Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Chesterton]

That wouldn't have been a proper analogy.
Black holes were suggested / predicted by Einstein's equations. These equations could be tested, verified and applied in technology by anyone. They didn't require any "faith".

Unlike the definitions of gods and other supernatural entities, the definition of a black hole in those days was not an arbitrary thing being the result of "dreams", "revelations", "visions" of goat herders living and nomads in 900 BC.
The existence of black holes could also be investigated and tested.

So spaghetti analogies here wouldn't be appropriate. A black hole is a very specific thing resulting from a very specific physical model that can be tested and falsified.

Gods are nothing like that. Gods are more like flying spaghetti monsters that can't be detected.

The analogy's the same - something suggested which couldn't be proven at the time. Scientists frequently disagree with other scientist's theories, sometimes vehemently. Sometimes even resorting to mockery - the term "Big Bang Theory" was initially coined by critics intending to make fun of that cosmological idea.

Isn't that like the question of this thread?
The point obviously is that there is no way or method to differentiate obvious nonsense supernatural claims as opposed to "serious" supernatural claims (according to theists).

The point is to show that god claims have the same evidence going for them as supernatural spaghetti monsters.

It fails to show that. FSM may be in the same class as Zeus or fairies, but it is not in the same class as a creator god, because it's made of wheat.

It is a serious idea. In the sense that it demonstrates that any supernatural claim is just as (in)valid as any other.

Wheter you are talking about Zeus, Thor, Jawhe, fairies or the FSM.

It does not demonstrate that. It demonstrates that humans can and do imagine things which don't exist. Every four year old knows this, Shakespeare knew this since he wrote fiction. What more is it saying?

 

[Chesterton]

So what are you trying to say - does being associated with a type of food make a god concept ridiculous or not?

You asked me the same question several posts ago and the answer was "No". Guess what the answer still is. I wish I had the luxury of wasting time on here the way some people do. If you have a point to make, or a joke to make, just do it.

 

[True Scotsman]

I don't believe in either the primacy of my conscience or existence.

This does not answer the question. It is either one or the other, or you are proposing that the universe has two fundamentally contradictory natures. You see, any way you slice it you run into a contradiction. But, I guess that's not a problem for someone who thinks logic is overrated. I'm done with you. This is like beating up a six year old. I promise I'll leave you alone from here on out.

 

[Colter]

This does not answer the question. It is either one or the other, or you are proposing that the universe has two fundamentally contradictory natures. You see, any way you slice it you run into a contradiction. But, I guess that's not a problem for someone who thinks logic is overrated. I'm done with you. This is like beating up a six year old. I promise I'll leave you alone from here on out.

That's what I'm talking about, you create the contradiction by the all or nothing premise in which one is supposed to answer your question. The universe exists because God so willed it. Your continued existence within it is optional.

 

[Colter]

And that someone has faith is evidence that their faith is justified? This circularity makes me all dizzy.

No. You still haven´t understood the point. The reductio ad absurdum is part of the question whether there´s a working epistemology of the "supernatural".

Its evidence to the one who has faith, weather that means anything to you is your own business. The creators of the spaghetti God hoped to make a point but they don't even believe in their straw man when it is a fact that the faith of millions has shaped human history. The FSG people look like a bunch of fools with bowls on their heads.

I've repeatedly stated all over these threads that my God experience cannot be proven to you. Its something that you will need to experience yourself. If you ever do you will still be incapable of adequately proving it to others. Religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience----->to the believer.

The blind remain over in their own cult of rationalism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its evidence to the one who has faith,

Faith is the opposite of evidence. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence.

Do you really think that the mere act of believing in a deity makes it poof into being?

The creators of the spaghetti God hoped to make a point but they don't even believe in their straw man when it is a fact that the faith of millions has shaped human history. The FSG people look like a bunch of fools with bowls on their heads.

We don't believe in your God, either. That is what they have in common, and why the FSM is used for comparison. We find the FSM to be as unevidenced as your God, and you can't present any evidence demonstrating that God is any more real than the FSM.

I've repeatedly stated all over these threads that my God experience cannot be proven to you. Its something that you will need to experience yourself. If you ever do you will still be incapable of adequately proving it to others. Religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience----->to the believer.

People with different beliefs than your own claim the same for their beliefs, and yet you do not convert to their religion. Why is that?

The blind remain over in their own cult of rationalism.

Being rational is a cult?

 

[Loudmouth]

I did answer your question, I used the term delusional as a hypothetical. I said that if the Christian community that you were born into were just delusional people to begin with then they will die just like you, nothing lost or gained. That is the last time I'm going to explain it to you.

What about their punishement from Zeus for worshipping the wrong deity?

 

[Colter]

Faith is the opposite of evidence. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence.

Do you really think that the mere act of believing in a deity makes it poof into being?



We don't believe in your God, either. That is what they have in common, and why the FSM is used for comparison. We find the FSM to be as unevidenced as your God, and you can't present any evidence demonstrating that God is any more real than the FSM.



People with different beliefs than your own claim the same for their beliefs, and yet you do not convert to their religion. Why is that?



Being rational is a cult?

*No, God doesn't poof into being, it is a super material reality that the religionist is more or less conscious of. The more he searches for and surrenders to God the more he or she gets to know God. But you have to want God in your life.

* Evolutionary religion does have many human, conceptual components that influence the theologies of individuals within culture. I don't claim that other religions are wrong, we may differ in theological opinions but if we are both searching for God then we are brothers and sisters.

Philosophy of Religion​

(1129.8) 103:1.1 The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.


(1130.1) 103:1.2 When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

(1130.2) 103:1.3 While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

(1130.3) 103:1.4 Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

(1130.4) 103:1.5 That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

(1130.5) 103:1.6 The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." UB 1955​

 

[Colter]

What about their punishement from Zeus for worshipping the wrong deity?

Never happened, that's mythology.

 

[Loudmouth]

*No, God doesn't poof into being, it is a super material reality that the religionist is more or less conscious of.

Is this true of every god that humans have worshipped through the millenia? Is Vishnu also made of super material reality? What about Thor?

Is the mere fact that people believe in other gods evidence for their existence?

The more he searches for and surrenders to God the more he or she gets to know God. But you have to want God in your life.

What God? Evidence please.

* Evolutionary religion does have many human, conceptual components that influence the theologies of individuals within culture.

Evolution isn't a religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Never happened, that's mythology.

People believed in Zeus just as strongly as you believe in God. That means there is as much evidence for Zeus as there is for God.

 

[quatona]

Its evidence to the one who has faith, weather that means anything to you is your own business.

Yeah, right. It means as little to me as the faith of people in something you don´t believe in means to you.
So apparently you agree with me that there´s no workable consistent epistemology of the "supernatural".

The creators of the spaghetti God

The FSM isn´t a God. It´s a monster.

hoped to make a point but they don't even believe in their straw man when it is a fact that the faith of millions has shaped human history.

Well, as far as I can see you are right now conceding the point the creators of the FSM made.

The FSG people look like a bunch of fools with bowls on their heads.

Well, insults don´t help your case.

I've repeatedly stated all over these threads that my God experience cannot be proven to you.

No, what you have said so far was "The evidence will not convince you" - pretending you actually had any intersubjective evidence (and the problem is that I am not willing to consider it), while now you concede you don´t have any. You just can bring ipse dixits to the table - which, in view of the problem you finally concede, is the best you can do (unfortunately, though, you pimp them with a whole bunch of insults, evasions and logical fallacies, which makes it even harder to take you seriously, and to be empathic with this position between a rock and a hard place you find yourself in).

And the same is apparently true for every other allegedly "supernatural" entity.

But I hadn´t even asked for evidence - I don´t even know what evidence for a "supernatural entity" is supposed to be in lack of a workable epistemology of the "supernatural".

Its something that you will need to experience yourself. If you ever do you will still be incapable of adequately proving it to others.

Exactly that is the problem I am pointing out about allegedly "supernatural" entities: It isn´t even worth discussing about their "truth value", since there isn´t a workable objective method to distinguish true claims from utter nonsense, in the first place. That is highly regrettable, and a serious problem for those who believe in "supernatural" stuff as well as those who would like to take their claims seriously.

Religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience----->to the believer.

Yes, faith is the foundation of faith.

The blind remain over in their own cult of rationalism.

I do understand that it must be very inconvenient to be empty handed when it comes to supporting your beliefs (and I mean this!) - I just can´t seem to understand how that results in the ongoing defensiveness, arrogance and insults on your part.

Anyway, thanks for finally answering to the point.

 

[Colter]

Is this true of every god that humans have worshipped through the millenia? Is Vishnu also made of super material reality? What about Thor?

Is the mere fact that people believe in other gods evidence for their existence?



What God? Evidence please.



Evolution isn't a religion.

No, its not evidence that those those deities existed as those more primitive minds conceived of them, its evidence that the spirit of worship within the mind of that age existed however crude his deity conception was.

Evolutionary religion. Religions evolve over long periods of time, they ebb and flow, grow and die out, its the spirit of worship that remains within man. On balance his religions get better as his capacity to understand God improves. This evolutionary religion paves the way for real revelation such as has occurred throughout history.


No evidence that will convince you, I told you that.

 

[Colter]

Yeah, right. It means as little to me as the faith of people in something you don´t believe in means to you.
So apparently you agree with me that there´s no workable consistent epistemology of the "supernatural".

The FSM isn´t a God. It´s a monster.


Well, as far as I can see you are right now conceding the point the creators of the FSM made.



Well, insults don´t help your case.


No, what you have said so far was "The evidence will not convince you" - pretending you actually had any intersubjective evidence (and the problem is that I am not willing to consider it), while now you concede you don´t have any. You just can bring ipse dixits to the table - which, in view of the problem you finally concede, is the best you can do (unfortunately, though, you pimp them with a whole bunch of insults, evasions and logical fallacies, which makes it even harder to take you seriously, and to be empathic with this position between a rock and a hard place you find yourself in).

And the same is apparently true for every other allegedly "supernatural" entity.

But I hadn´t even asked for evidence - I don´t even know what evidence for a "supernatural entity" is supposed to be in lack of a workable epistemology of the "supernatural".

Exactly that is the problem I am pointing out about allegedly "supernatural" entities: It isn´t even worth discussing about their "truth value", since there isn´t a workable objective method to distinguish true claims from utter nonsense, in the first place. That is highly regrettable, and a serious problem for those who believe in "supernatural" stuff as well as those who would like to take their claims seriously.



Yes, faith is the foundation of faith.



I do understand that it must be very inconvenient to be empty handed when it comes to supporting your beliefs (and I mean this!) - I just can´t seem to understand how that results in the ongoing defensiveness, arrogance and insults on your part.

Anyway, thanks for finally answering to the point.

I wasn't under the impression that you were going to take my claims seriously from the outset, I've read through your pretentious history here on the Christian forum. You get some sort of sick satisfaction out of trying to undermine peoples faith. That is who you are, your fruit is rotten.

 

[bhsmte]

I wasn't under the impression that you were going to take my claims seriously from the outset, I've read through your pretentious history here on the Christian forum. You get some sort of sick satisfaction out of trying to undermine peoples faith. That is who you are, your fruit is rotten.

Look in the mirror, closely.

 

[Colter]

People believed in Zeus just as strongly as you believe in God. That means there is as much evidence for Zeus as there is for God.

Man thinks in conceptual frames else we could not think. Our conceptual frames of the divine are crude at best. The heavenly Father looks into the heart of the individual, at their motives and sincere longings in any age not their perfection of conceptualization. The Greeks pantheon of Gods was at least a sincere attempt. The shell is of no value once the chick is hatched.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, its not evidence that those those deities existed as those more primitive minds conceived of them,

Then it isn't evidence of your god, either.

Evolutionary religion. Religions evolve over long periods of time, they ebb and flow, grow and die out, its the spirit of worship that remains within man.

That would make your beliefs the mythology of the future.

No evidence that will convince you, I told you that.

No evidence, period.

 

[Colter]

Look in the mirror, closely.

I know what my motives are, to defend God. Why did you join this Christian site if you left Christianity?

 

[Loudmouth]

The heavenly Father looks into the heart of the individual, at their motives and sincere longings in any age not their perfection of conceptualization.

Evidence for this claim?

The Greeks pantheon of Gods was at least a sincere attempt. The shell is of no value once the chick is hatched.

What is stopping us from saying the same of your beliefs?

 

[bhsmte]

Man thinks in conceptual frames else we could not think. Our conceptual frames of the divine are crude at best. The heavenly Father looks into the heart of the individual, at their motives and sincere longings in any age not their perfection of conceptualization. The Greeks pantheon of Gods was at least a sincere attempt. The shell is of no value once the chick is hatched.

What that is supposed to mean, I have no idea.