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.

#11darklaoPosted 1/22/2013 9:41:30 PM
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.
This is a pointless attempt to hold FSM to a standard your God can't be held to. Probably don't want to open that can of worms. Also, FSM is just a stand-in for any God but yours.

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.
Again, see, raising the dead is physically impossible, coming back to life as a visible spirit of some sort is physically impossible. Turning water to wine, etc. etc. etc. Given these, we know Jesus is a fictional "holy man" character. You don't want to open that can of worms.

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


No, the idea is that all specific instances of that god concept are equally bad. It is not an attack on the idea of a creator God, it is an attack on your specific God. The only God that FSM doesn't actually attack is a kind of standoffish deist creator god who doesn't meddle or require/restrict stupid things.
---
[agitprop]
come and play come and play forget about the movement
#12Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:43:57 PM
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.


The world has no intrinsic beauty? That's your opinion. Someone might very well claim that it does, and that it's a reason they believe in a deity in general. We the scope of this universe and gravitate towards ideas of a creative mind behind it. It's but a single step in affirming a God. If people want to refer to their specific God, additional argumentation is necessary.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#13BashyMcFetusPosted 1/22/2013 9:46:47 PM
Proudclad posted...
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. :/

It's meant to show the uselessness of using beauty as evidence of a specific god.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#14Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:47:05 PM
This is a pointless attempt to hold FSM to a standard your God can't be held to. Probably don't want to open that can of worms. Also, FSM is just a stand-in for any God but yours.

It's a logical examination of the possibilities. If the FSM is actual spaghetti, there's a warrant for direct and strict physical evidence. If he's more than that, then he's not a mere FSM but rather a deity with omnipotence as the warrant for his presentation. Thus it's no longer an actual argument against X-God.

Again, see, raising the dead is physically impossible, coming back to life as a visible spirit of some sort is physically impossible. Turning water to wine, etc. etc. etc. Given these, we know Jesus is a fictional "holy man" character. You don't want to open that can of worms.

These things are physically impossible, therefore Jesus is a fictional holy man character? That's a non-sequitur. Read this.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/65182894

No, the idea is that all specific instances of that god concept are equally bad. It is not an attack on the idea of a creator God, it is an attack on your specific God. The only God that FSM doesn't actually attack is a kind of standoffish deist creator god who doesn't meddle or require/restrict stupid things.

This is not a valid assumption. Not all concepts of God are equally valid or invalid. Some gods are easily disprovable because they can't reconcile logic or science with their context. The FSM is not any kind of attack because it either does not exist or it's omnipotence.

The only explanation for it being actual spaghetti and thus violating what we know of nature...is omnipotence. Which means it's not an FSM and not a contradiction to the Christian God.

The Christian God is to be assessed with the appropriate methodology rather than just a strict and limited perspective on science.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#15Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:47:47 PM
BashyMcFetus posted...
Proudclad posted...
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. :/

It's meant to show the uselessness of using beauty as evidence of a specific god.


Then that's probably going to end up being a strawman since the Christian perspective is built on so much more than "nature is beautiful"
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#16BetaSquadronPosted 1/22/2013 9:51:04 PM
Proudclad posted...
I have physical proof that spaghetti is not a flying spaghetti monster.

You're making a basic logical error. The FSM is composed of spaghetti. At no point did anyone say all spaghetti is the FSM.
#17Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:53:16 PM
BetaSquadron posted...
Proudclad posted...
I have physical proof that spaghetti is not a flying spaghetti monster.

You're making a basic logical error. The FSM is composed of spaghetti. At no point did anyone say all spaghetti is the FSM.


I'm not making a basic logical error. You're proving my point. If the FSM is not all spaghetti, but merely some spaghetti, then what else is it composed of? Only spaghetti?

Because then there's still a warrant for your particular kind of spaghetti or X-item that the FSM is composed of. You can try to rationalize the FSM continuously but eventually you'll have to refer to omnipotence in order to rationalize it's non-existence on the physical level. And when you refer to omnipotence, the entire point of the FSM is lost. It's no longer a legitimate rebuttal or comparison.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#18lastheroPosted 1/22/2013 9:54:01 PM
The world has no intrinsic beauty? That's your opinion.


Things that are intrinsic have that value regardless of what my opinion is. A dandelion is intrinsically white. It doesn't matter what I think about it - it's white. That can't change. Thinking dandelions are pretty is an opinion that can change depending on who you ask. It's not intrinsic.

If people want to refer to their specific God, additional argumentation is necessary.

Which is part of the reason that the FSM is brought up in such circumstances - they feel no additional argumentation is necessary.

Then that's probably going to end up being a strawman since the Christian perspective is built on so much more than "nature is beautiful"


It's not really a strawmen - there are Christians who take this stance, and if you don't believe me, I'd point you to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's Dateline debate. Against such people, the FSM is fair game.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#19BashyMcFetusPosted 1/22/2013 9:57:08 PM
Proudclad posted...
I'm not making a basic logical error. You're proving my point. If the FSM is not all spaghetti, but merely some spaghetti, then what else is it composed of? Only spaghetti?

Because then there's still a warrant for your particular kind of spaghetti or X-item that the FSM is composed of. You can try to rationalize the FSM continuously but eventually you'll have to refer to omnipotence in order to rationalize it's non-existence on the physical level. And when you refer to omnipotence, the entire point of the FSM is lost. It's no longer a legitimate rebuttal or comparison.

I composed of atoms, but not all atoms are part of me. Same thing with FSM and spaghetti.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#20Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 9:59:01 PM
Things that are intrinsic have that value regardless of what my opinion is. A dandelion is intrinsically white. It doesn't matter what I think about it - it's white. That can't change. Thinking dandelions are pretty is an opinion that can change depending on who you ask. It's not intrinsic.

I suppose you're right. And yet perhaps someone who is color-blind might end up not acknowledging that a dandelion is intrinsically white. Someone who doesn't care might not acknowledge that the world is intrinsically beautiful.

Which is part of the reason that the FSM is brought up in such circumstances - they feel no additional argumentation is necessary.

Then this is simply wrong. Which Christian will say "the world is beautiful" as if that's sufficient argumentation? It's a starting point that some atheists might or might not agree with but it is by no means the entirety of the Christian position.

It's not really a strawmen - there are Christians who take this stance, and if you don't believe me, I'd point you to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's Dateline debate. Against such people, the FSM is fair game.

If a Christian were to say that, I'd say that their position is weak. The FSM is still not fair game because both the FSM and Jesus as the son of God would have, as their warrant, godliness or omnipotence, however you want to define it. Ultimately the FSM would be a different way to say "a transcendent being"
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net