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

[samiam1611]

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,

those statements contrdict themselves. either it makes no difference, or else the word changes it to absurd. Which is it? My understanding is that the point Bobby Henderson made was that whether you put the word God in a sentence, or you replace it with Flying Spaghetti Monster, they’re BOTH absurd!

The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
A theist would say an invisible and undetectable god created the universe.

both are absurd.

 

[grannymh]

We are the physical evidence of my parents existence.

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

Physical is correct. Nonetheless, the human person is also spiritual which is not produced by any kind of an anatomy presently or going millions of years backwards.

Now, please think about the key questions – who are we and what are we?

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.

We are not the same as a rainbow because we are more than a physical entity. We are an unique unification of the material and spiritual, the rational and the corporeal.

The long line of evolution consists of matter, material/physical, which does not produce our spiritual component. Only a Pure Spirit, without material restrictions, can create the spiritual in the human person.

Descartes had trouble with the unification of the spiritual and material in a single nature that of the human person. His long line of followers chose to amplify Descartes’ extreme dualism to the point that the spiritual fell by the wayside via Communism as well as other types of philosophy such as materialism, etc.

One of the unfortunate results is that some philosophers reached a point of doubt regarding the knowledge of their own existence. Once the reality of one’s own being was denied or at least determined to be unknowable, it was easy to declare that the Pure Spirit, Who existed without the material restrictions of the universe, was dead. How could a Being, Who was beyond human death, be dead?

As kids, we would think about digging a hole to China, especially on a beach. Today, there are many people who have dug themselves into a difficult hole.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Betterave]

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?

But you’re completely ignoring my point: it is perfectly obvious that the two cases are *not *the same. Why are you ignoring that point? Please read Dostoyevskyfan’s post: your claim that “the idea of God is incredible” is very obviously false: “I don’t believe X” does *not *imply “X is incredible.” And no, the FSM could not be true; we all know what the FSM is (a very deliberately contrived conceptual construct which does not refer to any real thing) and we all know that there isn’t the slightest reason to believe in its existence. Again, to deny any of this is idiotic.

 

[Betterave]

those statements contrdict themselves. either it makes no difference, or else the word changes it to absurd. Which is it? My understanding is that the point Bobby Henderson made was that whether you put the word God in a sentence, or you replace it with Flying Spaghetti Monster, they’re BOTH absurd!

The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
A theist would say an invisible and undetectable god created the universe.

both are absurd.

That sounds right to me. And that’s why Bobby Henderson is an idiot (not in general, of course, just on this particular point) - of course he seems to have generated a lot of followers, so he can at least take comfort in the fact that he’s not alone in his idiocy.

 

[valentino]

honestquestions: Like what?

 

[CatSci]

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.

Oh, I saw that. As I said, the argument I made was not an argument from incredulity. The FSM was made-up, that’s how I know it doesn’t exist. Plus, spaghetti can’t create universes… obviously

Prove it then.

After the Kansas school board ruled to allow ID in their science classroom, Bobby Henderson made-up the FSM to ridicule the illogic of ID. Its a fictional character… they don’t really exist.

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?

When Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinate system, he was doing mathematics. When he made dinner, he was cooking. Saying that he was following the Philosophy of Cooking doesn’t change the fact that he was simply cooking. You can add “the Philosophy of” to any activity. It doesn’t change anything so it really isn’t anything. “Everything” can be philosophy:

“Hey look, there’s some dwarves dancing in a square in the nude.” - “Yeah, they’re following the Philosophy of Naked Dwarf Square Dancing”.

Um… no. They’re just dancing… in the nude… and they’re dwarves.

I am an agnostic of any iteration of Russell’s Teapot.

But only when its convenient, right? I mean, you don’t go walking out in front of buses on the bases of having to be agnostic to the possibility of it being a magic bus that isn’t going to crush you.

 

[CatSci]

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.

And that’s reasonable. If you don’t have any reason to believe in god, then it makes sense that you don’t.

I have my reasons for believing in God and for disbelieving the FSM.

 

[CatSci]

those statements contrdict themselves. either it makes no difference, or else the word changes it to absurd. Which is it? My understanding is that the point Bobby Henderson made was that whether you put the word God in a sentence, or you replace it with Flying Spaghetti Monster, they’re BOTH absurd!

The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
A theist would say an invisible and undetectable god created the universe.

both are absurd.

Not quite. The FSM is a response to allowing ID in science.

The flaw it exposes in the ID argument is that just because you, presumably, have found that something was designed doesn’t mean that it was God that did it any more than it means that a did it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, I saw that. As I said, the argument I made was not an argument from incredulity.

Plus, spaghetti can’t create universes… obviously

In the first quote you explain why you aren’t making the argument from incredulity, and then in the very next sentence…you make the argument from incredulity!

After the Kansas school board ruled to allow ID in their science classroom, Bobby Henderson made-up the FSM to ridicule the illogic of ID. Its a fictional character… they don’t really exist.

You’re just repeating your claim here. that doesn’t tell me anything that your first statement did. I am a Kansan after all.

When Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinate system, he was doing mathematics. When he made dinner, he was cooking. Saying that he was following the Philosophy of Cooking doesn’t change the fact that he was simply cooking. You can add “the Philosophy of” to any activity. It doesn’t change anything so it really isn’t anything. “Everything” can be philosophy:
“Hey look, there’s some dwarves dancing in a square in the nude.” - “Yeah, they’re following the Philosophy of Naked Dwarf Square Dancing”.

Um… no. They’re just dancing… in the nude… and they’re dwarves.

You seem to be completely clueless about the history of mathematics, or even what philosophy means. Renee Descartes is considered to be the man who gave us modern philosophy. Mathematics is clearly a branch of logic. You can’t get away from it, you cant change millenia of history. From Thales “The Father of Science”, the first recorded philosopher who used geometric principles, 300 years before Euclids formulations all the way up to Bertrands Principia Mathematica you will find that Philosophers=logicians=mathematicians=logicians=philosophers. There is even a branch called the “philosophy of mathematics” there is a foundational school called “logicism” where mathematicians/logicians attempt to reduce all mathematical statements, to first order predicate statements. An epic fail, but Godel used logic to disprove the ablility of any axiomatic system to provide a contradiction free playing field. Mathematical fictionalism is an out growth of Hilberts work by Field that shows one doesn’t need to use numbers to conduct mathematical reasoning at all. You clearly don’t have even a passing understanding of the relationship of mathematics, epistemology, logic, history, and the overarching field of study called…Philosophy You can make emotional statements all day long, but if they don’t comport to history they are meaningless emotive outbursts. I noticed that you avoided answering the question about your reference to nihilistic epistemology, and my other questionSo, like I asked before, what grade are you in? Don’t worry, no one will think less of you, iif you admit to being in school, there are several high school students here, but this habit of disagreeing with people over subjects you clearly don’t understand is making you hard to take seriously.

But only when its convenient, right?

No, I explained why with your last example about IPU. Its a matter being rational. Not convenient.

I mean, you don’t go walking out in front of buses on the bases of having to be agnostic to the possibility of it being a magic bus that isn’t going to crush you.

This statement is nonsensical, what does being agnostic about the existence of magic buses have to do with walking in front of a real bus? What?

 

[samiam1611]

Not quite. The FSM is a response to allowing ID in science.

The flaw it exposes in the ID argument is that just because you, presumably, have found that something was designed doesn’t mean that it was God that did it any more than it means that a did it.

I got that off Wikipedia’s section on Pastafarianism. It says “The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily.” I left out the drinking heavily and intoxication part bc I guess I was trying to be able to apply their central “belief” to a more general argument on the existence of an invisible and undectable being. But you’re right about the FSM thing being a response to allowing ID in science though so maybe I shouldn’t have done that. Well then again it does say "…It rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol for the case against teaching intelligent design in public schools as well as religion in general. Plus I figured since this thread is not about ID, but the FSM topic came up and has continued anyway, others were also applying the FSM to a general argument for/against the existence of God. No?

 

[samiam1611]

That sounds right to me. And that’s why Bobby Henderson is an idiot (not in general, of course, just on this particular point)

A little unsure of why that makes him an idiot. “He explained that since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to an unspecified “Intelligent Designer”, any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
Other religions believe this or that god created the universe, are you saying they are idiots too? (rather, have idiotic beliefs?) I guess he is saying the FSM is equally absurd to the Christian/Abrahamic God, while it would not be hard to argue, even by an atheist, that the FSM is a bit more absurd than the Christian/Abrahamic God. But that’s why it’s so funny! If he just made up some kind of normal-ish sounding deity, it wouldn’t be so funny. Spaghetti? Pastafarianism? It’s quite clever to me. What would be idiotic is to not get that.

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

Dang, last night I was looking forward to signing on today with this awesome rebuttal, quoting some dictionaries or something, but alas, neither of those words, nor their synonyms, are in the others’ definition The best I can do is say that to me, everything supernatural is implausible/unlikely/unbelievable/far-fetched/doubtful. (And one of the definitions of supernatural is related to or attributed to a deity.) Surely you find some things described as supernatural implausible? You don’t have to limit yourself to that definition, you can use “not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws” or whatever you want.) Assuming you do consider some supernatural things implausible, will you allow that the words are inextricably linked? Pretend that’s what I said

the fact remains that without a public expression of that rationality your comments aren’t very interesting or convincing

I asked you to identify flaws with my religion. I didn’t ask you to “argue atheism”

When did you ask me to identify flaws with your religion? Did I miss that post? Don’t get me wrong, I would loooove to - just give me the go ahead, but I think it would be rude of me to list the specific flaws in Catholocism on CAF. Debating certain topics yes, but not in the philosophy forum.
I suppose you didn’t technically ask me to argue atheism, but since I am an atheist, wouldn’t giving you the rationality of my views be doing just that?
Being pretty new to CAF, and being very opinionated on my views of atheism, I have tried to avoid steering the threads off topic, but I wasn’t one of the ones doing that to this thread, and no one seems to be complaining about the fact that it is, nor that it is basically a discussion on a banned topic, I would be more than willing to dis your religion (politely and with explanation, not just for kicks) and elaborate on my views, which happen to be atheistic, if that’s what you want. Shall we go there?
Ahhh here I go again, adding nothing of substance to this thread. One of these days I will. One of these days…

 

[greylorn]

Good post. I had to read it over a few times, but I think I got the idea. My only question to understand is your statement:

greylorn:

However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the topmost tier of physical principles, do not include time.

Do you mean they aren’t affected by time? Or don’t affect time? Or work regardless of whether or not, for a crude term, time is “on” or “off”? Or something else. I do have a potential objection/question but I want to make sure I get your argument first.

With the exception of “or something else,” which is too ambiguous to deal with, my best answer to this is all of the above. I don’t mean to be flippant. This is an interesting and potentially constructive issue. You are the first to take it seriously, and since this is a recent observation (by me, anyway) I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

Put almost as simply as before, the First Three Laws of Thermodynamics are independent of time. All other energy-related laws, (kinetic, matter, charge, gravitational, etc.) include the time parameter on the right side of the equal sign. The Three Laws don’t even need an equal sign, for they can be expressed verbally.

The simplest mathematical expression of the First Law is simply the equivalence statement, Heat = Work. Ultimately, the First Law is logically equivalent to the Church’s declaration that God has always existed, replacing “energy” for “God.” No Christian with more than eight neurons in his prefrontal cortex would ask when God came into existence, or any time-related metaphysical questions. Given the First Law’s implication that time has always existed, it is equally exempt from time-dependent questions.

We can work the 2nd Law into integral equations which define the entropy of a specific state and transitions between those states, but if I remember correctly, the integration range is time-independent. One might spend a nanosecond or a billion years changing between one thermodynamic state to another without affecting the second law.

We introduce “time” into thermodynamic equations when we want a solution to develop in the context of our experience. Thus, these laws have been developed into time-dependent formulations of specific thermodynamic events, such as when to trigger a spark in your car engine’s cylinders. You need 2000 RPM’s to get down the highway— 2000 RPY’s (Revolutions Per Year) will not cut it.

But theoretically, according to thermodynamic principles, an engine could be built that would turn 2000 RPY’s. Time is involved only when we want it to be involved.

And the Third Law simply specifies the number of steps required to reach absolute zero, saying nothing about time intervals between steps.

Does that help? I’ll be anticipating your objection, especially if is related to the God concept, and thus to the OP.

 

[mellestad]

The attributes of being pink are literally reflecting pink light and if your reflecting light then you ain’t invisible…

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

I say it has the potentiality for pinkness

 

[greylorn]

Try the Back Fence for your counter-Darwin work. I’m interested to hear your arguments, both from your own mind and that of Behe’s.

Thanks for the tip. I’d leaned over the back fence shortly after showing up here and got pelted by nincoms with the rest of the word that describes them. Not productive.

Generally, to post productively I’ve learned to find an OP on a subject that I’m currently writing on. I used the Physics Forum to get into nasty anti-Darwinist arguments that almost got me booted from there (most of those folks are as dogmatic as any religionist), was able to connect with a few constructive posters, and found some key information that helped me to finish whacking poor old Charlie D.

Since Behe’s books are available, I hope you’ve read them. They are excellent reading material for any Catholic (as Behe is) who wants to intelligently engage the I.D. question. So much so that I won’t even bother arguing evolution theory with someone who’s not read them. They also provide good background for my own material, as does Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe.

 

[Pieman333272]

With the exception of “or something else,” which is too ambiguous to deal with, my best answer to this is all of the above. I don’t mean to be flippant. This is an interesting and potentially constructive issue. You are the first to take it seriously, and since this is a recent observation (by me, anyway) I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

Put almost as simply as before, the First Three Laws of Thermodynamics are independent of time. All other energy-related laws, (kinetic, matter, charge, gravitational, etc.) include the time parameter on the right side of the equal sign. The Three Laws don’t even need an equal sign, for they can be expressed verbally.

The simplest mathematical expression of the First Law is simply the equivalence statement, Heat = Work. Ultimately, the First Law is logically equivalent to the Church’s declaration that God has always existed, replacing “energy” for “God.” No Christian with more than eight neurons in his prefrontal cortex would ask when God came into existence, or any time-related metaphysical questions. Given the First Law’s implication that time has always existed, it is equally exempt from time-dependent questions.

We can work the 2nd Law into integral equations which define the entropy of a specific state and transitions between those states, but if I remember correctly, the integration range is time-independent. One might spend a nanosecond or a billion years changing between one thermodynamic state to another without affecting the second law.

We introduce “time” into thermodynamic equations when we want a solution to develop in the context of our experience. Thus, these laws have been developed into time-dependent formulations of specific thermodynamic events, such as when to trigger a spark in your car engine’s cylinders. You need 2000 RPM’s to get down the highway— 2000 RPY’s (Revolutions Per Year) will not cut it.

But theoretically, according to thermodynamic principles, an engine could be built that would turn 2000 RPY’s. Time is involved only when we want it to be involved.

And the Third Law simply specifies the number of steps required to reach absolute zero, saying nothing about time intervals between steps.

I understand, good points! I’m happy to discuss, and I’m not afraid of changing my position. It’s nice to see someone with such good and open presentation!

Does that help? I’ll be anticipating your objection, especially if is related to the God concept, and thus to the OP.

I scrapped it. I was going to argue that the objective laws of a possible created world do not have to affect the creator by means of computer science - but then I realized that every trait a computer is created with either falls under the secondary or tertiary laws, or actually also affects the designer - like, for example, running on electricity or having to make decisions in a pinch (albeit a much different type of “pinch” and “decision”).

 

[greylorn]

I understand, good points! I’m happy to discuss, and I’m not afraid of changing my position. It’s nice to see someone with such good and open presentation!

I scrapped it. I was going to argue that the objective laws of a possible created world do not have to affect the creator by means of computer science - but then I realized that every trait a computer is created with either falls under the secondary or tertiary laws, or actually also affects the designer - like, for example, running on electricity or having to make decisions in a pinch (albeit a much different type of “pinch” and “decision”).

You were not that far away from an interesting point. Internally, computers are time-independent. Each has an internal clock which runs at a preset rate, controlling the rate at which computations proceed. The computer does not care what time it is at your house.

(There is a separate clock which it uses to keep human-time.)

If there was a speed-adjustment dial connected to the processor’s clock, you could use it to slow the rate at which computations were made. (There used to be a simple version of this, an off-on clock called the “Turbo” switch.)

Incidentally, I made an error in the previous post. The statement, “Given the First Law’s implication that time has always existed, it is equally exempt from time-dependent questions.” was incorrect and should have read,

“Given the First Law’s implication that energy has always existed, it is equally exempt from time-dependent questions.”

 

[honestquestions]

But you’re completely ignoring my point: it is perfectly obvious that the two cases are *not *the same. Why are you ignoring that point? Please read Dostoyevskyfan’s post: your claim that “the idea of God is incredible” is very obviously false: “I don’t believe X” does *not *imply “X is incredible.” And no, the FSM could not be true; we all know what the FSM is (a very deliberately contrived conceptual construct which does not refer to any real thing) and we all know that there isn’t the slightest reason to believe in its existence. Again, to deny any of this is idiotic.

I would never deny a claim because it sounds too incredible, though my skeptic radar would rise. I would simply ask for demonstrable evidence.

You are missing the point with the FSM. Ok, you’ve heard of it and it was deliberate (doesn’t mean it couldn’t actually end up being true). Suppose I mention something else with sincerity that has not been known to have been constructed by others, and I’m telling you that you must follow me to meet this person who is the real God. Would you believe me or not?

 

[honestquestions]

honestquestions: Like what?

Please quote something because I’m not sure to what comment you are referring to.

 

[honestquestions]

The FSM is a response to allowing ID in science.

And God is a response for that which is unknown to humans. What makes you think you are so different ‘at heart’ from humans 500 years ago? There were thousands of Gods that tailored to their civilizations. They labeled almost everything as god (rain, sun, rainbows, floods, earthquakes, 1000s of dead fish washing ashore, the complexity of biology). Now those easy buttons has been washed away and all that is left which hasn’t been answered is the very beginning, if there was one.

 

[honestquestions]

A little unsure of why that makes him an idiot. “He explained that since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to an unspecified “Intelligent Designer”, any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
Other religions believe this or that god created the universe, are you saying they are idiots too? (rather, have idiotic beliefs?) I guess he is saying the FSM is equally absurd to the Christian/Abrahamic God, while it would not be hard to argue, even by an atheist, that the FSM is a bit more absurd than the Christian/Abrahamic God. But that’s why it’s so funny! If he just made up some kind of normal-ish sounding deity, it wouldn’t be so funny. Spaghetti? Pastafarianism? It’s quite clever to me. What would be idiotic is to not get that.

Well said.