Agnosticism toward the flying spaghetti monster and russell's teapot

[dostoyevskyfan]

On a philosophical level, I am agnostic to the FSM and the idea that there is a chinese teapot orbiting the solar system. I have examined the evidence for the flying spaghetti monster and have found it lacking, although I am somewhat partial to Italian cuisine.

1. The church of the flying spaghetti monster is not 2,000 years old like this one and no historian has bothered to pen the history of its foundation unlike this historian.
2. The flying spaghetti monster has a physical representation (it is extended in time and space) and cannot therefore be logically compatible with superlative traits–omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. Since it inhabits the physical realm, it is limited to it and must have been created. It cannot therefore be the “greatest” being and suffers from the problem of infinite regress. There could be a being who created the flying spaghetti monster who transcends the physical plane of existence.
3. If the FSM exists, then it would be a god of philosophers, much like Aristotle’s “unmoved mover”; indifferent to our existence. It has not bothered to give us a moral code, or claimed to have “written it on our hearts” in the cases of people who have not heard the FSM’s gospel.
4. The FSM has not had any apostles, let alone 11 out of 12, who were tortured and painfully killed for their beliefs. It does not currently have 2 billion followers, which would not make it exist, but make its existence worthy of investigation.
5. The FSM has had no meaningful historical dialogues between believers and non-believers and makes no claims about an afterlife. It does not threaten us with eternal reward in heaven or eternal torture in hell. It is therefore irrelevant.
6. The FSM did not rise from the dead and did not leave a burial cloth which bears the image of a crucified man, contains pollen samples from Jerusalem, anatomically matches the gospel, and is a photo graphic negative without scientific explanations for 21st century skeptics.
7. There is no mysticism involved in the FSM such as Theresa of Avila, St.John of the Cross, Julian of Norwich, Joan of Arc, etc.
8. There have been no apparitions of the FSM or its mother, and no miracles attributed to it, such as unexplained healing at Lourdes or bizarre occurrences at Fatima.
9. The FSM has not profoundly influenced the course of human history unlike Jesus Christ who has the more books written about Him than any other historical figure.
10. There are no accurate prophesies attributed to the FSM unlike the old testament’s many predictions of the coming of Christ.
11. There is no great art, literature, or music composed in honor of the FSM.

I believe I’ve covered the main issues. As for the teapot, I have just as much interest in a piece of floating debris that doesn’t affect me as I do the existence of bacteria in other solar systems.

 

[Pieman333272]

Something for both:

As each are made of (or are) man-made objects, they each would require something intelligent to design it, otherwise they’re just made up by us, and we can prove it . As God, however, is not, and is also outside of the laws of physics, he needs no intelligent designer.

 

[the_phoenix]

I am truly sorry,
but I have just
eaten the Flying Spaghetti Monster
for dinner.
I hope this does not
inconvenience your
profound discussion.

 

[coolduude]

I am truly sorry,
but I have just
eaten the Flying Spaghetti Monster
for dinner.
I hope this does not
inconvenience your
profound discussion.

To the OP:

Good (great) post. I enjoyed reading it and you make some good points

 

[the_phoenix]

To the OP:

Good (great) post. I enjoyed reading it and you make some good points

Yes. In fact, they were deliciously good points.

 

[agnes_therese]

May the FSM bless you with his noodly appendage.

 

[AntiTheist]

On a philosophical level, I am agnostic to the FSM and the idea that there is a chinese teapot orbiting the solar system.

That’s odd – I’m not. I tend not to believe in things that have no evidence going for them.

Honestly, would you seriously start considering that the FSM might be real if people composed works of literature in its honor and had prophetic dreams of it? If you actually think that either of those things qualifies as evidence of the existence of a being, then nothing I say is ever going to change your mind.

 

[Kaninchen]

I am truly sorry,
but I have just
eaten the Flying Spaghetti Monster
for dinner.
I hope this does not
inconvenience your
profound discussion.

Was that ‘real’ presence or ‘symbolic’ presence?

 

[rick43235]

Was that ‘real’ presence or ‘symbolic’ presence?

I think I ruptured a lung laughing at that.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s odd – I’m not. I tend not to believe in things that have no evidence going for them.

Honestly, would you seriously start considering that the FSM might be real if people composed works of literature in its honor and had prophetic dreams of it? If you actually think that either of those things qualifies as evidence of the existence of a being, then nothing I say is ever going to change your mind.

From this post I think the original poster means he’s agnostic in the same way Bertrand Russell himself has been described as agnostic (a least he called hmself that in a debate I read). As in, he can’t prove that the FSM DOESN’T exist, but he has no reason to believe in the FSM. It’s an agnostic-atheist position.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul.”
–Thomas Jefferson *

Here is another quote from Jefferson that you may want to consider. It is from a letter to John Adams, so it is very likely sincere. Apparently Jefferson, like Newton, believed in Intelligent Design. There is nothing the least bit atheistic, agnostic, or anti-theist in his position, even if he was not a committed Christian in the traditional sense.

*The argument which they [atheists] rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent … *

 

[BOBDOBBS2K]

After perusing this thread, I can honestly say that I have never seen a point so thouroughly missed.

 

[You]

Spaghetti is created by God.

youtube.com/watch?v=27ugSKW4-QQ

 

[AntiTheist]

On a philosophical level, I am agnostic to the FSM and the idea that there is a chinese teapot orbiting the solar system.

Well, I guess I’m “agnostic” in regards to them, too, but only in the most abstract philosophical context in which I have to acknowledge that I can’t know anything “for certain.”

But for all practical purposes, where “knowledge” means practical knowledge that is useful, I know there’s no Flying Spaghetti and no teapot, and I’d be willing to say as much.

The church of the flying spaghetti monster is not 2,000 years old

The age of a claim has nothing to do with its truth.

The flying spaghetti monster has a physical representation (it is extended in time and space) and cannot therefore be logically compatible with superlative traits–omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. Since it inhabits the physical realm, it is limited to it and must have been created. It cannot therefore be the “greatest” being and suffers from the problem of infinite regress. There could be a being who created the flying spaghetti monster who transcends the physical plane of existence.

Any god – physical or not – could be subjected to an infinite regress. There’s no way to be sure that a particular god is “the first.”

If the FSM exists, then it would be a god of philosophers, much like Aristotle’s “unmoved mover”; indifferent to our existence. It has not bothered to give us a moral code, or claimed to have “written it on our hearts” in the cases of people who have not heard the FSM’s gospel.

Again, this isn’t an argument against its existence. It could exist and be totally indifferent.

The FSM has not had any apostles, let alone 11 out of 12, who were tortured and painfully killed for their beliefs. It does not currently have 2 billion followers, which would not make it exist, but make its existence worthy of investigation.

The number of people who believe a claim – and the strength of their convictions – has nothing to do with the truth of the claim.

The FSM has had no meaningful historical dialogues between believers and non-believers and makes no claims about an afterlife. It does not threaten us with eternal reward in heaven or eternal torture in hell. It is therefore irrelevant.

Again, that it does not offer rewards or punishments – and that it has not historically tried to “convert” people – has nothing to do with the truth of the claim. [incidentally, there is a FSM heaven, complete with a beer volcano and stripper factory]

The FSM did not rise from the dead and did not leave a burial cloth which bears the image of a crucified man, contains pollen samples from Jerusalem, anatomically matches the gospel, and is a photo graphic negative without scientific explanations for 21st century skeptics.

This is not an argument against its existence. Your implication that someone else did rise from the dead is unsubstantiated speculation based on first century legends.

There is no mysticism involved in the FSM such as Theresa of Avila, St.John of the Cross, Julian of Norwich, Joan of Arc, etc.

That something is or is not the basis of mystical practices has nothing to do with its truth. Go talk to all the Hindu mystics who have seen their gods.

There have been no apparitions of the FSM or its mother, and no miracles attributed to it, such as unexplained healing at Lourdes or bizarre occurrences at Fatima.

That gullible people convince themselves that they have seen “visions” of something has nothing to do with the truth of the claim. Go talk to all the Hindu mystics who have seen their gods.

The FSM has not profoundly influenced the course of human history unlike Jesus Christ who has the more books written about Him than any other historical figure.

That a claim has influenced history has nothing to do with the truth of the claim.

There are no accurate prophesies attributed to the FSM unlike the old testament’s many predictions of the coming of Christ.

That some legends match up with previous legends has nothing to do with whether the legends are true.

There is no great art, literature, or music composed in honor of the FSM.

That there is art or literature composed for a claim has nothing to do with the truth of the claim.

Are you seriously convinced by your own arguments or are you just winding us up?

 

[danserr]

most hilarious thread I have read in a while. Thanks OP

 

[Pieman333272]

After perusing this thread, I can honestly say that I have never seen a point so thouroughly missed.

So, are you going to try to answer any of his points or just make bare assertions?

 

[Pieman333272]

Are you seriously convinced by your own arguments or are you just winding us up?

As I remarked on another thread with you; I don’t think that he was trying to show that the FSM doesn’t exist OR that God does but that the FSM is either a strawman of God or based on a faulty understanding of the arguments or absence of knowledge of the evidence.

Any god – physical or not – could be subjected to an infinite regress. There’s no way to be sure that a particular god is “the first.”

But there does have to be a terminator. It doesn’t have to be God but there needs to be some kind of uncaused terminator - an infinite regress is not possible.

This is not an argument against its existence. Your implication that someone else did rise from the dead is unsubstantiated speculation based on first century legends.

And your calling it a “legend” is also unsubstantiated speculation.

 

[AntiTheist]

As I remarked on another thread with you; I don’t think that he was trying to show that the FSM doesn’t exist OR that God does but that the FSM is either a strawman of God or based on a faulty understanding of the arguments or absence of knowledge of the evidence.

Well, the OP says things like, “The church of the flying spaghetti monster is not 2,000 years old,” strongly implying that he thinks that the age of a claim like Christianity’s makes it more likely to be true.

I’m asking if he really thinks that these implied arguments are convincing.

If, as you suggest, he’s trying to say that the FSM is a “strawman,” then he doesn’t understand what a strawman is. In this context, it’s not the FSM that’s being compared to the Christian god, but the standards of evidence for each. There’s no more evidence that the FSM exists than the Christian god exists.

Now, you could try to counter that by saying, “But, there is evidence! For one thing, Christianity is 2,000 years old…”

But then you’ve just circled back around to my original point and the question I asked. Hence my post.

But there does have to be a terminator. It doesn’t have to be God but there needs to be some kind of uncaused terminator - an infinite regress is not possible.

You seem pretty sure about something you weren’t around for. The idea of something always existing doesn’t make any more sense, at least not to me.

And your calling it a “legend” is also unsubstantiated speculation.

No, my characterization of the Gospels – stories about a popular moral teacher interwoven with tales of magic – as “legend” is entirely accurate, just as my characterization of the King Arthur tales – stories about a real king interwoven with tales of magic – as “legend” is accurate.

If someone is going to claim that the magical parts of either legend are actually true, they’re going to have to do so on the basis of better evidence than the stories themselves, which obviously cannot confirm their own veracity.

 

[Betterave]

On a philosophical level, I am agnostic to the FSM and the idea that there is a chinese teapot orbiting the solar system.

In that case, on a philosophical level, and with all due respect and heartfelt affection, you are an idiot.

 

[Pieman333272]

Well, the OP says things like, “The church of the flying spaghetti monster is not 2,000 years old,” strongly implying that he thinks that the age of a claim like Christianity’s makes it more likely to be true.

I’m asking if he really thinks that these implied arguments are convincing.

If, as you suggest, he’s trying to say that the FSM is a “strawman,” then he doesn’t understand what a strawman is. In this context, it’s not the FSM that’s being compared to the Christian god, but the standards of evidence for each. There’s no more evidence that the FSM exists than the Christian god exists.

Now, you could try to counter that by saying, “But, there is evidence! For one thing, Christianity is 2,000 years old…”

But then you’ve just circled back around to my original point and the question I asked. Hence my post.

Of course, age doesn’t matter in judging the truth of something. But the FSM is a strawman, due to the fact it lacks even the potential for evidence, at least in its current state.

You seem pretty sure about something you weren’t around for. The idea of something always existing doesn’t make any more sense, at least not to me.

We can know an infinite regress did not occur because we exist. If the infinite regress occurred, we would never be made because it would never get that far! Again, I’m willing to admit that, with the proper evidence, this was a natural thing, but there cannot be an infinite regress.

No, my characterization of the Gospels – stories about a popular moral teacher interwoven with tales of magic – as “legend” is entirely accurate, just as my characterization of the King Arthur tales – stories about a real king interwoven with tales of magic – as “legend” is accurate.

If someone is going to claim that the magical parts of either legend are actually true, they’re going to have to do so on the basis of better evidence than the stories themselves, which obviously cannot confirm their own veracity.

How about the fact that King Arthur almost certainly was not the man portrayed in his lore while it is almost certain that at least some of the Jesus of the Gospels is the Historical Jesus?

How about the fact that King Arthur’s tradition had at least a century longer before the “magic” came into his story while Jesus’ resurrection was first recorded in oral tradition perhaps a year after his death?

How about the fact that King Arthur’s “magic” parts were probably influenced by other stories while it has been proven that the Gospels did not rip off any other myths or legends?

So, it looks like Jesus isn’t really like Arthur after all.