What would you do if it were proven...?

[honestquestions]

Sure it has:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Somebody just made it up to prove a point. There isn’t really a Flying Spaghetti Monster. What’s so hard about realizing that there really isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster? I think people are just protecting another belief (that you can’t disprove god), so they think they must take the absurd position of having to be agnostic to something ridiculous and obviously non-existent in an avoidance of Cognitive Dissonance.

But its okay. You can accept the fact that there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster

Of course, somebody made it up, that’s the point. The whole purpose is that the human mind can create an infinite number of ideas in which to believe. The question is, which ones are reasonable to believe in, and which one’s aren’t?

 

[honestquestions]

I’m not really sure what you mean, but obviously in terms of what’s true and what’s not true, your statement wouldn’t make sense.

 

[honestquestions]

The non-existence of FSM is not a fact, it is an unknowable. There is no logical reason he must exist, There is no physical evidence of his existence. So as neither rationalism nor empiricism can offer any information, there is no way to make any statement of certainty in regards to FSM. So I am simply an agnostic to any formulation of Russells teapot

Umm… Exactly. So why then do you believe in your god? Allow me to put it into your words:

The non-existence of god is not a fact, it is an unknowable. There is no logical reason he must exist, There is no physical evidence of his existence. So as neither rationalism nor empiricism can offer any information, there is no way to make any statement of certainty in regards to god. So I am simply an agnostic to any formulation of god.

 

[honestquestions]

No, somebody just made it up as a joke… it doesn’t really exist.

Correct again! And yet if we give evidence of how and why humanity made up their gods over time, you reject it. Although, I’m not certainly proposing there is no god. I’m just rejecting your lack of evidence as you have rejected the lack of evidence for the FSM. It was derived to prove a point.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

So why then do you believe in your god?

I hope that question was rhetorical because if you don’t know why 2 billion people believe in “our God”, Jesus Christ, then you would look quite foolish. You would also be wasting your time on a Catholic website trying to argue/refute a belief that you have no knowledge of, or don’t understand when you could be elsewhere using condoms, having premarital relations, accumulating wealth…etc.

I know relatively nothing about australian marsupials and you don’t see me trying to give advice to/ argue with exotic pet owners.

Russell’s teapot is weaksauce. It’s basically just an arbitrary non-sequitar used by intellectually lazy people who don’t feel like going point by point through the Catechism pointing out errors/disagreements or debating historical evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There’s nothing logically fallacious about it…

You must be joking. I posted the fallacy of incredulity in the very post you are quoting. Let me post it again in bold so you can see it. It is in the red print immediately below.

**Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false. **

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imagination It is indeed absolutely fallacious. As demonstrated.

No, somebody just made it up as a joke… it doesn’t really exist.

Prove it then. You seem to think questions of philosophy are easily solved, so feel free to prove your assertion.

Statement of certainty? Are you going down the route of “we cannot really know anything”? Please, save the bandwidth at least.

What does epistemological nihilism have to do with this? Given that all axioms can be doubted, the degree to which one accepts Descartes Dubito, seems to be the degree to which one can be “certain” in the technical sense. Though I am bnot sure what you think that has to doe with anything but the peripheral epistemic issues. BTW that would be Renee Descartes the philosopher who invented Analytical Geometry, Cartesian coordinates, the basis for Calculus, and so on. It seems that your earlier contention that mathematics is not a branch of philosophy was wrong. Wasn’t it? I was surprised when you made that claim. It’s taught in junior high history, So it seems that either you are not yet in junior high, or you don’t know one of the most basic facts of Western civilizations history, and philosophy. Which explains why you don’t recognize a logical fallacy when it is put right in front of you. So tell me, what grade are you in?

Ridiculous.

Why? Because you don’t like the idea that you can’t reject claims on the basis that they seem ridiculous to you? That is certainly not a valid basis for the rejection of a logical fallacy.

How about the IPU? It cannot be both invisible AND pink at the same time so certainly that one doesn’t exist, right?

I am an agnostic of any iteration of Russell’s Teapot. While many would reject the possibility of IPU on the basis of a logical contradiction. That contradiction is ultimately based on our inductive experience of the laws of physics. I can imagine possible worlds where different or no laws of physics applies. Therefore it would be logically fallacious to reject IPU. I remain an IPU agnostic. Though, If you follow Lewis’ Modal Realism (Nobody Scream!) you could say that in some possible world, IPU is logically necessary.

 

[grannymh]

Umm… Exactly. So why then do you believe in your god? Allow me to put it into your words:

The non-existence of god is not a fact, it is an unknowable. There is no logical reason he must exist, There is no physical evidence of his existence. So as neither rationalism nor empiricism can offer any information, there is no way to make any statement of certainty in regards to god. So I am simply an agnostic to any formulation of god.

We are the physical evidence of God’s existence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Have you read about the IPU? It was specifically designed to be self contradictory.

Yeah, but they weren’t very bright. Epic fail.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Umm… Exactly. So why then do you believe in your god? Allow me to put it into your words:

Because unlike FSM, we have logical reasons He must exist and we have a great many witnesses to His existence, and I saw Him down at the 7/11 with Elvis last week. Though as a Catholic, I am entirely justified, if I simply have Faith. No other reason is really needed. They are just interesting to talk about.

The non-existence of [god] is not a fact, it is an unknowable. There is no logical reason he must exist, There is no physical evidence of his existence. So as neither rationalism nor empiricism can offer any information, there is no way to make any statement of certainty in regards to god. So I am simply an agnostic to any formulation of god.

Those were not my words. If you wish to make that kind of literary comparison you need to quote right so that it doesn’t look like the person you quoted actually said those words.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We are the physical evidence of God’s existence.

Hi Granny!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I know relatively nothing about australian marsupials and you don’t see me trying to give advice to/ argue with exotic pet owners.

Awesomesauce

 

[honestquestions]

Because unlike FSM, we have logical reasons He must exist

Such as…

and we have a great many witnesses to His existence,

I actually do not deny there was a man who lived that we consider Jesus Christ. But claims defying the laws of nature I do deny. We also have people just like Jesus today who have vast followers who supposedly do miracles. But 2,000 years of history seems to give it that long tradition, so therefore it must be right?

Though as a Catholic, I am entirely justified, if I simply have Faith. No other reason is really needed.

“Though as a Muslim, I am entirely justified to do whatever I think I am being told if it promises me heaven. No other reason is really needed.”
Name one instance outside of religion where belief without evidence is acceptable. It sounds like a double standard to me.

Those were not my words. If you wish to make that kind of literary comparison you need to quote right so that it doesn’t look like the person you quoted actually said those words.

My argument was that there is no difference to change that one word. You can simply replace god with anything and now you can see how absurd it sounds, but for some reason it is suddenly ok if you use the word god? Please explain.

 

[honestquestions]

We are the physical evidence of God’s existence.

We are the physical evidence of my parents existence.

We are the physical evidence of a long line of evolution.

Before everything we know up to this point, we do not know, and as humanity we still are working on what seems to be an impossible question, just as we worked on how all of the colors in the rainbow ‘knew exactly where to be in order to form that perfect shape’ of which we could never find the base of it.

 

[Betterave]

I know that the church is incorrect because the nature of a person is not wrong. Natural order and moral order are correct -
but the church makes a blanket statement that IS is the natural order of every human. And that is impossible. Because humans are not identical. The nature of every person … or the correct moral order of sexuality and sexual acts for every person therefore will not be the same.
I know many people with many different natures - Defining morality only in terms of ejaculating into a vagina - is well rather silly - and over looks the other purposes of sex and human interaction.
That does not mean there is not an ideal ethic of mutual respect and love between consenting adults involved in sexual relationships.

You appear to be finding flaws with a lot of rather vaguely defined straw men here. Could you try to slow down? Take your first sentence: you are saying that the Church teaches that “the nature of a person is wrong”? What Church teaching are you referring to exactly? (I’m rather familiar with Church teaching, and your statement just sounds odd.) And HOW exactly do you know it is wrong? (And again, please be careful not to make straw man arguments in answering this question.)

 

[Betterave]

First of all, I asked you to identify flaws with my religion. I didn’t ask you to “argue atheism” - so your rebuttal is really not working for me, sounds like a bunch of lame irrational excuses for you not to put up or shut up. On the other hand…

I’m not here to try to argue atheism, bc not only would I get banned, I know it would fall on deaf ears for many people; furthermore, it wasn’t my point in joining this forum.
Publicly expressing my rationality is also off-topic for this thread. I do see where my arguments aren’t very convincing, I’m just kind of thinking out loud. or rather thinking with my keyboard. It’s not like I’m writing a thesis for a phD. Also, you asked me several questions in your response to my one post and I chose the one I most felt like answering at the moment. Doesn’t mean I won’t get around to answering some of the other ones.
Just like I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject, I would hope you would be of mine. I am not allowed to elaborate on them too much so it’s not really fair to borderline-insult my view due to lack of convincing arguments.
You are correct in that my MO thus far has been, for the most part expressing my view. I would consider much of my posts on this thread sort of just hey here’s my two cents. (Hence, the “I agree when cathoichelp said this” type of thing.) Not to mention if you remember the OP it was purely asking for how we (individuals) feel on the subject. Not asking us to defend our current beliefs! Plus some people wrote stuff that could have been echoes from my head, so I didn’t see much point in repeating them. Although now that I think about it there’s not much point in me just saying I agree either lol.

…you seem to have noticed at least some of that on your own.

Before you dismiss me or my opinions as worthless bc I have not elaborated or explained my views, I just want to defend myself by restating that details on my beliefs are not welcome here and I just want to partake in a little friendly discussion. Not argue. Not insult. Just discuss.

I’m certainly not dismissing you or your opinions - I’m just pointing out that you haven’t yet given us anything to dismiss (or discuss).

Implausible? Really? Such a strong word for a belief that denies supernaturalness, which is practically the definition of implausible. well more like implausible is key to the definition of supernatural. whatever. gtg. I’ll be back to make that better.

I’m afraid you are mistaken about the definition of implausible…and supernatural. So yeah: whatever.

 

[Betterave]

No, it’s not obvious. The point is that you don’t believe in the FSM, but why not?

CatSci has already answered this question, and I’ll add that NO ONE believes in the FSM. Any suggestion that God can be dismissed on grounds similar to those on which we dismiss the FSM is simply idiotic. (I don’t say this to be disrespectful or to insult you, but only to be accurate.)

 

[Betterave]

You must be joking. I posted the fallacy of incredulity in the very post you are quoting. Let me post it again in bold so you can see it. It is in the red print immediately below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imagination It is indeed absolutely fallacious. As demonstrated.

Petey, CatSci’s argument is not fallacious. Nobody believes in the FSM. Thus the form of his argument is:

1. P is too incredible (or nobody can imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. It is obvious that P (or nobody can imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These are not fallacious arguments: the FSM really is too incredible and it really is obvious that the FSM doesn’t really exist, that it is just a lame conceptual construct, invented for the purpose of making a bad argument. And in general, it is simply not true that all appeals to what is obvious or incredible are fallacious.

 

[honestquestions]

CatSci has already answered this question, and I’ll add that NO ONE believes in the FSM.

The point was to simply show the double standard.
I don’t believe in the FSM for the same reason that I don’t believe in God - a lack of evidence for justification. The idea of God is incredible, and yes, could be true. Could not many other things also be incredible, and also be true?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Such as…

All the usual suspects. That’s a longer conversation than I want to get into with a thread up on epistemology and my guitar feeling lonely. Every letter I type, is a strum sacrificed for G-d. Metaphysics is my favorite topic, so I will be happy to at another time.

But claims defying the laws of nature I do deny.

I don’t believe in magic or miracles either. At least not in the way most people use the terms.

We also have people just like Jesus today who have vast followers who supposedly do miracles. But 2,000 years of history seems to give it that long tradition, so therefore it must be right?

Parlor tricks, from the various videos I have looked at. Of course I wasn’t there but most aren’t to difficult for a skeptic to expose. I can’t help that there are liars an charlatans in the world. I don’t see why you think the length of time that has passed is germane to the issue.

“Though as a Muslim, I am entirely justified to do whatever I think I am being told if it promises me heaven. No other reason is really needed.”

This isn’t anything like my statement of faith. That’s a statement of justification of deeds, not beliefs.

Name one instance outside of religion where belief without evidence is acceptable. It sounds like a double standard to me.

I wonder, what do you mean by evidence? Atheists usually mean empirical evidence, is that what you are talking about?

My argument was that there is no difference to change that one word. You can simply replace god with anything and now you can see how absurd it sounds, but for some reason it is suddenly ok if you use the word god? Please explain.

I know what you were getting at, but like I pointed out, changing that one word creates all the difference. I listed the reasons. FSM and G-d may seem to be interchangeable to you, but they are entirely different ontological objects.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey, CatSci’s argument is not fallacious. Nobody believes in the FSM. Thus the form of his argument is:

1. P is too incredible (or nobody can imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. It is obvious that P (or nobody can imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true…

I guess if nobody can imagine…