Do you believe in God?

[Mr Skeptic]

It should be noted that the header from your link in post #68 reads; “List of Greek mythological figures”. The word ‘mythological’ is the operative. In any event, Wikipedia also classifies Long John Silver as a pirate, Biggles as a WWI fighter pilot and states that “Commander Sir James Bond, (KCMG, RNVR) is an officer of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) (more commonly, MI6)”. My question is, what would you have me say about my beliefs concerning these characters?

 

The list there also includes non-god characters, which is why the title is about mythological figures. If you looked on the page at all, you would see that "deity", "god", and "goddess" are used to describe several of these characters. In any case, I think that your little exploration of wikipedia has demonstrated that you are in a very small majority if you think that something's non-existence means it cannot be called a god, pirate, animal, or person.

 

As I have indicated, I am quite happy to accept that these characters exist as characters in literature. I would not be happy for that to be taken as a statement regarding my beliefs concerning reality (i.e. that I believe they exist(ed) as people or deities). This is where your equivocation becomes an issue. Which question are you asking?

 

I never said about accepting that they exist in literature, real life, nor anywhere else. What I am saying is that they can be categorized regardless of their non-existence. And as to the poll, it is extremely unclear in as much as someone could answer "yes" because, for example, they believe the universe exists and is a god.

 

It doesn’t confuse me at all. I’m just happier when people don’t try to blur the line between fiction and reality.

 

I am as well. Care to show me a definition that requires an animal to exist for it to be an animal? Because in reality, people call some things that don't exist animals.

 

In reality, the statement ‘A magenta swan is an animal’ is predicated on the existence of a magenta swan. If a magenta swan does not exist, then it cannot be an animal. This is a fairly simple concept. However, if a magenta swan appears as a character in some fictional tale, then I am more than happy to accept the idea of that fictional swan being magenta, or that it speaks, or that it is magic, or that it was Zeus in disguise when he raped Leda, in the same way that I am happy to accept the idea that Long John Silver was a pirate.

 

This seems to be our major point of contention. I'd say fictional animals are a subset of animals. You seem to be saying that something cannot be an animal, pirate, etc. if it does not exist. Or at least you seem to be arguing that -- I find that hard to believe. The reason I find it hard to believe, is because humans are experts at categorizing and abstracting things. We tend to leave out unnecessary details, as they would only get in the way later. If I were to dip a swan in magenta ink, would it no longer be an swan? What if scientists were to discover a new species of swan that was magenta, or create one with genetic engineering? Would we all be scratching our heads wondering what this new thing that never existed before is? You might, but the rest of us would just call it a magenta swan.

 

Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish. The whole thing only gets confusing when you equivocate between reality and fiction.

 

Not true. A fictional swan must have certain general characteristics, or it cannot be called a swan. If the fictional swan were to be described as having leaves instead of feathers, cellulose in its cell walls, chlorophyll, and a trunk and roots instead of legs and feet, I'd say it was a tree, not a swan. If someone were to go into a detailed description of a fictional animal, I would expect to learn something about its real counterpart (if it exists).

 

The original question “Do you believe in God?” seems to me to be asking people to state their belief concerning the current state of reality, and not whether they believe there is a whole pantheon of God characters in literature. I may be wrong. In any case, if it will make you happy, my answers to these entirely different questions are no and yes, respectively.

 

Exactly, but what the question means depends on what "God" means. Is the question asking, Do you believe in the existence of Yahweh? Or is it asking Do you believe in the existence of the universe? You would answer both differently, but they are both about the current state of reality.

 

What?

 

Didn't you know some people consider the universe to be a god?

 

I accept the Universe exists (belief has little to do with it). However, I would not be prepared to respond to any poll in which a positive response to one category equates to a positive response to all categories. Further, I would not be willing to have my positive response to the question ‘Do you believe the Universe exists’ misinterpreted by the logic; ‘He believes the Universe exists; the Universe is God; therefore he believes God exists’. If you want clear, unequivocal and unambiguous answers, you must ask clear, unequivocal and unambiguous questions.

 

Hence why I am saying the poll is broken. "God" is a very broad term.

 

Or possibly that you are not making yourself clear. You are the author of your own argument. The onus is on you to make it clear to the reader, not on the reader to divine your meaning from ambiguous or equivocal statements.

 

Communication is a two way street. If you are not going to try to understand what I say, then there is no point is trying to tell you anything as you could just pull random definitions out and say that I am making no sense.

 

For example, I correctly interpreted the OP's question as asking about any god, despite the capitalization of the word God which suggested otherwise. The reason I successfully interpreted what he was saying is that I assumed that he was not crazy, and therefore in context with making the rest of what he said make sense, he had to mean any god rather than a specific God.

[Glider]

The list there also includes non-god characters, which is why the title is about mythological figures. If you looked on the page at all, you would see that "deity", "god", and "goddess" are used to describe several of these characters.

Are you implying that the reason for the word ‘mythical’ is only because the list includes non-God characters and therefore that the listed deities, gods and goddesses are not mythological?

 

In any case, I think that your little exploration of wikipedia has demonstrated that you are in a very small majority if you think that something's non-existence means it cannot be called a god, pirate, animal, or person.

That’s not what I said. I said “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.” (i.e. you can call them whatever you want to, but it does not make them so). I also said “I am quite happy to accept that these characters exist as characters in literature” (i.e. as ideas). “I would not be happy for that to be taken as a statement regarding my beliefs concerning reality”. There’s a subtle but important difference between calling (i.e. classifying) a thing a God or a Pirate and stating that the thing IS a God or a pirate.

 

I never said about accepting that they exist in literature, real life, nor anywhere else. What I am saying is that they can be categorized regardless of their non-existence. And as to the poll, it is extremely unclear in as much as someone could answer "yes" because, for example, they believe the universe exists and is a god.

The poll is flawed, we agree on that to an extent. I think to ask a hundred theists whether they believe in God would evoke a hundred positive responses, but I also think that there would also be a hundred different ideas of God driving those responses so, yes, it is an idea driven system of categorisation (any new idea becomes a new category). However, this is not relevant to my argument concerning the apparent difference we have concerning the concept of ‘being’ or ‘existing’.

 

I am as well. Care to show me a definition that requires an animal to exist for it to be an animal?

Of course: “Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.” (Wikipedia).

 

This is a fairly standard (though not exhaustive) definition. It presents certain criteria that an organism must fulfil in order to belong to the category ‘Animal’. Gryphons, dragons, unicorns and so-on. do not fulfil any of these criteria. Be aware that if you say they do, then I will ask you to send me a tissue sample of any of these creatures so I can check for myself at least the first criterion listed.

 

Because in reality, people call some things that don't exist animals.

I don’t doubt it, but that doesn’t mean they are animals. They are ideas.

 

This seems to be our major point of contention. I'd say fictional animals are a subset of animals.

This is our bone of contention. I would say that fictional animals are a subset of ideas, not a subset of animals. They do not exist outside of the minds of people and the pages of books.

 

You seem to be saying that something cannot be an animal, pirate, etc. if it does not exist. Or at least you seem to be arguing that -- I find that hard to believe. The reason I find it hard to believe, is because humans are experts at categorizing and abstracting things. We tend to leave out unnecessary details, as they would only get in the way later.

I’ve bolded the problem word. Something that does not exist cannot be anything more than an idea. I have said (several times) that fictional things can belong to whichever categories and possess whatever characteristics their creators wish. But that does not make them real. It only makes the idea of them real. As I keep saying, I am happy to accept the idea of gryphons, dragons, unicorns, or that Long John Silver is a pirate or that Zeus is the father of the Greek Gods. However, none of these are. They are nothing more than ideas. They are not animals or Gods or pirates, they are ideas that possess the characteristics their creators chose for them, and I don’t expect to encounter any of these things in reality. You can call or classify a fictional thing whatever or however you want, I have no problem with that, but it does not make it anything more than an idea.

 

If I were to dip a swan in magenta ink, would it no longer be an swan? What if scientists were to discover a new species of swan that was magenta, or create one with genetic engineering? Would we all be scratching our heads wondering what this new thing that never existed before is? You might, but the rest of us would just call it a magenta swan.

Swans exist but, as far as is known, magenta swans do not. So far only the idea of a magenta swan exists. However, to dye an extant swan magenta or to create a swan that is magenta would result in a magenta swan. I don’t see your point here. Why do you think I would be left scratching my head wondering about this?

 

Not true. A fictional swan must have certain general characteristics, or it cannot be called a swan. If the fictional swan were to be described as having leaves instead of feathers, cellulose in its cell walls, chlorophyll, and a trunk and roots instead of legs and feet, I'd say it was a tree, not a swan. If someone were to go into a detailed description of a fictional animal, I would expect to learn something about its real counterpart (if it exists).

Only because swans exist (as do trees). You are equivocating again, this time on the meaning of ‘fictional’. James Bond is a fictional character. The character was (classified as) a man. Men exist. Thus, the character of James bond possesses the characteristics of ‘a man’. This does not make James Bond real. You can learn nothing more about men by studying the character of James Bond (although you might gain some insight into the psychology of his creator, Ian Fleming).

 

What about dragons? What characteristics must a dragon possess in order to be categorised as a dragon? What anatomy must it possess? What physiological processes must it perform? You would place it in the animal kingdom: “ I'd say fictional animals are a subset of animals.” But what phylum? What class? A dragon is an idea, nothing more.

 

Exactly, but what the question means depends on what "God" means. Is the question asking, Do you believe in the existence of Yahweh? Or is it asking Do you believe in the existence of the universe? You would answer both differently, but they are both about the current state of reality.

They are about people’s beliefs concerning the current state of reality. There is a difference. In any event, as I have said, fictional characters can possess any characteristic their author wishes. I also think that every theist is the author of their own God. Thus, I suspect any attempt to identify a universal definition of ‘what “god” means’ is futile. There will be commonalities, but many differences in the detail.

 

Didn't you know some people consider the universe to be a god?

Yes, and they receive the same response. Edited February 4, 2009 by Glider

[morganparkar]

Hi friend,

Yes i believe.

[npts2020]

Glider; IMO you are not distinguishing real from corporeal. Ideas can be very real, (pick your favorite governmental "ism" for example) and can't necessarily be dismised only because they are not corporeal. I am sure that to some people unicorns, dragons, or whatever imaginary thing you can come up with are very real as there has never seemed to be any shortage of irrationality in the human organism.

[DrDNA]

Look, can we just stick to answering the question? A simple "yes" or "no, I'm agnostic" would do quite nicely. As soon as you start applying reasons you start insulting people.

 

 

I like how the non-theistic posters in this thread have to discuss exactly what is meant by the poll, whereas the theistic ones can just say "yes."

 

Does it really have to be this complicated?

 

 

[Severian]

Sorry - posted in wrong thread by mistake.

 

(I voted yes, by the way)

[Glider]

Glider; IMO you are not distinguishing real from corporeal. Ideas can be very real, (pick your favorite governmental "ism" for example) and can't necessarily be dismised only because they are not corporeal.

 

I'm not dismissing ideas. I have acknowledged that ideas are real. My point is merely that the idea of a (mythical) creature is a real idea, not a real creature. This is the distinction I'm trying to make.

 

Ideas are real, but only hold power if they capture the imagination of people. Political and religious ideas can change history and often do, but the power of an idea comes from the people whose imaginations are caught by it. They are the ones who provide the impetus and make the changes.

 

In politics and religion (and other ‘non corporeal’ ideas, i.e. ideas concerning systems, rather than objects, creatures or characters) the evidence for their reality only as ideas rather than some objective entity is in: a) The need for interpretation. The same idea can mean different things to different people (hence a reported 38,000 denominations of Christianity for example), whereas objective entities require less interpretation. b) Their transience. Imagine the number of ideas that failed to capture the imagination of the people; that came and went in the minds of few but were soon forgotten. Are those ideas that fail to catch on and are forgotten any less real than the ideas that catch on? Is the reality of an idea determined by the number of people that hold it? An idea is real whether it’s held by 1 person, 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 people, but the only difference ultimately is whether or not it’s remembered. Ideas come and go with unreliable frequency and it is of note that the lifespan of an idea is determined mainly by its popularity, rather than its merit.

 

I am sure that to some people unicorns, dragons, or whatever imaginary thing you can come up with are very real as there has never seemed to be any shortage of irrationality in the human organism.

That’s true, but their irrationality does not make those things objectively real.

 

I do understand what you’re saying. It’s similar, in principle, to a person experiencing an hallucination. If a person hallucinates some horrendous creature, there is no way anyone can say that creature is not real to that person. It is, absolutely. It’s real enough that the person will jump out of a high window to escape it. The fact that nobody else in the room can see it makes it no less real to that person. However, if the person does jump out of a high window to escape the creature, were they killed by the creature, or themselves? If they stand still, are they in danger of being killed by the creature? Is anyone else in the room in danger? It exists only as an idea and it has no independent power. It only has the power that people give it.

[npts2020]

Glider; I agree pretty much with what you said. It all comes down to whose description of reality is considered the most "objective".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The theist should know what they believe, right?

 

As for the atheists, it's a bit harder because there's too many definitions and none were explicitly stated.

My point is that if you have to argue about definitions, you probably don't believe in God.

[DrDNA]

My point is that if you have to argue about definitions, you probably don't believe in God.

 

I tend to agree.

This seems to me to be one of the, or perhaps even the, most straight-forward questions/Topics on here.

Someone *might wrestle with

-singularity vs plurality (if, for example, someone happens to believe in more than one).

-or they might prefer a little g (god) vs a big G (God).

 

But, other than that

-you do,

-you don't

-or you're not convinced either way

 

But, we know that I am also guilty of making it unnecessarily complicated

[doG]

The theist should know what they believe, right?

 

As for the atheists, it's a bit harder because there's too many definitions and none were explicitly stated.

 

Not really. Theists by definition have an affirmative belief in the existence of God(s). A·theists are not·theist by definition. You are in the circle of believers or you're not. To simply doubt the existence of God(s) makes one atheist.

[john5746]

My point is that if you have to argue about definitions, you probably don't believe in God.

 

And if you don't want to discuss a definition, you may not even know what it is you believe and what others do not believe. I think this is the case for many, many people. Not on this forum though.

[Mr Skeptic]

Are you implying that the reason for the word ‘mythical’ is only because the list includes non-God characters and therefore that the listed deities, gods and goddesses are not mythological?

 

Mythical is used to describe both gods and non-gods; it is a more general term that includes both (like animal includes both mammals and birds). The page goes on to call Zeus and Thor gods, much like I do. If it makes you happy, I think that they are mythological gods and not real gods.

 

That’s not what I said. I said “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.” (i.e. you can call them whatever you want to, but it does not make them so). I also said “I am quite happy to accept that these characters exist as characters in literature” (i.e. as ideas). “I would not be happy for that to be taken as a statement regarding my beliefs concerning reality”. There’s a subtle but important difference between calling (i.e. classifying) a thing a God or a Pirate and stating that the thing IS a God or a pirate.

 

I think I see what you are saying. However I would disagree that eg saying "Thor is a god" would imply that Thor exists -- it would only be a description of Thor as having the properties that a god has. However, it would also not be saying that Thor doesn't exist, and perhaps this bothers you. Again though, I see the concept of something being a god, animal, or pirate as completely separate from whether that thing exists.

 

The poll is flawed, we agree on that to an extent. I think to ask a hundred theists whether they believe in God would evoke a hundred positive responses, but I also think that there would also be a hundred different ideas of God driving those responses so, yes, it is an idea driven system of categorisation (any new idea becomes a new category). However, this is not relevant to my argument concerning the apparent difference we have concerning the concept of ‘being’ or ‘existing’.

 

Would you prefer, "Thor has the properties that a god has" as opposed to "Thor is a god"? But I think you are just confusing the definition of "is".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/is

is

v. intr.

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality

2.e. To belong to a specified class or group

 

Of course: “Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.” (Wikipedia).

 

This is a fairly standard (though not exhaustive) definition. It presents certain criteria that an organism must fulfil in order to belong to the category ‘Animal’. Gryphons, dragons, unicorns and so-on. do not fulfil any of these criteria. Be aware that if you say they do, then I will ask you to send me a tissue sample of any of these creatures so I can check for myself at least the first criterion listed.

 

I'd go ahead and classify non-magical non-person gryphons, dragons, and unicorns, and my magenta swan as animals per the above definition. Tissue samples are not available since these animals do not exist, but if you like I can describe their tissues. You could also consider that in calling them "animals" I am claiming that their (purely imaginary) tissues conform to the definition of an animal. Since as you said “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.” I will go ahead and put them in the category of animals and give them the characteristics of animals (or rather the authors could do so if they so wished). All without saying they exist in real life.

 

I don’t doubt it, but that doesn’t mean they are animals. They are ideas.

 

Ah, but your definition of animal does not exclude ideas. So they can be both animals and ideas.

 

This is our bone of contention. I would say that fictional animals are a subset of ideas, not a subset of animals. They do not exist outside of the minds of people and the pages of books.

 

And I say that they are a subset of both ideas and animals -- the intersection between the set of fictional ideas and the category "animal". My only disagreement is that you say they are not a subset of animals, since they clearly possess the attributes in your definition to be an animal.

 

I'd further say that "animal" in itself is an idea and does not necessarily correspond to reality. Evolution being the messy beast that it is, we have several things that don't fit in nicely (eg protists). When speaking of life I prefer a continuum than discreet categories.

 

I’ve bolded the problem word. Something that does not exist cannot be anything more than an idea. I have said (several times) that fictional things can belong to whichever categories and possess whatever characteristics their creators wish. But that does not make them real. It only makes the idea of them real. As I keep saying, I am happy to accept the idea of gryphons, dragons, unicorns, or that Long John Silver is a pirate or that Zeus is the father of the Greek Gods. However, none of these are. They are nothing more than ideas. They are not animals or Gods or pirates, they are ideas that possess the characteristics their creators chose for them, and I don’t expect to encounter any of these things in reality. You can call or classify a fictional thing whatever or however you want, I have no problem with that, but it does not make it anything more than an idea.

 

see the definition 2e of "is" that I shared previously.

 

Swans exist but, as far as is known, magenta swans do not. So far only the idea of a magenta swan exists. However, to dye an extant swan magenta or to create a swan that is magenta would result in a magenta swan. I don’t see your point here. Why do you think I would be left scratching my head wondering about this?

 

You seem to be saying that a magenta swan is not an animal, but it would be if it existed. Yet your definition of animal does not require that it exist, only that it have certain properties (which my imaginary swan does indeed have).

 

Only because swans exist (as do trees). You are equivocating again, this time on the meaning of ‘fictional’. James Bond is a fictional character. The character was (classified as) a man. Men exist. Thus, the character of James bond possesses the characteristics of ‘a man’. This does not make James Bond real. You can learn nothing more about men by studying the character of James Bond (although you might gain some insight into the psychology of his creator, Ian Fleming).

 

Yet James Bond is expected to act like a man, so we should be able to learn something about what a man should do. Clearly not very realistic though.

 

What about dragons? What characteristics must a dragon possess in order to be categorised as a dragon? What anatomy must it possess? What physiological processes must it perform? You would place it in the animal kingdom: “ I'd say fictional animals are a subset of animals.” But what phylum? What class? A dragon is an idea, nothing more.

 

A (non-magical) dragon would be kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Sauropsida. I haven't given this much thought, and may be able to classify them further -- however, I am no taxologist.

 

They are about people’s beliefs concerning the current state of reality. There is a difference. In any event, as I have said, fictional characters can possess any characteristic their author wishes. I also think that every theist is the author of their own God. Thus, I suspect any attempt to identify a universal definition of ‘what “god” means’ is futile. There will be commonalities, but many differences in the detail.

 

Yes, and they receive the same response.

 

I'd pretty much agree with that. However, I'd also say most theists would agree that things other than the one they worship or believe in can be a god. A god then would be something that has general enough properties to include everything "we" decide is a god, but specific enough to exclude everything "we" decide is a non-god. Odds are, to get a definition everyone would agree with would be impossible.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
continued after break

[SkepticLance]

Just to clarify a point.

Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Woden etc are gods. While they are mythological, they are also current. Very few people worship them today, but you may be surprised to know that there are still a small number of people who worship those gods of antiquity.

 

Thus they all have to be seen as genuine gods.

[john5746]

Thus they all have to be seen as genuine gods.

 

And all gods are mythical, with some having more followers than others.

[iNow]

You seem to be saying that a magenta swan is not an animal, but it would be if it existed. Yet your definition of animal does not require that it exist, only that it have certain properties (which my imaginary swan does indeed have).

 

Glider explicitly stated that his definition was non-exhaustive. For the love of Thor, man.

 

 

Further, you say that your fictional magenta swan is in both the categories of ideas and the catagory of animals. I think this logic is weak. Idea is a higher order of classification than animal, more encompassing. It is along side "reality." IMO, your opinion is contrary to the truth that it is "animal" which is the subset category, not idea. Animal is a subcategory of both the larger groups, idea and reality, and I find this so blaringly apparent that I am almost led to believe you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Glider]

Mythical is used to describe both gods and non-gods; it is a more general term that includes both (like animal includes both mammals and birds). The page goes on to call Zeus and Thor gods, much like I do. If it makes you happy, I think that they are mythological gods and not real gods.

The term ‘mythical’ is used to describe all characters in the list. It describes Zeus as a God under the heading: “List of Greek mythological figures”. The header clearly defines the context so no ambiguity or equivocation is possible (and being a list of Greek mythological figures, it does not even list Thor let alone 'go on to call [him] a God').

 

I think I see what you are saying. However I would disagree that eg saying "Thor is a god" would imply that Thor exists -- it would only be a description of Thor as having the properties that a god has. However, it would also not be saying that Thor doesn't exist, and perhaps this bothers you. Again though, I see the concept of something being a god, animal, or pirate as completely separate from whether that thing exists.

According to the definitions of the word “is” that you provided, the statement “Thor is a God” can mean either ‘Thor ‘exists as’ or ‘belongs to the class’ God’. If the person making the statement has not made the context clear, then the statement is ambiguous. It requires others to make an assumption concerning its actual meaning. As I said in post #74, “The onus is on [the author/speaker] to make it clear to the reader, not on the reader to divine [their] meaning from ambiguous or equivocal statements.”

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/is

is

v. intr.

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality

2.e. To belong to a specified class or group

 

Would you prefer, "Thor has the properties that a god has" as opposed to "Thor is a god"? But I think you are just confusing the definition of "is".

I don’t think so. I am comfortable with the definitions of “is”. I have been trying to point out that the dual definition of the word is a source of ambiguity (or equivocation). There are still people who believe in the Norse Gods (or at least profess to). If a person makes the statement ‘Thor is a God’, which definition of the word ‘is’ are they using? Likewise, if it is asked ‘Is Thor a God?’ which question is being asked? Without context or clarification, each requires an assumption.

 

Would I prefer "Thor has the properties that a god has"? No, not really. I would prefer ‘Thor has properties attributed to Gods’.

 

I'd go ahead and classify non-magical non-person gryphons, dragons, and unicorns, and my magenta swan as animals per the above definition. Tissue samples are not available since these animals do not exist, but if you like I can describe their tissues. You could also consider that in calling them "animals" I am claiming that their (purely imaginary) tissues conform to the definition of an animal. Since as you said “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.” I will go ahead and put them in the category of animals and give them the characteristics of animals (or rather the authors could do so if they so wished). All without saying they exist in real life.

Most authors make their context/meaning clear and do not try to blur the distinction between the two different meanings of the word “is”. In any event, leaving aside the obvious problems associated with the claim that things that do not exist can be classified meaningfully using a system designed to define relationships between things that do exist, your assertion fails on two different fronts.

 

The difference between an animal and the idea of an animal (or any fictional character) is not only that an animal must possess the attributes of an animal to fulfil the criteria of the definition (1), but is also limited to them (2).

 

1) Animals must possess the attributes of ‘animal’: The magenta swan exists only as an idea. I am happy to accept that idea (and suspend disbelief), as long as the story of the magenta swan engages me. The idea has only the power I choose to give it. If I become disenchanted with the idea, or you begin to assert that the magenta swan is an animal and can be classified meaningfully as such, I can simply choose to withdraw that power. Things are then reduced to:

 

“Magenta swans are animals.” I don’t believe you. Provide evidence.

 

“I am claiming that their (purely imaginary) tissues conform to the definition of an animal.” I don’t accept your claim. Provide evidence.

 

I am under no obligation to accept your assertions and, as they are your assertions, the burden of proof lies with you.

 

It is true that “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.”, but the characteristics attributed to a fictional character by its author are attributed to the character by the author. It is precisely because the character exists only as an idea that it may possess whatever characteristics its author wishes (i.e. there are no physical limitations) and, for exactly the same reason, nobody else is under any obligation to accept it. The character does not possess its characteristics independently and they cannot be verified by any measure. All that exists is the claim.

 

2) Animals are limited to the criteria for ‘animal’: I can accept the idea of a magenta swan. But, it is magenta only when searching for a mate. It is more usually blue. If attacked on land, it will run to the edge of the nearest water, its head will turn brown and it will hold it straight up so it can watch its attacker and then the swan will invert its wings and become a clump of bulrushes. As long as it is not fully submerged, it can reclaim its swan form at will. However, if attacked on water, it will submerge its head, open its beak wide and disgorge itself in the form of an eel, leaving only a shell of feathers on the surface to act as a decoy. However, once in the form of an eel (and thus has been fully submerged), it has to remain that way until it can find a feather, which it must eat before it can return to the form of a swan. This is why you sometimes see eels out of water, moving through long wet grass. They are looking for feathers, so they can become swans again.

 

It is still true that “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.”, but this is a large part of the reason why fictional creatures cannot be classified as animals. A fictional animal can be attributed with whatever characteristics its author wants and is not limited to the criteria for animal. An idea can possess any characteristic anybody who holds the idea wants and these can change from person to person and from day to day. It is an idea and thus is not limited in terms of possible characteristics. Animals are.

 

Ah, but your definition of animal does not exclude ideas. So they can be both animals and ideas.

No sensible definition attempts to define a thing by what it is not. The definition of animal (it’s not mine), does not exclude trees, motorcycles or kitchen implements either. But as none of them (including ideas) fulfil the criteria for ‘animal’ it is not necessary to list (even as exclusion criteria) everything an animal is not.

 

And I say that they are a subset of both ideas and animals -- the intersection between the set of fictional ideas and the category "animal". My only disagreement is that you say they are not a subset of animals, since they clearly possess the attributes in your definition to be an animal.

No they don’t. They are ideas. You are simply taking extant characteristics (or characteristics of extant things) and claiming them as attributes of your idea.

 

Whilst I have said that fictional characters (or creatures) may possess whatever characteristics their author wishes, these characteristics must be attributed to the character by the author. The creatures do not independently possess any characteristic nor any of the physical attributes required to be animals, but nor are they limited to the characteristics that define an animal. Does that sound like a paradox? Well, that’s another difference between ideas and animals; paradoxes can exist as ideas in the minds of people, but not in reality.

 

I'd further say that "animal" in itself is an idea and does not necessarily correspond to reality. Evolution being the messy beast that it is, we have several things that don't fit in nicely (eg protists). When speaking of life I prefer a continuum than discreet categories.

The term ‘animal’ is an accepted taxonomological label. The accuracy or validity of taxonomy is not the issue here.

 

see the definition 2e of "is" that I shared previously.

I have, thank you. It is the ambiguous or selectively interchangeable use of definitions 1 and 2e that is the problem (the former use is simply confusing and the latter use is deliberate equivocation).

 

You seem to be saying that a magenta swan is not an animal, but it would be if it existed. Yet your definition of animal does not require that it exist, only that it have certain properties (which my imaginary swan does indeed have).

No, you only claim it has, and your claim is the only evidence you have in support of that claim (i.e. I claim this statement is true, and it is true because I claim it is). It possesses no properties independently and outside of your mind and I am not obliged to accept it has the properties you claim for it. Whilst it is true that I can’t deny your idea, there is no obligation for me to accept it either. That is the nature of ideas.

 

Yet James Bond is expected to act like a man, so we should be able to learn something about what a man should do. Clearly not very realistic though.

Does the same go for Superman, or Batman or the X-Men?

 

A (non-magical) dragon would be kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Sauropsida. I haven't given this much thought, and may be able to classify them further -- however, I am no taxologist.

I would say a non-magical dragon is in the class theropsida (synapsids). But being ideas, and thus possessing no varifiable physical characteristics outside of our own minds, should we get into a debate concerning which classification for dragon is correct (which is not going to happen), the only possible outcome would be that ‘my dragon is in the class theropsida and yours is in the class sauropsida’. It would be a pointless and futile debate (but, I suspect, is exactly the kind of debate that resulted in the reported 38,000 denominations of Christianity).

 

I'd pretty much agree with that. However, I'd also say most theists would agree that things other than the one they worship or believe in can be a god. A god then would be something that has general enough properties to include everything "we" decide is a god, but specific enough to exclude everything "we" decide is a non-god. Odds are, to get a definition everyone would agree with would be impossible.

I agree, but it’s funny how agreed definitions become possible when dealing with things that independently possess objectively verifiable attributes though. Y’know, like animals and stuff.

[ParanoiA]

There are a million reasons to suspect but not a single reason to believe. Where does that fit in the poll?

[iNow]

That means you fall cleanly into the, "No - I don't believe in god" category.

[Mr Skeptic]

The term ‘mythical’ is used to describe all characters in the list. It describes Zeus as a God under the heading: “List of Greek mythological figures”. The header clearly defines the context so no ambiguity or equivocation is possible (and being a list of Greek mythological figures, it does not even list Thor let alone 'go on to call [him] a God').

 

My bad, I confused my mythologies. Thor was a germanic god, not a greek one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor

Thor (Old Norse: Þórr) is the red-haired and bearded[1][2] god of thunder in Germanic paganism and its subsets: Norse paganism, Anglo-Saxon paganism and Continental Germanic paganism. The god is also recorded in Old English as Þunor, Old Saxon as Thunaer,[3] as Old Dutch and Old High German: Donar, all of which are names deriving from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic name *Þunraz.

The larger point being, that he is still called a god.

 

According to the definitions of the word “is” that you provided, the statement “Thor is a God” can mean either ‘Thor ‘exists as’ or ‘belongs to the class’ God’. If the person making the statement has not made the context clear, then the statement is ambiguous. It requires others to make an assumption concerning its actual meaning. As I said in post #74, “The onus is on [the author/speaker] to make it clear to the reader, not on the reader to divine [their] meaning from ambiguous or equivocal statements.”

 

Well, in that case, by "can" do you mean to indicate a possibility, or a small cylindrical metal container? Almost every word has multiple definitions, and if you cannot figure which is which, that is not my problem. When taken in context, it would be clear to the average person which definition I was using, especially after I clarified it. I think it is you who are being obtuse.

 

I don’t think so. I am comfortable with the definitions of “is”. I have been trying to point out that the dual definition of the word is a source of ambiguity (or equivocation). There are still people who believe in the Norse Gods (or at least profess to). If a person makes the statement ‘Thor is a God’, which definition of the word ‘is’ are they using? Likewise, if it is asked ‘Is Thor a God?’ which question is being asked? Without context or clarification, each requires an assumption.

 

When an atheist says that Thor is a god, it is quite clear which definition they are using.

 

Would I prefer "Thor has the properties that a god has"? No, not really. I would prefer ‘Thor has properties attributed to Gods’.

 

OK. However, I suspect you are less insistent on clarity under different circumstances, I wonder why.

 

Most authors make their context/meaning clear and do not try to blur the distinction between the two different meanings of the word “is”. In any event, leaving aside the obvious problems associated with the claim that things that do not exist can be classified meaningfully using a system designed to define relationships between things that do exist, your assertion fails on two different fronts.

 

The difference between an animal and the idea of an animal (or any fictional character) is not only that an animal must possess the attributes of an animal to fulfil the criteria of the definition (1), but is also limited to them (2).

 

1) Animals must possess the attributes of ‘animal’: The magenta swan exists only as an idea. I am happy to accept that idea (and suspend disbelief), as long as the story of the magenta swan engages me. The idea has only the power I choose to give it. If I become disenchanted with the idea, or you begin to assert that the magenta swan is an animal and can be classified meaningfully as such, I can simply choose to withdraw that power. Things are then reduced to:

 

“Magenta swans are animals.” I don’t believe you. Provide evidence.

 

“I am claiming that their (purely imaginary) tissues conform to the definition of an animal.” I don’t accept your claim. Provide evidence.

 

I am under no obligation to accept your assertions and, as they are your assertions, the burden of proof lies with you.

 

It is true that “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.”, but the characteristics attributed to a fictional character by its author are attributed to the character by the author. It is precisely because the character exists only as an idea that it may possess whatever characteristics its author wishes (i.e. there are no physical limitations) and, for exactly the same reason, nobody else is under any obligation to accept it. The character does not possess its characteristics independently and they cannot be verified by any measure. All that exists is the claim.

 

I don't believe that you don't believe me; provide evidence. Since I am the foremost expert on my imaginary swan, you are just going to look silly not believing me when I tell you what properties my imaginary swan has, especially since you did not give any reason on why you do not believe the foremost expert. Again though, I don't believe you that you don't believe me. I'm just going to go with the assumption that you are just trying to be annoying. If you do give some evidence that you don't believe me, I'll give you some evidence that my imaginary swan has the properties I said it does.

 

2) Animals are limited to the criteria for ‘animal’: I can accept the idea of a magenta swan. But, it is magenta only when searching for a mate. It is more usually blue. If attacked on land, it will run to the edge of the nearest water, its head will turn brown and it will hold it straight up so it can watch its attacker and then the swan will invert its wings and become a clump of bulrushes. As long as it is not fully submerged, it can reclaim its swan form at will. However, if attacked on water, it will submerge its head, open its beak wide and disgorge itself in the form of an eel, leaving only a shell of feathers on the surface to act as a decoy. However, once in the form of an eel (and thus has been fully submerged), it has to remain that way until it can find a feather, which it must eat before it can return to the form of a swan. This is why you sometimes see eels out of water, moving through long wet grass. They are looking for feathers, so they can become swans again.

 

It is still true that “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.”, but this is a large part of the reason why fictional creatures cannot be classified as animals. A fictional animal can be attributed with whatever characteristics its author wants and is not limited to the criteria for animal. An idea can possess any characteristic anybody who holds the idea wants and these can change from person to person and from day to day. It is an idea and thus is not limited in terms of possible characteristics. Animals are.

 

This is why I said I would classify the non-magical ones as animals. However, I will point out that animals can change color and metamorphose, so it could theoretically be possible to create an animal such as the one you describe, in real life. However, as I said, I don't want to talk about magical creatures, and of course I never said my imaginary swan would have any of these properties, and in fact implied otherwise (when I said how I might go about creating a real magenta swan).

 

No sensible definition attempts to define a thing by what it is not. The definition of animal (it’s not mine), does not exclude trees, motorcycles or kitchen implements either. But as none of them (including ideas) fulfil the criteria for ‘animal’ it is not necessary to list (even as exclusion criteria) everything an animal is not.

 

Completely wrong there. Many words are defined by what they are not eg inanimate, atheist, invisible, etc. Many such words are far easier to define by what they are not than by what they are.

 

Secondly, your definition of animal does exclude trees (which are in Plantae, not Animalia), and motorcycles and kitchen implements (which are not multicellular -- though it should be possible to create an animal that could also be called a motorcycle or kitchen implement). But you knew that.

 

No they don’t. They are ideas. You are simply taking extant characteristics (or characteristics of extant things) and claiming them as attributes of your idea.

 

Whilst I have said that fictional characters (or creatures) may possess whatever characteristics their author wishes, these characteristics must be attributed to the character by the author. The creatures do not independently possess any characteristic nor any of the physical attributes required to be animals, but nor are they limited to the characteristics that define an animal.

 

Again though, the same applies to the concept of "animal". The concept of "animal" does not exist other than in the minds of the people who created that definition. However, there is mutual agreement among several people as to what attributes an animal has (ie, the idea of animal has several authors), so one person alone cannot change the definition. However, an idea created by one person can have whatever attributes that person wants, as you said. Once the idea is communicated, the author's idea has attributes independent of the author -- even if the author dies, the idea remains, and retains all the attributes of it that were communicated.

 

Does that sound like a paradox? Well, that’s another difference between ideas and animals; paradoxes can exist as ideas in the minds of people, but not in reality.

 

Not really. I told you what attributes my magenta swan has, and you can't say it doesn't have those properties (unless you can read my mind, or show that my swan has contradictory properties -- and you have done neither). As to contradictions, it is certainly possible to not accept the principle of non-contradiction (or to both accept and reject it). As to whether paradoxes can exist in real life, I do not think they can, but I don't know of any way to prove it. Even if someone were to observe a paradox, since most people accept the principle of non-contradiction, they would likely explain it away.

 

The term ‘animal’ is an accepted taxonomological label. The accuracy or validity of taxonomy is not the issue here.

 

I never said that it was not accepted, nor inaccurate nor invalid. What I said is that "animal" is an idea -- no more or less real than my magenta swan.

 

I have, thank you. It is the ambiguous or selectively interchangeable use of definitions 1 and 2e that is the problem (the former use is simply confusing and the latter use is deliberate equivocation).

 

No, you only claim it has, and your claim is the only evidence you have in support of that claim (i.e. I claim this statement is true, and it is true because I claim it is). It possesses no properties independently and outside of your mind and I am not obliged to accept it has the properties you claim for it. Whilst it is true that I can’t deny your idea, there is no obligation for me to accept it either. That is the nature of ideas.

 

It is not a claim; it is a description or definition. When someone says "let x be a positive integer, ..." do you also insist that you are not going to accept it?

 

Does the same go for Superman, or Batman or the X-Men?

 

Yes, I would expect that if a man were to have the attributes of these superheroes, they would behave in a similar manner. But of course the author could force them to do things that would be stupid or against their character, in which case the fans would get annoyed. But this will lead to nowhere...

 

I would say a non-magical dragon is in the class theropsida (synapsids). But being ideas, and thus possessing no varifiable physical characteristics outside of our own minds, should we get into a debate concerning which classification for dragon is correct (which is not going to happen), the only possible outcome would be that ‘my dragon is in the class theropsida and yours is in the class sauropsida’. It would be a pointless and futile debate (but, I suspect, is exactly the kind of debate that resulted in the reported 38,000 denominations of Christianity).

 

Well at least we agree that they would be in Animalia, Chordata, and Vertebrata, so that is progress. I'd probably have to ask the creator of a specific dragon and a taxidermist to get a reliable classification. It's entirely possible that I am confused and no one's dragon is a sauropod, or even that some dragons could be sauropods and others' synapsids. "Dragon" is sufficiently ill-defined that dragons could conceivably be classified in several ways (much like a "large mammal" could be a rodent, horse, elephant, bat, etc).

 

I agree, but it’s funny how agreed definitions become possible when dealing with things that independently possess objectively verifiable attributes though. Y’know, like animals and stuff.

 

Definitions need only someone to define a term; they need not be objectively verifiable. Mathematicians do this all the time. Trouble happens when a term is vague, like when it is defined by induction. When someone tries to get a less vague definition, or change a definition, there is bound to be disagreement.

[Glider]

Sorry. This will have to be brief. I have a lot of work to do today.

 

The larger point being, that he is still called a god.

With the clear qualifier ‘...in Germanic paganism and its subsets...’, which clearly provides context and denies ambiguity.

 

Well, in that case, by "can" do you mean to indicate a possibility, or a small cylindrical metal container? Almost every word has multiple definitions, and if you cannot figure which is which, that is not my problem. When taken in context, it would be clear to the average person which definition I was using, especially after I clarified it. I think it is you who are being obtuse.

My use of the word ‘can’ would be clear by its context. The use of the word ‘is’ often requires that the context be made clear. The statement ‘Thor is a god’ exists without context and is thus ambiguous. The statement ‘Thor, god of thunder in Germanic paganism and its subsets...’ has context and is thus clear (as an aside, I have been courteous towards you. Please avoid name calling).

 

When an atheist says that Thor is a god, it is quite clear which definition they are using.

As long as you know s/he is an atheist. In this example, it is the knowledge of their atheism that provides the context. Without that knowledge, it is not at all clear which definition they are using.

 

OK. However, I suspect you are less insistent on clarity under different circumstances, I wonder why.

You wonder why you suspect I am less insistent on clarity under different circumstances? How can I know that? And under what different circumstances? In any case, I’m not sure it’s sensible to wonder why I am less insistent on clarity in other circumstances, when you only suspect it to be the case. I think it would be more sensible to wonder about a thing after its truth has been established (there’s pedantry for you).

 

Seriously though, I suppose there are three main reasons I insist on clarity. One is that I’m a lecturer and spend a significant amount of time marking written work by students. I think that makes me sensitive to ambiguity and, no doubt, a little pedantic. Another is that without clarity, any meaningful discussion becomes a lot more difficult. Finally, in any debate concerning God, Gods, or anything to do with religion, their proponents tend to be quick to leap on any careless or ambiguous phrase and take it out of context (which is why Richard Dawkins wants there to be a tape recorder at his side when he dies). However, they seem to rely a lot on ambiguity and equivocation themselves, so I think whilst atheists have nothing to prove, they do need to be extremely careful and precise in their use of language, or give up the right to expect it from their opponents in debate. I think that’s a fairly good general philosophy anyway.

 

I don't believe that you don't believe me; provide evidence. Since I am the foremost expert on my imaginary swan, you are just going to look silly not believing me when I tell you what properties my imaginary swan has, especially since you did not give any reason on why you do not believe the foremost expert. Again though, I don't believe you that you don't believe me. I'm just going to go with the assumption that you are just trying to be annoying. If you do give some evidence that you don't believe me, I'll give you some evidence that my imaginary swan has the properties I said it does.

Are you seriously asking me to provide evidence for the non-existence of a thing (my belief)?

 

That aside, I’m not sure why I would look silly not believing you, regardless your expertise in your imaginary swan. I don’t believe The Archbishop of Canterbury when he said “And when the world is created, it is created in such a way that those eternal objects of God's loving wisdom become actualities - interacting with one another, relating to God in the finite realm. (Dr. Rowan D. Williams). I can’t deny he believes that, but I am not obliged to accept it for myself, and I don’t think I look silly in not doing so, even though Dr. Williams is an extremely intelligent man and is one of the foremost experts in theology.

 

As I said “ Whilst it is true that I can’t deny your idea, there is no obligation for me to accept it either. That is the nature of ideas.” Quite simply, without evidence I don’t have to believe you, nor present any case for why I don’t. I am free simply to dismiss the idea.

 

This is why I said I would classify the non-magical ones as animals. However, I will point out that animals can change color and metamorphose, so it could theoretically be possible to create an animal such as the one you describe, in real life. However, as I said, I don't want to talk about magical creatures, and of course I never said my imaginary swan would have any of these properties, and in fact implied otherwise (when I said how I might go about creating a real magenta swan.

Now your argument is, if not completely dependent, then at least leaning heavily on the fact that swans exist. You could not apply that argument to another imaginary animal such as a gryphon or a dragon. I’m not entirely sure how you can argue for a distinction between magical and non-magical imaginary animals anyway. That seems a fruitless direction, so let’s not go there.

 

Completely wrong there. Many words are defined by what they are not eg inanimate, atheist, invisible, etc. Many such words are far easier to define by what they are not than by what they are.

No, each of these words presents a single defining characteristic of a thing. They do not represent a list of what a thing is not.

 

 

Secondly, your definition of animal does exclude trees (which are in Plantae, not Animalia), and motorcycles and kitchen implements (which are not multicellular -- though it should be possible to create an animal that could also be called a motorcycle or kitchen implement). But you knew that.

Yes, the definition of animal (that is still not mine), does exclude trees, motorcycles and kitchen implements by virtue of the fact that they do not fulfil the criteria it sets out for animal. It does not list trees, motorcycles and kitchen implements as examples of what an animal is not.

 

Again though, the same applies to the concept of "animal". The concept of "animal" does not exist other than in the minds of the people who created that definition. However, there is mutual agreement among several people as to what attributes an animal has (ie, the idea of animal has several authors), so one person alone cannot change the definition.

That’s because the concept of ‘animal’ is a label that refers to and defines in the minds of people, extant things. To have reason to change the label, either the thing itself, or people’s understanding of it (e.g. with the appearance of new evidence), would have to change.

 

However, an idea created by one person can have whatever attributes that person wants, as you said. Once the idea is communicated, the author's idea has attributes independent of the author -- even if the author dies, the idea remains, and retains all the attributes of it that were communicated.

That is not true. The author is completely free to change the idea at whim, as is any new holder/interpreter (i.e. subsequent author) of the idea. It requires no alteration to reality, no new evidence, nor even the agreement of other people. Look, for example, at the idea of the Assumption of Mary. Ideas concerning heaven, hell and means to get to either were fairly widely accepted throughout Catholicism. Yet, with no new evidence or any alteration in reality; “On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly declared: ‘By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory’ ” (Wikipedia).

 

The Assumption of Mary, despite it appearing in no text or as any part of the original idea of Catholicism, is now official Catholic dogma, created on the whim of (one of) its authors, and not even an original author. Likewise, and on similar whims, many things have been dropped from original dogma. So, no, the idea does not remain (at least as the original idea), nor does it 'retain all the attributes of it that were communicated'. It changes on the whims of subsequent authors. It evolves and becomes, in essence, a new idea (and thus a different idea).

 

Not really. I told you what attributes my magenta swan has, and you can't say it doesn't have those properties (unless you can read my mind, or show that my swan has contradictory properties -- and you have done neither).

I don’t need to. I can’t deny your idea, but I am free simply to dismiss it.

 

As to contradictions, it is certainly possible to not accept the principle of non-contradiction (or to both accept and reject it). As to whether paradoxes can exist in real life, I do not think they can, but I don't know of any way to prove it. Even if someone were to observe a paradox, since most people accept the principle of non-contradiction, they would likely explain it away.

You cannot prove that something does not or cannot exist.

 

I never said that it was not accepted, nor inaccurate nor invalid. What I said is that "animal" is an idea -- no more or less real than my magenta swan.

The term animal is a taxonomological label. It is used to class extant things. In and of itself, it is a subjective concept, evoking certain schemata in the minds of people and these schemata are likely to be different according to people’s understanding of the term. What does the term ‘Wanyama’ evoke in your mind? Not much? It’s not surprising, it’s Swahili. It means ‘Animal’.

 

The point is, you are confusing the label with the labelled; the subject with the object. It doesn’t matter what label you apply, ‘Animal’ or ‘Wanyama’, the object (and reality) remains unaffected. In the case of your magenta swan, the label is all you have and is all there is.

 

It is not a claim; it is a description or definition. When someone says "let x be a positive integer, ..." do you also insist that you are not going to accept it?

Your claim that your swan has tissue and that tissue has certain properties (“ your definition of animal does not require that it exist, only that it have certain properties (which my imaginary swan does indeed have). ” (bold added)) is just that; a claim.

 

Yes, I would expect that if a man were to have the attributes of these superheroes, they would behave in a similar manner. But of course the author could force them to do things that would be stupid or against their character, in which case the fans would get annoyed. But this will lead to nowhere...

I think we passed nowhere some time ago.

 

I have to withdraw now as I have data to enter and stuff to do before tomorrow. I think, over the last few posts, I have made my case, but through time constraints, I’ll have to let it stand or fall on its own merit from here on. I'll let you provide the parting salvo.

 

It’s been a hoot.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Glider

[Mr Skeptic]

I think we passed nowhere some time ago.

 

I have to withdraw now as I have data to enter and stuff to do before tomorrow. I think, over the last few posts, I have made my case, but through time constraints, I’ll have to let it stand or fall on its own merit from here on. I'll let you provide the parting salvo.

 

It’s been a hoot.

 

A good idea. I too was about to call it quits on this conversation.

 

First of all, let me apologize for any name-calling. It is more a reflection of my own frustration than of you.

 

For the rest, we can perhaps agree on a few things, or at least agree to disagree. I'll agree that extreme clarity, annoying though it may be, is a sensible precaution when dealing with religion.

 

As for ideas, they can be clearer, as clear, or less clear than the properties of an object. An idea can, after all, be perfectly defined, but a real object's description limited at best by quantum uncertainty. To be clearer, I could have defined my magenta swan to have all the properties of a real swan, and only those properties, with the exceptions that it does not necessarily exist, and that its plumage is magenta, and that it has the necessary chemical properties to have magenta plumage. I could then restrict it further, by naming the dye I might have dipped it in, or stating which gene was changed to what. The magenta swan would then be as well-defined as a real swan. Mathematicians deal with ideas/definitions that are more clearly defined than would be possible in the real world.

 

Once an idea is communicated, it must have the properties that were communicated. As you noted, sometimes those ideas can be added to, but only if the definition is vague enough to allow for that. And I don't see how an idea can be denied, unless it were to have a contradiction. And then only if the author of the idea subscribes to the principle of non-contradiction. However, once that person makes claims about the real world, he is no longer free to define as he wishes since he cannot define the real world (that could result in contradiction between his ideas and your observations) -- so no need to believe that what he says in fact applies to the real world. So long as things remain in the realm of ideas (eg Euclidean geometry) and is non-contradictory, it makes no sense to reject that the idea is what the author says it is. At least I don't see any reason to do so.

 

In any case, sorry for my part in this discussion going almost nowhere.

[iNow]

Alright, then. Well done. Just for the record, I still don't believe in god... any of them.

[npts2020]

Alright, then. Well done. Just for the record, I still don't believe in god... any of them.

 

Well, if you believe in anything greater than yourself you believe in my god. (surely you can think of something greater than just yourself....you and your best friend maybe)

[Glider]

A good idea. I too was about to call it quits on this conversation.

 

First of all, let me apologize for any name-calling. It is more a reflection of my own frustration than of you.

No worries.

 

For the rest, we can perhaps agree on a few things, or at least agree to disagree. I'll agree that extreme clarity, annoying though it may be, is a sensible precaution when dealing with religion.

..and students. Yes, extreme precision can be annoying. It’s why friends, relatives and colleagues who know each other well tend to resort to a kind of verbal short-hand that, when you know the person, is sufficient to accurately impart their meaning (or, from which their meaning can be divined with acceptable reliability). It only gets tricky when you don’t know the person, especially in debate and particularly in debate about religion (or other mythical/fictional things for which objective evidence is lacking).

 

As for ideas, they can be clearer, as clear, or less clear than the properties of an object. An idea can, after all, be perfectly defined, but a real object's description limited at best by quantum uncertainty. To be clearer, I could have defined my magenta swan to have all the properties of a real swan, and only those properties, with the exceptions that it does not necessarily exist, and that its plumage is magenta, and that it has the necessary chemical properties to have magenta plumage. I could then restrict it further, by naming the dye I might have dipped it in, or stating which gene was changed to what. The magenta swan would then be as well-defined as a real swan. Mathematicians deal with ideas/definitions that are more clearly defined than would be possible in the real world.

 

Once an idea is communicated, it must have the properties that were communicated. As you noted, sometimes those ideas can be added to, but only if the definition is vague enough to allow for that. And I don't see how an idea can be denied, unless it were to have a contradiction. And then only if the author of the idea subscribes to the principle of non-contradiction. However, once that person makes claims about the real world, he is no longer free to define as he wishes since he cannot define the real world (that could result in contradiction between his ideas and your observations) -- so no need to believe that what he says in fact applies to the real world. So long as things remain in the realm of ideas (eg Euclidean geometry) and is non-contradictory, it makes no sense to reject that the idea is what the author says it is. At least I don't see any reason to do so.

 

In any case, sorry for my part in this discussion going almost nowhere.

No worries. I quite enjoyed the exercise.

 

Yes, your magenta swan could be made to exist, but only by virtue of swans already existing (take a swan, dye it, bingo!). Not so easy with gryphons. Yes, an idea can be perfectly defined, at which point it becomes a perfectly defined idea.

 

I think the problem here is an idea can be anything and relate to anything, so what we end up doing is debating different classifications of ideas. The idea of a dragon is no less an idea than the idea of sustainable fusion. An idea can relate to, or in some way explain reality (or at least attempt to), or it can be purely fictional (and a number of things in between). None of these ideas are any more than ideas, but some have greater merit by virtue of logic or evidence.

 

It is not that an idea is an idea that makes it difficult or silly to deny it, it is its merit that determines that. Ideas are easy to reject. Nobody is ever under any obligation to accept an idea. Ideas that are supported by evidence are no more difficult to reject, but it becomes more foolish to do so.