Flying Spaghetti monster

[Pete_1]

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.”

Thanks this helps.

(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.)

Lol

 

[juhothenero]

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?

you assumed logic existed but not that it needs to make sense. I see the standard here again. You have to have a specific logical standard otherwise your arguments are just fishing in the dark.

You are asking for empirical evidence? The truth is the same i told you earlier, you cannot even have empirical evidence your mother is alive in the room next to you at the moment, so how can you ask empirical evidence for this issue?

But there is something though. In nowhere in text from those time of Jesus dead or later there is doubt that Jesus was not in the grave on the time he was told by disciples to have been resurrected. You gotta remember this happened 2000 years ago so empirical evidence is a bit hard to get. Especially since there was no body left after the happening…

 

[Pete_1]

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

Do you honestly believe the proof for Christ’s ressurection is greater than the proof that Dawkins wrote The God Delusion?

 

[cfrancis]

Do you honestly believe the empirical proof for Christ’s ressurection is greater than the proof that Dawkins wrote The God Delusion?

I re-read my posts and can’t find that assertion. No, that is not my point.

However, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that meets the same standard you apparently demand for proof of Christ’s resurrection.

What, for you, would constitute such evidence?

 

[juhothenero]

Do you honestly believe the proof for Christ’s ressurection is greater than the proof that Dawkins wrote The God Delusion?

This is interesting question. I think it is since there is no proof that Dawkins wrote the book. Or at best there is a few eye witness accounts saying he wrote something or things like that. But on Christ there is so much more, 11 disciples, 1 saint Paul, martyrs and a lot more…

 

[Pete_1]

I re-read my posts and can’t find that assertion. No, that is not my point.

However, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that meets the same standard you apparently demand for proof of Christ’s resurrection.

What, for you, would constitute such evidence?

I don’t want empirical justification, just a solid reason.
My question is why faith?

One answer which I think found reasonable was that although humans can understand some truth the human mind is limited.

My next question why believe Christ rose from the dead?

The only reason provided was the testimony of the martyrs.

I think this is inadequate because (though I do not believe this) they could have been lying, deluded or brainwashed.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Please then prove him wrong.

I can’t. Dawkins doesn’t exist.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t want empirical justification, just a solid reason.
My question is why faith?

Faith & reason is intertwined. It’s not one instead of the other. Have you read JPII’s Fides et Ratio? Maybe explore that.

The fact that there is something and not nothing is your material evidence. Your faith fills in to acknowledge that something was created, although the only thing you can observe is the something, but you still know it had to be created.

 

[Pete_1]

I can’t. Dawkins doesn’t exist.

I would wager you do not believe this on the grounds that it is unreasonable.

 

[Pete_1]

Faith & reason is intertwined. It’s not one instead of the other. Have you read JPII’s Fides et Ratio? Maybe explore that.

The fact that there is something and not nothing is your material evidence. Your faith fills in to acknowledge that something was created, although the only thing you can observe is the something, but you still know it had to be created.

Thanks, I started reading it a few days a go but it got pretty long, i’ll give it another try.

 

[vz71]

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.

Not at all. We only have eyewitness testimony.
Something you claim can be fabricated. So the evidence is questionable at this point.

If it was someone else’s book why would the author let him talk on his behalf, surely reporters would uncover the fraud?

Perhaps, but I haven’t seen a reporter yet show Christ’s resurrection to be a fraud.
So the same evidence you point to for Dawkins authoring the book also works for Christ’s resurrection.

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

And throughout history, credible scholars have accepted Christ’s resurrection as fact. And none has been able to prove otherwise.
Again, the evidence you put forth for Dawkins being an author also works for the resurrection of Christ.

What about his publishers? His fans? How would he defend his work if he did not write it?

And again…you rely upon the opinions of people to support the claim that Dawkins wrote the book.
I assure you there are many more that are publishers of the bible and fans of Christ.
More evidence you utilize to prove Dawkins authorship can readily be used to defend the resurrection of Christ.

All these considerations point to Dawkins as author.

Nice…
But all of the evidence you put forth also can readily defend the resurrection of Christ.

You are left with illogic.
Either the evidence you have put forth means nothing, and Dawkins is a fraud, or it is evidence worth considering, and Christ’s resurrection is accepted fact.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I don’t want empirical justification, just a solid reason.
My question is why faith?

One answer which I think found reasonable was that although humans can understand some truth the human mind is limited.

My next question why believe Christ rose from the dead?

The only reason provided was the testimony of the martyrs.

I think this is inadequate because (though I do not believe this) they could have been lying, deluded or brainwashed.

So, I was a little reluctant to post what I did because I didn’t want to “take the wind out of your sails.” I still don’t. One can only come to an understanding of what one can know by asking questions as you are.

Perhaps it might be helpful to ask in what circumstances you can accept personal testimony as evidence for the truth of something?

I hope I haven’t cause too much trouble/derailment of the thread, as I have to go now .

 

[cfrancis]

I don’t want empirical justification, just a solid reason.
My question is why faith?

One answer which I think found reasonable was that although humans can understand some truth the human mind is limited.

My next question why believe Christ rose from the dead?

The only reason provided was the testimony of the martyrs.

I think this is inadequate because (though I do not believe this) they could have been lying, deluded or brainwashed.

Do you want a reason Christ rose from the dead- which places us into a theological discussion.

Do you want a reason to believe He rose from the dead - which brings philosophy into our theological discussion.

Do you want proof He rose from the dead - which is more subjective.

I will note the same reason you gave for rejecting the witness of the Apostles will be the same reason I reject the evidence you’ve given for Dawkins writing his book.

I do not understand what about the resurrection you believe the human mind cannot grasp, that would be beyond human understanding.

 

[Pete_1]

Not at all. We only have eyewitness testimony.
Something you claim can be fabricated. So the evidence is questionable at this point.

Perhaps, but I haven’t seen a reporter yet show Christ’s resurrection to be a fraud.
So the same evidence you point to for Dawkins authoring the book also works for Christ’s resurrection.

And throughout history, credible scholars have accepted Christ’s resurrection as fact. And none has been able to prove otherwise.
Again, the evidence you put forth for Dawkins being an author also works for the resurrection of Christ.

And again…you rely upon the opinions of people to support the claim that Dawkins wrote the book.
I assure you there are many more that are publishers of the bible and fans of Christ.
More evidence you utilize to prove Dawkins authorship can readily be used to defend the resurrection of Christ.

Nice…
But all of the evidence you put forth also can readily defend the resurrection of Christ.

You are left with illogic.
Either the evidence you have put forth means nothing, and Dawkins is a fraud, or it is evidence worth considering, and Christ’s resurrection is accepted fact.

Not really.

 

[Pete_1]

Do you want a reason Christ rose from the dead- which places us into a theological discussion.

Do you want a reason to believe He rose from the dead - which brings philosophy into our theological discussion.

Do you want proof He rose from the dead - which is more subjective.

I will note the same reason you gave for rejecting the witness of the Apostles will be the same reason I reject the evidence you’ve given for Dawkins writing his book.

Is more evidence required for something extraordinary or not?

If I said that I had just eaten a banana and pointed to a peel in the bin and my mother testified that it was true would you believe me?

If I said that the banana had jumped out of its peel of its own accord and pointed to a peel in the bin and my mother testified that it was true would you believe me?

 

[juhothenero]

Is more evidence required for something extraordinary or not?

no because something extraordinary to you might not be so for everyone

 

[cfrancis]

Is more evidence required for something extraordinary or not?

Can we could come to an agreement on what counted as “extraordinary” ? Is God rising from the dead really that extraordinary? Indeed, I would say the infinite omniscient omnipotent God becoming man is far more extraordinary…but you’re not asking about the incarnation.

To answer your question, no, for we will not always agree as to what is “extraordinary” as the term is subjective.

Perhaps “different” instead of “more” is a better question.

Now, please answer my question: what proof do you demand for Christ’s resurrection?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Just because someone dies for something it does not make it true.

Agreed. People can believe something that is not true–and be willing to die for it**–because they think it IS TRUE.** Granted. No debate.

That is NOT being debated, despite you a few others (windyhair) trying to cast it repeatedly in that staw man construction.

This is the issue: People do NOT suffer horrible deaths for defending some position if they KNOW IT IS A LIE!

Which leaves us with either hallucination (and the conditions of the apostles & disciples really lead against that conclusion, despite Dawkins, Hutchins, etc… self-comforting assumptions) or it happened.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would wager you do not believe this on the grounds that it is unreasonable.

Indeed! So is comparing God with a Spaghetti Monster!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Which leaves us with either hallucination (and the conditions of the apostles & disciples really lead against that conclusion, despite Dawkins, Hutchins, etc… self-comforting assumptions) or it happened.

Good post. In addition, the reason Dawkins came up with his sophomoric comparison between God and a spaghetti monster is because he was only able to analyze 1 aspect of God’s attribute: that He is materially unobservable.

Problem is, Christianity rests on much more than that. Off the top of my head, you have

• OT prophecies that preceded the events of Christ, and which were actualized in his life.
• Witnesses to the miracles of Christ
• Witnesses to Christ Himself, who claimed divinity
• Witnesses to His death
• Witnesses that He was alive again 3 days later!
• Martyrdom of Christians for this belief
• Continued miracles performed in His name, including healings, stigmatists, even athiests converted on the spot at Fatima as I understand…
• I’m sure one could come up with more

The spaghetti monster theory in no way resembles the faith of a Christian, and is why I concluded Dawkins’ intellect leaves something to be desired. He would attack the above by citing 1 of these, like martyrdom (as we have already seen in this thread) and if he can find an example of 1 martyr who died for a false belief, he will throw out all of Christianity. However, you cannot find anything like Christianity that embodies ALL of these characteristics.

If you were to compare only a god and not the Christian God to the spaghetti monster, you could to the same. One could identify First Cause, the sustenance of reality, complexity of natural systems, etc… The materialist at least has to acknowledge the far greater plausibility of a god at work than a spaghetti monster, which he knows he conjured out of his head with none of the preceding factors as influence. Dawkins is one of two things: an intellectual midget, or the complicit advocate for the devil to try and trick mankind with serpentine semantics.