reasoned and rational skepticism in ones approach to all things, an approach that encourages continual reevaluation of the assumptions and paradigms within which we formulate our understanding of the world and ourselves.

Completely agree, but we don't do that by jumping to unjustified conclusions. That is why the burden of proof is so important. It allows everyone to make theories and claims, yet for everyone else to not take them seriously without providing proof.

But there is absolutely nothing gained by shooting down someone's idea or claim due to ignorance, let them provide the proof if they can, and then have a go at that and see it if holds water.

If it is your conclusion based on my comments that I have jumped to the conclusion that no "God/s" exist other than as myth, so be it.

Isn't that what you say?

But rather my point is simply that the same rules apply to your claims as to those of a religious nature. There is no difference between claiming God exists vs that he doesn't when it comes to the burden of proof. Both are extraordinary claims about knowing about the very existence of our Universe.

 

[Nimos]

A supernatural God is capable of a whole heck of a lot more than a supernatural unicorn since He is All-Powerful.

Then you haven't met my unicorn

No there is no difference in concept, my unicorn can do everything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I really don't know what your position on leprechauns is any more. I once thought I did, but you've added so many sentences like those above since. Too bad you haven't made a single, clear statement of your position. Here's mine: I don't believe leprechauns exist because I have no reason to think that they are more than fictional creatures imagined by mankind, but lacking a way to demonstrate that they don't exist, I remain agnostic, that is, I do not say that they don't exist either. I live as if they don't exist without knowing that with certitude.

I don't believe leprechauns exist because I have no reason to think that they are more than fictional creatures that people wrote about.
I would never even be thinking about leprechauns if they were not posted about on this thread.

And though you object to the comparison of gods and leprechauns, nevertheless, that's also my position regarding gods and for the exact same reasons.

You are welcome to your position.

There are no relevant differences. The similarities, however, are relevant.

There are no similarities between God and leprechauns but there are striking differences.

Why? It doesn't matter to me, and most people consider me decent. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be interested in a correct answer if one were available,

No, it has nothing to do with being decent. Many decent people are atheists. Some of them don't care if God exists and some might want to know if God exists.

No, you've described an unjustified belief. I don't expect to be able to explain why to you if I haven't yet, and I obviously haven't. That "they need faith to believe" tells you that belief isn't justified, meaning the sound conclusion of a valid argument. It also tells one that the evidence cited doesn't justify the conclusion.

No, I have described a justified belief. I already explained why it is justified. A belief should be based upon evidence but we also need faith.
We need "faith to believe" because nobody can ever see God or hear from God directly.

You quoted, "An either-or fallacy occurs when someone claims there are only two possible options or sides in an argument when there are actually more." Yes, that correct, but that doesn't apply here. There are either-or situations in life, and this is one of them. You'd need to demonstrate that this isn't one of them.

It isn't one of them because NOBODY CAN EVER SEE GOD OR HEAR HIS VOICE, so that means faith is necessary to believe that God exists.

Likewise, if there was no way to verify whether or not your spouse was cheating on you, you would have to have faith to believe that was not the case.
Of course, we know that there are ways to verify a cheating spouse, such as private investigators, but there is no private investigator who can verify God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You failed to complete the thought expressed in the second sentence:

"Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof because it is myth."

"Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof because God is not subject to proof."

Again, not subject to logic because they are stories of myth that have been passed down and evolved over millennia.
This would be the logical conclusion that can be drawn.

Again, not subject to logic because God is not subject to logical proofs. As such, it cannot be proven that there were ever any revelations from God.
This would be the logical conclusion that can be drawn.

A belief is false if it can be proven to be false, however. It should also be logically clear to you that not everything that can be imagined is possible.

Let's do a thought experiment:

I can imagine a 400lbs pig flying through the air without any external aids. Would it be a true statement to say that such a flying pig is possible? If you say that it is not possible, why is it not possible?

It is not possible because it is contradicted by what we know from science, just as the belief that Jesus floated up through the sky to heaven (what Christians believe is meant by Acts1:11) is contradicted by science.

Acts 1:10-11 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which imagined religious entity does not contradict what is know of reality. None.

Look at the definitions of contradict. God does not 'contradict' what is known in reality just because God is not 'known to exist' in the physical reality.
Reality is what exists.

Reality:

• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
• the state or quality of having existence or substance.

reality means - Google Search

 

[shunyadragon]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

First, there is no objective evidence of any of the variable Gods in human history. I believe it is a valid critique of the ancient tribal mythical world views of God(s).

 

[SalixIncendium]

First, there is no objective evidence of any of the variable Gods in human history. I believe it is a valid critique of the ancient tribal mythical world views of God(s).

What is a variable God?

 

[McBell]

What is a variable God?

huh.
When i read it I read 'various'.
Not until you asked did I realize I read it wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Messengers claim revelations from Gods, yet these can't be verified. And given the extraordinary claims they are, they can't be taken seriously.

Just because the claims are extraordinary claims that does not mean that the claims can't be taken seriously. That is all the more reason to take them seriously, but they should not be taken seriously until they have been thoroughly investigated.

Then how can you claim to KNOW a God exists? You don't seem to understand the words you use because you acknowledge there are no facts that a God exists, but then claim to know a God exists. You can't have it both ways.

Something does not have to be a Fact in order to be known. There are other ways of knowing.
3 Ways to Know Something

One can also know because they were guided by God.

"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145

There is no different way to reason. You either reason properly or you aren't reasoning. Reasoning (logic) follows rules, and it allows a narrow lane of thinking. Some evidence can be interpreted differently, but not that it is true and factual. You often claim untrue "evidence" is valid when it isn't, namely that messengers are reputable and valid in what they claim.

God is not subject to logic so the existence of God or Messengers of God is not subject to logical proofs. However, a person can still employ informal logic and avoid the logical fallacies. That is what I try to do.

You do not know that Messengers are not reputable and valid in what they claim so that is only a personal opinion.
I do not know (factually) that Messengers are reputable and valid in what they claim so that is only a belief.

Rational is demonstrated by your thinking process and your conclusions. As you must be aware of you face a lot of criticism for your thinking and conclusions. You do make rational statements sometimes, but you aren't consistent.

I could say the same about you.

Because to be rational you need a valid argument via valid evidence. Theists are at a disadvantage of having no valid evidence for the conclusions and beliefs they hold. They aren't owed anything, these are the rules.

I am not going down that road about what is valid evidence for God or Messengers again. That has been beaten to death.
Atheists are at a disadvantage of having no valid evidence for the conclusions and beliefs they hold about God and Messengers of God.
All atheists have are personal opinions about the evidence.

That would be due to bias for their beliefs.

No believers can show atheists anything due to their bias for non-belief.

False, it is explained over and over that reasoned and rational statements need to be based on valid evidence and follow logic. Being rational is a narrow lane, and it is demonstrable.

My statements are based on valid evidence and follow logic, but I am NOT going down that road about what is evidence again.
Any rational person would know that God is not demonstrable.

Irrational statements are easily exposed by experienced minds.

That's right, and I see plenty of those statements.

As in the definition you use, proof means evidence. Theists lack evidence. If they decide to debate their religious beliefs in a diverse forum then they had better be prepared for critique.

By definition, evidence is not proof. Theists do not lack evidence, they only lack the KIND of evidence that atheists require, a requirement that is completely irrational. One cannot have empirical evidence, or testable and repeatable evidence, for a God who is not in this world and is not a material entity. That is logically impossible.

Yet you claim to know a God exists. See how inconsistent your thinking is?

I know a God exists based upon the evidence that exists, which is the evidence that God provided.
You want some kind of evidence that does not exist, and you will never find it since it does not exist.

Yet you have stated that what messengers claim is the basis for why you believe a God exists, or even know a God exists.

That is correct. I don't need it to be factual, only true.

It's not my standard, it is the logical/debate standard that is even applied in law. We either recognize and value this standard, and apply it, or we don't.

The 'standard level of evidence' required in law is NEVER going to be the same as the 'standard level of evidence' required for religious beliefs.
Until atheists realize this they will keep making the same mistakes and they will get nowhere.

Feel free to challenge anyone on mistakes they make. This is a dubious claim on your part when you make such obvious errors yourself, and refuse to learn and adjust.

Only what you 'believe' are errors.
You make obvious errors yourself.
I have pointed out these errors regarding evidence. Are you going to refuse to learn and adjust?

 

[Trailblazer]

Has it not occurred to you that one reason that so many religions exist with different details is because humans are gullible and want to believe in an established framework that others believe in already?

The reason that so many religions exist is because God has revealed many different religions through Messengers who came in different ages.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]​

​

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Bahá'í views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Bahá'í views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.[3]​

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i​

The reasons that those religions have not united into one religion is because humans want to believe in an established framework that others believe in already.