What's wrong with believing in unicorns? I do!

[cnorman18]

I believe in unicorns!

Unicorns were and are real creatures, and I can present objective and verifiable proof of their existence!

Atheists and nontheists are hereby informed that they must henceforth choose another mythical creature to compare to God. It would appear that unicorns are quite real and may once have even been common, and a few may even exist today. Some certainly existed quite recently, since they were publicly exhibited less than thirty years ago.

First, though unicorns are commonly thought to be horses with a single spiral horn extending from their heads, horses do not fit the description that is given in the classic legends.

Consider: besides the horn, unicorns are also said to have cloven (divided) hooves, plumed tails, and beards. While none of these are characteristic of horses, they are characteristic of another domestic animal--the goat.

As a clincher, one way to capture a unicorn is said to be to have a "pure," or virgin, young woman sit down on the ground; it is said that the unicorn will then approach her and sit in her lap.

I used to raise horses. Trust me on this; you do not want a horse to sit in your lap. A goat would be tolerable; a horse would cause serious physical injury.

Here are the facts:

It is possible to transplant the horn buds on a young goat to the center of its forehead, where they will heal, remain attached to the skull, and develop into a single horn; if properly placed, the two horns will even fuse in a spiral shape. This can be done easily, even with primitive tools.

The resulting horn extends straight outward, instead of curving back, and thereby becomes a lethal weapon. When the goat rams another creature, instead of resulting in a relatively harmless, though painful, "butting" effect, as happens on the impact of the sides of backward-curving horns, the single straight horn will penetrate deeply.

The animal can also throw the momentum of its full speed and weight into the piercing attack, instead of having to toss its head and use its relatively weak neck muscles alone when attempting to attack with the points of curving horns on the sides of it head.

It has been hypothesized that in ancient times, male goat kids were altered in this fashion to serve as natural guardians of the herd; and that such creatures gave rise to the unicorn legends of medieval times.

This does not seem beyond the realm of possibility, since similar animals have been created much more recently; one was regularly exhibited as a "Living Unicorn" by the world's best-known circus, the Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey organization, as recently as 1980. It did, in fact, have a single spiral horn extending from its forehead, which was quite real and made of living bone firmly attached to the creature's skull.

I therefore can quite confidently proclaim that I believe in unicorns, and can present objective and verifiable evidence for their existence.

Here are a couple of references that prove my contentions here:

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

http://www.lair2000.net/Unicorn_Dreams/ ... _made.html

Now, I will admit that I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns; but that makes no logical sense anyway.

How can a creature that is invisible also be pink?

[McCulloch]

Actually, it is a deer, not a goat. It, however, has a naturally occurring 1 horn. It has the cloven hoofs, and fits the physical description of the Unicorn.

DOn't know how attracted it is to virgins though.

Are you claiming that Pliny was wrong? He is an ancient scholar. How can you deny his eyewitness testimony?

[cnorman18]

nvisible pink unicorns make as much sense as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, spiritual being which exists both inside and beyond time and space.

Can we at least agree that that is one reasonable opinion among many?

"Invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive and therefore impossible as attributes of the same creature.

There is no inherent self-contradiction in the attributes of God you have listed, though, especially if "benevolent" and "spiritual" are deleted from the list. Judaism does not claim those as being among God's attributes; "benevolent" because that is not clearly true, and "spiritual" because that is not a concept that we recognize.

Well, you learn something every day! I was unaware that the Jewish concept of God did not include benevolent. Thanks. Is God evil or just amoral?

Well, he's not evil.

The idea is that God cannot be judged by human standards. Colloquially and informally, God is of course regarded as "good"; but "benevolent" is not quite the same thing. The closest we have ever come to coming up with a list of standard Jewish beliefs was Maimonides's Thirteen Principles of the Faith, which have all been debated or denied at one time or another; and although "all-seeing," "all-knowing," "all-powerful," and "omnipresent" are there, "all-loving" did not make the list.

There is also this:

Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (KJV)

Theologians, Jewish and otherwise, have been breaking their teeth on that one for centuries.

Spiritual can have different meanings to different people. By spiritual, I mean without a physical body. Do you claim that God has a physical body? Or do you mean something different by spiritual? Perhaps I should have used immaterial.

I understand. You are quite right; the word that is probably most exact is "noncorporeal," which is to say, God has no physical body or form.

The rest are not inherently self-contradictory or illogical, except perhaps according to a strictly materialist and physicalist understanding of reality; but that is not the only understanding there is, and it is not provably the only correct one unless one accepts its terms and definitions in advance.

To me, existence outside of time and space has as much meaning as invisible pink. I don't know what it means to exist outside of time and space, do you?

LOL! No, certainly not. But then I don't quite know how a fourth dimension in space would work either, even though I have read enough about it to know that the concept is mathematically valid and understandable in a theoretical sense.

So with God. I don't know that "beyond time and space" applies to God anyway; my own inclination would be to say that it doesn't. But, that said, I don't think that the fact that such an idea is difficult or even impossible to understand renders that idea itself inherently impossible. That God might exist or have existed in some dimension or mode of existence other than this one seems entirely reasonable to me, since we can by definition know nothing of such things. Of course, I freely admit that there is no positive reason to believe that either.

I understand that current theory posits the existence of ten spatial dimensions at the Universe's inception, aka the "Big Bang," and I don't know what that means or how that could be, either. Do you?

[McCulloch]

Well, he [God] s not evil.

The idea is that God cannot be judged by human standards. Colloquially and informally, God is of course regarded as "good"; but "benevolent" is not quite the same thing. The closest we have ever come to coming up with a list of standard Jewish beliefs was Maimonides's Thirteen Principles of the Faith, which have all been debated or denied at one time or another; and although "all-seeing," "all-knowing," "all-powerful," and "omnipresent" are there, "all-loving" did not make the list.

I don't quite understand being good but not benevolent. Maybe its one of those wave / particle duality things.

Theologians, Jewish and otherwise, have been breaking their teeth on that one for centuries.

Indeed.

I understand. You are quite right; the word that is probably most exact is "noncorporeal," which is to say, God has no physical body or form.

But does God depend on corporeal beings for His existence. Is it reasonable to posit a real being that is independently noncorporeal?

To me, existence outside of time and space has as much meaning as invisible pink. I don't know what it means to exist outside of time and space, do you?

LOL! No, certainly not. But then I don't quite know how a fourth dimension in space would work either, even though I have read enough about it to know that the concept is mathematically valid and understandable in a theoretical sense.

Precisely the point. Can the concept of God be shown to be valid and understandable in a theoretical sense?

I understand that current theory posits the existence of ten spatial dimensions at the Universe's inception, aka the "Big Bang," and I don't know what that means or how that could be, either. Do you?

LOL! No, certainly not. But I do know that such theories are derived from and subject to rigorous validation. And so with God?

[cnorman18]

I don't quite understand being good but not benevolent. Maybe its one of those wave / particle duality things.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind by way of illustrating the difference is the legend of the Flood. Wiping out the human race because it is egregiously "wicked" might in some way be serving the "good," by removing "evil"; but it's hardly "benevolent."

But does God depend on corporeal beings for His existence. Is it reasonable to posit a real being that is independently noncorporeal?

Haven't you ever watched Star Trek? Beings made up of pure energy and thought don't only turn up in the Bible. I see nothing inherently unlikely in the concept.

Precisely the point. Can the concept of God be shown to be valid and understandable in a theoretical sense?

Of course. That academic field is called "Theology."

LOL! No, certainly not. But I do know that such theories are derived from and subject to rigorous validation. And so with God?

No. That's why theologians argue so much.

Are you quite sure that superstring theory is "subject to rigorous validation"? I don't think it's quite progressed to that point. Unlike relativity, I know of no experiments that have confirmed it. I may be mistaken, but last I heard it was a theory that had not yet achieved full acceptance in the scientific community.

Which is rather the point, it seems to me. Science progresses "theory first, then confirmation" in many areas. Relativity was discovered first in Einstein's "thought experiments," not in the lab.

The difference with theology, I will freely admit, is that confirmation is impossible; but that does not make the theorizing itself necessarily irrational.

Theology is not science, and no responsible theologian would ever pretend that it is. It is open-ended and must remain so; it must remain forever as unconfirmed theory. That is the nature of its subject. If one wants absolute factual verifiability, one doesn't enter that field, even as an amateur.

An analogous situation would be an artist who wants hard-and-fast, rigorous guidelines and instructions on how to create "good art." If that's what you need, you're in the wrong profession.

People who need rigorous proof of God are very rarely religious, just as people who want an absolutely perfect relationship are very rarely married. That doesn't mean that people who don't need proof of God are necessarily irrational or deluded, any more than married people are necessarily weak-willed and without sufficiently high standards. .

It's worth noting that fundamentalist Christian theologians--though many liberal Christian ones would dispute whether there is any such thing--typically don't argue much, since in that iteration if the faith all the answers are apparently known.

[McCulloch]

Precisely the point. Can the concept of God be shown to be valid and understandable in a theoretical sense?

Of course. That academic field is called "Theology."

What is Theology? I know that theological students study many varied things, counseling, history, anthropology, literature, etc. But how does one study God. Theo - God. -ology the study of. You can perhaps study what other humans have said about God. But how do you have any assurance that they have any more valid insights than you or I?

theologians argue so much.

Perhaps because there is no valid underpinning of what they claim to study.

The difference with theology, I will freely admit, is that confirmation is impossible; but that does not make the theorizing itself necessarily irrational.

You cannot theorize about that which cannot ever be confirmed, even hypothetically. Could it be that theology is just collective daydreaming?

Theology is not science, and no responsible theologian would ever pretend that it is.

There must be a lot of irresponsible theologians out there. They may not claim it to be science, but they boldly claim to know specific things about God and what God want from humans.

[daedalus 2.0]

OP

1. Was the horn of the RBB&B organization tested by independent scientists?
2. Did it, or do the Unicorns you claim exist have magic blood? Unicorns, as every TRUE Unicorn Believer knows, have magical blood. If it doesn't have magical blood it's just a horse with a deformity.

[cnorman18]

Precisely the point. Can the concept of God be shown to be valid and understandable in a theoretical sense?

Of course. That academic field is called "Theology."

What is Theology? I know that theological students study many varied things, counseling, history, anthropology, literature, etc. But how does one study God. Theo - God. -ology the study of. You can perhaps study what other humans have said about God. But how do you have any assurance that they have any more valid insights than you or I?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one doesn't. One studies theology to learn what others have said on the subject, and to come to one's own conclusions.

I suppose fundamentalist schools might claim to teach "Eternal, Unchanging and Indisputable Truths," but mine didn't, and I personally know of none that do.

theologians argue so much.

Perhaps because there is no valid underpinning of what they claim to study.

From the point of view of an atheist, I feel sure that that is quite true.

Theologians and students of theology spend little, if any, time trying to prove that God exists. It is assumed, and rather justly, I think, that if one were in doubt about that issue, one would not be engaged in theological study.

There was a roughly analogous situation at the Army base near my home town some years ago, during the first Gulf war. An Army doctor had refused to be stationed in Iraq because, he said, he did not believe in war or violence. The reaction, both official and unofficial (that is, among the soldiers I personally knew), was the same: "I can understand how someone can hold those beliefs. But what is he doing in the Army?"

If a theological student were to object, "How can it be proven that God exists at all?" I suspect the reaction would be similar: "That's a question for another class and another school. What are you doing here?"

The difference with theology, I will freely admit, is that confirmation is impossible; but that does not make the theorizing itself necessarily irrational.

You cannot theorize about that which cannot ever be confirmed, even hypothetically.

Really? Haven't you ever been in a conversation about what might have happened differently in a work of acknowledged fiction? I certainly have.

Personally, I don't think it particularly proper or appropriate to dictate what others may or may not be permitted to think and talk about. If you're not interested in speculation about God, you shouldn't be engaged in theological study. And that's about as far as I think anyone really has the right to go.

I personally think that professional sports are a colossal waste of time and an even more colossal waste of money, that they teach young people horrible values and priorities, and that their effect on society in general is much more negative than positive; but my expression of those convictions is limited to the fact that I do not watch them or give a rat's butt about who's going to the Super Bowl. If another person wishes to waste his time in that fashion, he is free to do so. I can express my views, and I do, but is it my place to tell another person to throw away his Cowboys posters and T-shirts and take up stamp collecting? I think not.

Could it be that theology is just collective daydreaming?

Those who engage in it don't think so, and those who do think so aren't involved in the field; and therefore their opinions to that effect are irrelevant to it. Isn't that pretty much how everything works?

I would think that one's involvement in ANY field of study or activity, whether it be theology, psychology, medicine, auto mechanics, astrology or building ships in bottles, would begin with and be motivated by the belief that that activity is somehow worthwhile and not wholly futile or meaningless.

Theology is not science, and no responsible theologian would ever pretend that it is.

There must be a lot of irresponsible theologians out there. They may not claim it to be science, but they boldly claim to know specific things about God and what God want from humans.

I would question just how much actual theology you have read, as opposed to popular literature on related subjects. Real theology, and particularly Jewish theology, does not often make "bold statements"; on the contrary, most such works explicitly present their ideas as opinion and speculation, and as part of a continuing and open-ended discussion.

As with many statements about religion that one sees around here, this has more to do with stereotypes and fundamentalism than with the reality of modern liberal religion, Jewish or Christian.

[cnorman18]

OP

1. Was the horn of the RBB&B organization tested by independent scientists?

Yes, it was; and it was found to be living tissue and not a prosthesis.

2. Did it, or do the Unicorns you claim exist have magic blood? Unicorns, as every TRUE Unicorn Believer knows, have magical blood. If it doesn't have magical blood it's just a horse with a deformity.

Or a goat.

I didn't say they were magical unicorns; just your ordinary, mundane, normal everyday unicorns.

I have to wonder; how would "magical blood" be distinguishable from ordinary blood? Would it glow, or sparkle, or heal wounds, or what?

And why blood? Why not magical skin, or eyeballs, or hoofs?

I think the closest thing to a magical creature that I've ever seen was a cat that knew how to ring a doorbell.

And a girl I once knew...

But that story is for another kind of website.

[Goat]

OP

1. Was the horn of the RBB&B organization tested by independent scientists?

Yes, it was; and it was found to be living tissue and not a prosthesis.

2. Did it, or do the Unicorns you claim exist have magic blood? Unicorns, as every TRUE Unicorn Believer knows, have magical blood. If it doesn't have magical blood it's just a horse with a deformity.

Or a goat.

Watch it, I resemble that remark!.

I pesonally think it was a deer with a deformity, not a goat.

[daedalus 2.0]

OP

1. Was the horn of the RBB&B organization tested by independent scientists?

Yes, it was; and it was found to be living tissue and not a prosthesis.

2. Did it, or do the Unicorns you claim exist have magic blood? Unicorns, as every TRUE Unicorn Believer knows, have magical blood. If it doesn't have magical blood it's just a horse with a deformity.

Or a goat.

I didn't say they were magical unicorns; just your ordinary, mundane, normal everyday unicorns.

I have to wonder; how would "magical blood" be distinguishable from ordinary blood? Would it glow, or sparkle, or heal wounds, or what?

And why blood? Why not magical skin, or eyeballs, or hoofs?

I think the closest thing to a magical creature that I've ever seen was a cat that knew how to ring a doorbell.

And a girl I once knew...

But that story is for another kind of website.

I believe the consensus of leading Unicorn authorities say that the magical blood heals wounds, even resurrects the dead. However, there is a penalty - you will have a curse on your life, because the only way to get the magic from the blood is to kill the unicorn. There have been unverified reports of people curing minor wounds and gingivitis from accidental blood left on thorns and from fights with badgers.