This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Refuting the Flying Spaghetti Monster when someone uses it like this.

#1ProudcladPosted 1/22/2013 9:04:42 PM
This is for the people who posit a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or similar caricature, as a rebuttal or response whenever someone says that God is real. So for example, if I defend the Bible and someone says "belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as valid as belief in Jesus as the son of God", then I can respond in several ways. This is one form of my rebuttal. Please share thoughts or critiques.

1) If the flying spaghetti monster is actual spaghetti, then we have a warrant for asking for physical evidence for the flying spaghetti monster because actual spaghetti resides in the physical world.

2) In the absence of direct physical proof, and given that we know that, in the absence of omnipotence there can't be physical proof of something that's physically impossible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is disproven as a mere caricature.

3) if you're referring to something that ISN'T just actual spaghetti but rather omnipotence that presents itself as spaghetti, you aren't referring to a flying spaghetti monster but rather you're referring to omnipotence.

4) You're using the idea of omnipotence to contradict someone's idea of God.

5) if omnipotence isn't a contradiction to that person's idea of God, then your argument isn't a valid comparison/rebuttal because you aren't attacking anything
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#2LunarAmbiencePosted 1/22/2013 9:17:32 PM
From: Proudclad | #001
If the flying spaghetti monster is actual spaghett


Nah, it's metaphysical spaghetti and meatballs.

You're using the idea of omnipotence to contradict someone's idea of God

It's actually the idea of a deity more focused on pasta than on what kind of crop you plant, what kind of clothes you wear and the sex of the person you boink.
---
The above is both true and false.
#3Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:18:49 PM
If it's some metaphysical something, then the warrant is omnipotence or godliness in general. So if the atheist tries to force the FSM argument when someone mentions belief in God, they're not referring to anything that would be a rebuttal. So why use it as a rebuttal?
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#4BetaSquadronPosted 1/22/2013 9:19:16 PM
1) Yeah it is actual spaghetti. No you don't get proof.

2) I don't follow. In the absence of direct physical proof, you have an absence of direct physical proof. You haven't disproven the FSM.
#5AynRandySavagePosted 1/22/2013 9:20:35 PM
LunarAmbience posted...
From: Proudclad | #001
If the flying spaghetti monster is actual spaghett


Nah, it's metaphysical spaghetti and meatballs.

.



The tastiest variety
#6C_MatPosted 1/22/2013 9:30:34 PM
The FSM is a pretty pathetic attempt from atheists to discredit theists. It is not as if Christians make the claim "You cannot disprove God's existence; therefore God exists." They provide external evidence for God that gives explanatory power for the world around us. FSM does none of that.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#7Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:33:26 PM
@ BetaSquadron

If it's actual spaghetti, we know that it cannot exist unless there's a warrant for it to exist - namely omnipotence. That's the only thing that can make actual spaghetti a flying spaghetti monster. You have no physical proof of this actual spaghetti monster despite there being a warrant for such physical proof. I have physical proof that spaghetti is not a flying spaghetti monster.

FSM refuted.

To the people who will inevitably try to tell me the CORRECT way to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument...as in, against intelligent design...I'm aware of the correct way to use it. This is about those atheists who use it incorrectly, and quite often. We see two trying to use it incorrectly right now.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#8lastheroPosted 1/22/2013 9:34:23 PM
C_Mat posted...
The FSM is a pretty pathetic attempt from atheists to discredit theists. It is not as if Christians make the claim "You cannot disprove God's existence; therefore God exists." They provide external evidence for God that gives explanatory power for the world around us. FSM does none of that.


The only time I ever hear it brought up is when theists are trying to prove God's existence by saying something silly like 'It's so obvious - look at the world around you!'
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#9Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:35:01 PM
lasthero posted...
C_Mat posted...
The FSM is a pretty pathetic attempt from atheists to discredit theists. It is not as if Christians make the claim "You cannot disprove God's existence; therefore God exists." They provide external evidence for God that gives explanatory power for the world around us. FSM does none of that.


The only time I ever hear it brought up is when theists are trying to prove God's existence by saying something silly like 'It's so obvious - look at the world around you!'


Even then, the world around us might, because of intrinsic beauty, convince us of some general idea of God. Even then, the FSM is not a satisfactory rebuttal to this idea of God because it's not a contradictory stance. :/
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#10lastheroPosted 1/22/2013 9:40:51 PM
Proudclad posted...
lasthero posted...
C_Mat posted...
The FSM is a pretty pathetic attempt from atheists to discredit theists. It is not as if Christians make the claim "You cannot disprove God's existence; therefore God exists." They provide external evidence for God that gives explanatory power for the world around us. FSM does none of that.


The only time I ever hear it brought up is when theists are trying to prove God's existence by saying something silly like 'It's so obvious - look at the world around you!'


Even then, the world around us might, because of intrinsic beauty, convince us of some general idea of God. Even then, the FSM is not a satisfactory rebuttal to this idea of God because it's not a contradictory stance. :/


But that's the thing - the world has no 'intrinsic beauty'. Just because you find something pretty doesn't mean anyone else will. It doesn't even make much since - 'I think moutains are pretty, therefore they must have been made by a God.' How does anything like that logically follow?

And typically, when people talk like this, they're not referring to a 'general idea of god' - they're referring to their specific god.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]