Flying Spaghetti monster

[Pete_1]

Look to the teachings of other religions. It is not my claim, it is their teaching.

If you want to talk about other religions, I suggest you learn what you are talking about first.

The burden of proof is upon you, you made the claim.

 

[juhothenero]

cfrancis;4162358:

I’m trying to apply the standard of proof you require for Christ’s resurrection to this issue of Dawkins’ book.
When?

One could **assume **

reason gives correct answers because it is the only option, this is not faith.

Not so I have seen Dawkins speak about his book. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (that I know of) is from the testimony of his disciples.

Besides don’t extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Don’t use your double standard. What comes to your last question, Jesus told you the answer in the bible. No They Don’t

 

[Pete_1]

Pete, you are using a double standard here. You try to be skeptic but you don’t know what is a real skeptic, just like Dawkins, he appears smart in fact there is too many logical errors in his so called “philosophy” i think no school of philosophy would never even suggest reading him.

You say provide me evidence but not this one since I don’t like it or something like that. Then the other person here says the same thing to you about Dawkins and you say well is just reasonable that he exists… Do you see the double standard? You are not even close to be a real skeptic, i think any philosophy class would laugh at this “logic”. You either build a complete system or don’t try to build one. The same goes for Dawkins.

There has been studies on how fast myths develop, takes about two generations or more every time. Strange thing is, Christians took about 40 days to develop a huge “myth”, an unbelievable one for those days for Jews (don’t think of other faiths at the time, they don’t matter for this, they did not learn them in 40 days and decide those things). These 40 days are from Jesus dead till the first pentecostal. That is really all evidence we need.

You misunderstand me, I am playing devils advocate in order to try and resolve my question.

 

[juhothenero]

You misunderstand me, I am playing devils advocate in order to try and resolve my question.

It is easy to play devil’s advocate with no logic behind it. First thing that is needed to know is are you willing to apply your logic to everything or just somethings. Then you can play devil’s advocate.

By Skepticism you cannot for example be sure that when you hit a ball with a stick the stick causes the ball to move… There is no evidence for it what so ever. You cannot use reason as evidence since you would first have to show how it makes better evidence then faith. In fact reason doesn’t cut it for the stick and the ball, which was proven by Dadid Hume. He then sorted out his own complete system that also does not work completely. The point is you have to make some choices between options to form a belief system.

 

[peregrinator_it]

What I am asking is, why faith?

Because, if a person honestly undertakes the intellectual life in full pursuit of the truth, he necessarily (I think) comes to the conclusion that human reason, though able to grasp truth, is limited and many of the things one can examine through reason are infinite. An honest thinker will conclude that our reason is not sufficient to comprehend everything we apply it to.

Thus, we should find ourselves saying with Socrates, “I only know what I do not know.”

(P.S. I didn’t know that Dawkins had posited a "Flying Spaghetti Monster. The title/content of this thread gave me a chuckle, as during my undergrad, (I did a Great Books program) one of my classmates decided, when we first began to study the subject, that there was about as much evidence for the existence of atoms as there was for flying pigs. And proceeded to substitute “flying pigs” for atoms in the ensuing class discussion, much to the annoyance of our tutor (prof.)

 

[cfrancis]

Not so I have seen Dawkins speak about his book. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (that I know of) is from the testimony of his disciples.

I’m sorry, but seeing an individual talk about a book is defintely not evidence that individual wrote the book.

This is the same as a Christian in, say 60AD, hearing St John speaking of the Resurrection.

According to your standard, you have not provided evidence for me to believe Dawkins wrote his book.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You misunderstand me, I am playing devils advocate in order to try and resolve my question.

Be careful Brother Pete that you don’t over-play the role so well that you end up Monte Carlo’ing this into a coin-flip where it becomes a “heads I lose tails you win” sort of false dichotomy that gets you hired as chief advocate for Satan.

James

 

[juhothenero]

I’m sorry, but seeing an individual talk about a book is defintely not evidence that individual wrote the book.

This is the same as a Christian in, say 60AD, hearing St John speaking of the Resurrection.

According to your standard, you have not provided evidence for me to believe Dawkins wrote his book.

Pete, cfrancis shows you the issue right here very well.

In the end you got to make some choices because your human mind is limited. How do you know is limited? Because you don’t know your mother in the other room of the house is still alive, and that is true. You don’t really know such a simple thing. Your mind is not Gods mind, it has huge vast limitations which in fact should make you feel very humble in this world. Then you must know the choice you make is not based upon any limitless knowledge. So which choice you want to make?

 

[Pete_1]

It is easy to play devil’s advocate with no logic behind it. First thing that is needed to know is are you willing to apply your logic to everything or just somethings. Then you can play devil’s advocate.

By Skepticism you cannot for example be sure that when you hit a ball with a stick the stick causes the ball to move… There is no evidence for it what so ever. You cannot use reason as evidence since you would first have to show how it makes better evidence then faith. In fact reason doesn’t cut it for the stick and the ball, which was proven by Dadid Hume. He then sorted out his own complete system that also does not work completely. The point is you have to make some choices between options to form a belief system.

But it is only logical to assume that when you hit the ball it is the force of the stick that does so, otherwise the world is unintelligible.

 

[Pete_1]

I’m sorry, but seeing an individual talk about a book is defintely not evidence that individual wrote the book.

   If we assume our senses are representative of reality and reason (necessary assumptions if the world is to be intelligible) can attain the truth then there are many reasons why Dawkins is likely to be the author.

If it was someone else’s book why would the author let him talk on his behalf, surely reporters would uncover the fraud? What of his colleges at the University of Oxford surely they would recognise his work and denounce him if it was not his? What about his publishers? His fans? How would he defend his work if he did not write it?

All these considerations point to Dawkins as author.

 

[Pete_1]

Pete_;4162375:

Don’t use your double standard. What comes to your last question, Jesus told you the answer in the bible. No They Don’t

It is not a double standard seeing for oneself is better than hearing from another, people lie knowingly and unknowingly, some are mad. If someone told you that he saw a monkey talk would you believe him, why not?

 

[juhothenero]

But it is only logical to assume that when you hit the ball it is the force of the stick that does so, otherwise the world is unintelligible.

That is what you might assume but it has been without a doubt proven that this seemingly logical thing cannot be proven. David Hume has disproved it quite efficiently. The problem is that when you make assumptions you have to take them to their ending conclusion not just use them on one issue and them assume reason or logic in another…

I mean of course what you use the words logic or reason in your arguing. It is like sure it is reasonable to think like that. To tell you the ugly truth, it is not. There is no reasonable way of thinking. There is just logic or no logic.

 

[Pete_1]

That is what you might assume but it has been without a doubt proven that this seemingly logical thing cannot be proven. David Hume has disproved it quite efficiently. The problem is that when you make assumptions you have to take them to their ending conclusion not just use them on one issue and them assume reason or logic in another…

I mean of course what you use the words logic or reason in your arguing. It is like sure it is reasonable to think like that. To tell you the ugly truth, it is not. There is no reasonable way of thinking. There is just logic or no logic.

Perhaps I will rephrase; let’s assume logic exists. Why is it logical to believe Jesus rose from the dead?

Eye witness martyrs do not offer proof, they could have been lying (though I do not believe this).

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well, if it was someone else’s book why would the author let him talk on his behalf, surely reporters would uncover the fraud? What of his colleges at the University of Oxford surely they would recognise his work and denounce him if it was not his? What about his publishers? His fans? How would he defend his work if he did not write it?

Well the overarching matter at hand here is after all supernatural. Consider in this context the plagiarism could be by mutual cooperative consent with a duped or willing thrall extracting his vig upfront and the devil more than happy to defer his due until the balloon note bursts.

James

 

[juhothenero]

juhothenero;4162427:

It is not a double standard seeing for oneself is better than hearing from another, people lie knowingly and unknowingly, some are mad. If someone told you that he saw a monkey talk would you believe him, why not?

I would think it is quite possible. What I am saying is you are using a double standard like well is just reasonable to think this way but not this way. You have a burden of proof actually yourself to show me that your standard is correct otherwise we have no real reason to debate. If i heard one person saying monkey can talk i would think well i don’t know. If i heard 11 saying well a monkey can talk i would think maybe.

If i heard 11 people saying well a monkey can talk and then police arrest those 11 and they would be told if you don’t say there is no talking monkey we will torture you to death and those 11 would say sorry but the monkey really talked i would start thinking what kind of monkey is this they talk about

 

[juhothenero]

Perhaps I will rephrase; let’s assume logic exists. Why is it logical to believe Jesus rose from the dead?

Eye witness martyrs do not offer proof, they could have been lying (though I do not believe this).

Jesus was the son of God. He was God. Human did something bad to God and would be all in hell without a proper sacrifice. God came here as Jesus to do the job human cannot. Makes sense…

 

[Pete_1]

Pete_;4162551:

I would think it is quite possible. What I am saying is you are using a double standard like well is just reasonable to think this way but not this way. You have a burden of proof actually yourself to show me that your standard is correct otherwise we have no real reason to debate. If i heard one person saying monkey can talk i would think well i don’t know. If i heard 11 saying well a monkey can talk i would think maybe.

If i heard 11 people saying well a monkey can talk and then police arrest those 11 and they would be told if you don’t say there is no talking monkey we will torture you to death and those 11 would say sorry but the monkey really talked i would start thinking what kind of monkey is this they talk about

What if you later found out that those 11 had escaped from an insitiution, or had been brainwashed would you still believe?

 

[Pete_1]

Jesus was the son of God. He was God. Human did something bad to God and would be all in hell without a proper sacrifice. God came here as Jesus to do the job human cannot. Makes sense…

Just because something makes sense it does not make it true.

I could say that I went to the shop yesterday to buy some oranges. It makes sense, but is it true?

 

[juhothenero]

juhothenero;4162595:

What if you later found out that those 11 had escaped from an insitiution, or had been brainwashed would you still believe?

This is assumption not backed up by biblical evidence, so to this if it was the question of disciples I would ask where ever you can find out evidence that those 11 where crazy?

But what comes to those 11 of the monkey issue i would simply state that i have been taking care of crazy people and have minor amount of experience on it. And they never had the same crazy ideas if you know what i mean.

 

[cfrancis]

If we assume our senses are representative of reality and reason (necessary assumptions if the world is to be intelligible) can attain the truth then there are many reasons why Dawkins is likely to be the author.

If it was someone else’s book why would the author let him talk on his behalf, surely reporters would uncover the fraud? What of his colleges at the University of Oxford surely they would recognise his work and denounce him if it was not his? What about his publishers? His fans? How would he defend his work if he did not write it?

All these considerations point to Dawkins as author.

Again, you place faith in your assumptions. I don’t have a problem with that. But you have not used the same standard you require as proof for Christ’s resurrection. My senses represent the reality and reason that say Christ indeed rose from the dead, but they do not satisfy you.

So, have you provided the iron-clad proof that Dawkins wrote his book?

If it was someone else’s book why would the author let him talk on his behalf

Only if that someone else objected to the issue. You are assuming much in this statement.

surely reporters would uncover the fraud

Only if a source with the knowledge - and irrefutable proof - presented the issue. Such would not occur is all parties agree to the venture.

What of his colleges at the University of Oxford surely they would recognise his work and denounce him if it was not his

How could they, if they did not possess the knowledge, and irrefutable proof? Are you saying his colleagues can account for 100% of his whereabouts and actions?

What about his publishers? His fans?

Again, your assumption rests on an individual with the knowledge and irrefutable proof coming forward. If none is forthcoming, the publisher and fans may never know.

How would he defend his work if he did not write it?

Are you saying Dawkins would not be able to familiarize himself with the text if he did not write it? I don’t think that’s what you mean.

All these considerations point to Dawkins as author.

No, all your assumptions (in which you place your faith) point to you being satisified that the amount and type of evidence provided supports your conclusion.

What, to you, would be iron-clad proof Christ rose from the dead?