Do leprechauns exist?

[splashscuba]

I lack a belief in a potentially infinite number of things.
I do not have enough time.

yep. Lost count of the number of times I've pointed this out.

[Bubbles]

yep. Lost count of the number of times I've pointed this out.

But but but ........ It's interesting 

[Brownie]

Really, that does surprise me!

 

[L.A.]

On another thread I came across this assertion.

So what are the arguments that leprechauns do not exist?

Saint Patrick's day is approaching - so, it's that time of year when we all need to believe in leprechauns (and it's not so difficult if you consume a few jars of stout)

[Bubbles]

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/7609013-st-patricks-day-2016

☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘☘🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀☘☘☘☘☘

🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻☘🍀

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for god works equally for leprechauns, it's probably a bad argument".

The reason I introduce leprechauns into the discussions here is to make just that point - "I experience it", "you can't disprove it", "other people agree with me" etc and wearingly etc are just some of the many logically broken attempts some here make for an objectively true god, so it's a short cut response to point out that - if they think it's ok to use them for that purpose - then it's OK to use them for anything else, leprechauns included.

Sadly it's taking longer than I'd hoped to sink in, but hey - cock-eyed optimist that I am - you never know when the lightbulb might go on for somebody here...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremyp,

bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for god works equally for leprechauns, it's probably a bad argument".

In Vlad the fourth Maxim is ''science is successful in the same way that Brobat toilet cleaner is successful''

Four a) is '' Science is not an ontology whatever that geyser Hillside says''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremyp,

bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for god works equally for leprechauns, it's probably a bad argument".

The reason I introduce leprechauns into the discussions here is to make just that point - "I experience it", "you can't disprove it", "other people agree with me"

Hang on isn't it you who are suggesting that experiencing the little chaps is flawed?

And why is it flawed, why is it unreal?

Because Leprechauns are little chaps dressed in green. And therefore seeing them is a distorted homoncularising hallucination.

What is God a hallucination of?

[Andy]

Hang on isn't it you who are suggesting that experiencing the little chaps is flawed?

And why is it flawed, why is it unreal?

Because Leprechauns are little chaps dressed in green. And therefore seeing them is a distorted homoncularising hallucination.

What is God a hallucination of?

Perhaps leprechauns manifest in the physical realm as little chaps dressed in green, like this god does as Jesus...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

Perhaps leprechauns manifest in the physical realm as little chaps dressed in green, like this god does as Jesus...

That is my personal faith belief, and therefore it must be true for you too.

Can I have some tax breaks, charitable status and the right to teach leprechaunology as factually true to your children therefore please? Oh, and a slot on Thought for the Day would be nice too please. 

And the point of course wasn't to examine the nature of leprechauns - rather it was to to point out that an argument for "God" that also works for leprechauns is probably a bad argument. Its such a simple - and obvious - point, but it seems to be lost on some nonetheless.   

[Hope]

Perhaps leprechauns manifest in the physical realm as little chaps dressed in green, like this god does as Jesus...

The problem with that argument is that 1) there are allegedly a multitude of leprechauns who have existed down the centuries (I use the word 'allegedly' carefully, because we know very weel that there have been plenty of smaller than average people down the centuries) and 2) Jesus was an historical person and there has only ever been one of him.

Trying to compare natural with supernatural is somewhat moot

[Hope]

In Vlad the fourth Maxim is ''science is successful in the same way that Brobat toilet cleaner is successful''

Four a) is '' Science is not an ontology whatever that geyser Hillside says''

I hadn't realised that Hillside was a spout of boiling water 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

The problem with that argument is that 1) there are allegedly a multitude of leprechauns who have existed down the centuries (I use the word 'allegedly' carefully, because we know very weel that there have been plenty of smaller than average people down the centuries) and 2) Jesus was an historical person and there has only ever been one of him.

Trying to compare natural with supernatural is somewhat moot

You've missed it. The point rather was that - once you posit the supernatural - then anything goes because there are no rules to bound the possibilities. A man/god alive, dead for a bit and alive again? Sure, why not? Little green chaps flitting in and and out of existence so as to leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows? Knock yourself out.

Oh, and you can't have it both ways - either Jesus was all mortal (a sort of early David Koresh figure, which incidentally I think to be likely) or he was a man/god, in which case you must allow the same dual natural/non-natural status to anything else, leprechauns included.   


 

[Shaker]

The problem with that argument is that 1) there are allegedly a multitude of leprechauns who have existed down the centuries (I use the word 'allegedly' carefully, because we know very weel that there have been plenty of smaller than average people down the centuries) and 2) Jesus was an historical person and there has only ever been one of him.

There's only ever been one of anybody

[ippy]

Hope, I bet you must be counting all of those brownie points you 'think' you're gaining by declaring how much evidence you have to support your declared god belief and how much in spite of the absence of this 'evidence', you are still an 'I'll do it god', god believer; those brownie points must be in the millions for you by now, well don't be calling us. 

It was probably the devil that made me post this, that must mean minus brownie points, oh dear.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

There's only ever been one of anybody

Quite a lot of people claiming to be messiahs though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

[Leonard James]

Quite a lot of people claiming to be messiahs though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Bleedin' ijuts!

[floo]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone but I am really a messiah, in disguise!

[wigginhall]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone but I am really a messiah, in disguise!

Secretly, Sassy knows this, and she is just fighting against it.  She will surrender in the end!

[wigginhall]

I thought Shaker's point, there's only ever been one of anybody, was wonderful.   Funny and insightful, all in one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone but I am really a messiah, in disguise!

After three..........''what if God was one of us, just a slob like one of us?''

[Leonard James]

After three..........''what if God was one of us, just a slob like one of us?''

Speak for yourself, I ain't no slob!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Speak for yourself, I ain't no slob!

You obviously failed to get the joke.........but don't worry because I did and after all, that's what counts.

[Shaker]

I thought Shaker's point, there's only ever been one of anybody, was wonderful.   Funny and insightful, all in one.

One tries, you know 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's only ever been one of anybody

yep that's the human experience which is why I think God identifies with us most through a single incarnation.