Ygorl

Ok.


I wouldn't even say I beleive. I wonder though.

Comparing a beleif in gnomes or dragons to a beleif in God logically isn't on the same playing feild and you know it. Now, you being much better at explaining this game of logic we play can probably explain it much better than I so I'll leave that to you. Don't think that you can exploit my argument with my admitted shortcoming in explaining why yours isn't really applicable though :-)


No, actually I enjoy comparing things. When they're applicable and fitting.

Scruff

Is there any particular reason why an argument for the existence of a god based on pure speculation merits any less logical respect than an argument for the existence of dragons based on pure speculation? Perhaps dragons live on Mars and we just don't know it because it's an element of the universe we haven't fully explored. See the parallel?

Ygorl

No, actually I don't.

Perhaps if this God being were a hypothesized organic life form with a finite lifespan bound in TIME I would see the parallel.

Scruff

How is that relevant?

The parallel is that the same argument is being employed. We cannot or have not yet discovered X being because we don't understand Y concept. However, even though we don't understand Y concept we should not doubt that X exists.

Because Y is critical to knowing X, without knowing Y it is impossible to know X, and therefore neither disavowal nor affirmation of the existence of X can logically be defended.

Ygorl

That is the problem with this so called logic you're attempting to use. You fail to make a sensible judgement on the relevancy of the CLEAR differences in applicability to these two VERY different sets.

The parallel doesn't apply. Logically it CAN if you choose to totally dismiss the very obvious differences.

Which you choose to do. So, you're not wrong in THAT respect :-)

You're just wrong to ignore the differences for the convenience of your argument. The two ideas/concepts/beliefs aren't anywhere NEAR similar enough to be compared in this way.

Scruff

So basically you're dismissing the logical parallels of the argument simply because one seems like a less feasible concept to you from a totally subjective standpoint?

Ygorl

No, because conceptually they're SO far separate and different it makes no sense to attempt a parallel between them. I'm trying to think of a way to shorten why this IS, so I'll be motivated to type it. I'll boil it down eventually and get it said :-)

Scruff

Just because two things are qualitatively different in some respects doesn't mean they can't be compared as long as you limit down the comparable aspects to those they have in common.

For example, you and I both know that a circle and square have their differences. However, you could use the same logical argument to demonstrate that they are polygons.

Circle = closed figure = polygon
Square = closed figure = polygon

I was doing the same thing with a dragon and a god.

Dragon = hypothesized being -> has unknown elements -> existence cannot not be proven or disproven due to unknown elements
God = hypothesized being -> has unknown elements -> existence cannot be proven or disproven due to unknown elements

I never thought I'd employ a comparison to argue that another comparison is valid.

Ygorl

Sure.


Not polygons. Closed FIGURES/SHAPES. That's as far as you can take comparing them:


Polygon: A closed shape consisting of line segments that has at least three sides. Triangles, quadrilaterals, rectangles, and squares are all types of polygons.


http://www.toolingu.com/class_class_...lass_ID=800185


Polygon: 1 : a closed plane figure bounded by straight lines.


Definition of polygon - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary



circle: The figure formed by the group of points that are an equal distance from a point, or center. The angles of a circle add up to 360 degrees.


http://www.toolingu.com/class_class_...lass_ID=800185


circle: 1 b : a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve.


Definition of circle - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary




The dragon/God thing (you can fill in Hobbit or Gnome or sprite or faerie for dragon) actually stops at the very beginning stages. It frustrates comparison at the beginning.


Dragon = Fantasy lifeform -> has elements assigned by those creating it for a story or fable -> existence has BEEN disproven


God = hypothesized being -> has unknown elements -> existence cannot be proven or disproven due to unknown elements


This boils down to an issue of judgement. You're judgement is poor or "off" or misguided in some respect(s). That you beleive this comparison can be soundly and logically applied shows a lack of judgement in ONE way or another. It doesn't work.


First off, there are no dragons. They exist in fantasy stories written by creative authors for entertainment reading. Dragon = fantasy lifeform


Secondly, God is a hypothesized being that by definition is beyond our direct observation. A hypothesized being that is directly tied to the existence of this universe and that which resides in it. We can lose any need for this hypothesized being when you or ANYONE can explain the existence of the universe beyond saying "It just is." That just leads to another simple question: "Why ?" Which can be answered by "It just is."

Then we can go back to arguing/discussing circles :-)

Scruff

Dammit.