Flying Spaghetti Monster

[essentialsaltes]

I think it's other other way around: testing (particularly replicability and generalization from experimental findings) presupposes uniformity,

Not really. If the laws of the universe are uniform, the earth will rotate at a nearly constant rate, and the sun will break the horizon every morning like clockwork. And it does. The physical constants of nature have been measured in different places, at different times, in different ways, and the results are, roughly speaking, entirely uniform within the stated bounds of accuracy. These are all tests of uniformity, and they succeed time and time again. If we assumed uniformity, but the length of the day was not uniform, we would soon notice it, and have to rethink our assumption. Instead, our assumption has been justified by repeated measurements.

Precisely because science is an inductive method of finding things out.

Not really. For the most part, science does not actually progress by scientists noticing white swans over and over again and making a hypothesis about the color of all swans.

And science rests on philosophical presuppositions that can only be assumed.

Yes, and many have been tested and have passed all tests.

The reason this is relevant goes back to the OP: FSMs are as good as God or science

Gods remain untested. Indeed, many believers are insulted by the very idea of testing their gods.

 

[True Scotsman]

The argument goes like this.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) God's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's existence either.
Therefore, they're comparable as an analogy; one is as good as the other.

The problem is that you're equating two different things based on a single quality, here being an epistemological problem in that neither can be proved, which shuffles away any other differences between these two things. Anyone can take two completely different things and unfairly equate them given a single quality. I have an arm. A chair has an arm. Therefore, I'm analogous to a chair. Meh.

But notice what else should be included in this.


You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) science's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's or God's existence either.
Therefore, science, the FSM, and God are all as good as one another.

Or add another one: the phenomenology of any person's experience other than your own. You can't prove or disprove that; the best you have is a biological correlate in terms of brain functioning, but that's only a correlate, and you can't jump the infinite gap between objective neural stuff interacting and the consciousness that results "from the inside."

So God, science, the FSM, consciousness are all equally the same. Part of you would probably be like, "no, science is NOT AT ALL like something ridiculous such as the FSM." But from the criteria implicit in the argument (that only stuff that can be proven empirically is worth considering, and if not it's no different than imaginary stuff), this is by necessity where the road leads.

All this stuff rests on the nebulous assumption of positivism or scientism. Hume, who is a marvelous philosopher, put it like this:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.​

Thinking like this provides the presuppositions for considering the FSM as good as God or science or anything else that can't be proven empirically or mathematically. Except the problem here being...Hume's very statement fails the criteria he demands.

So what? The FSM analogy is flawed.

If something cannot be proved or disproved then it is by definition arbitrary and should not even be considered. It is outside the realm of cognition.

Of course science can be proved to exist. Science isn't an entity. It is an action or process of entities and as such can be directly observed. I observed my daughter engaged in science when I helped her with her science project for school. I can observe myself engaged in science when I come up with a new tool or process in my job as a woodworker. Actions have identity and can be distinguished from other actions such as engaging in arbitrary speculation about an arbitrary god.

 

[Davian]

So when you say science has a better track record, what do you mean?

Did not my earlier example suffice?

I think it's other other way around: testing (particularly replicability and generalization from experimental findings) presupposes uniformity, without which results would be useless, especially in the social sciences.

Any presuppositions that may be made are tentative, and subject to modification, or abandonment. To compare that to religion is to build with straw.

 

[quatona]

The argument goes like this.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) God's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's existence either.
Therefore, they're comparable as an analogy; one is as good as the other.

When you try to paraphrase an argument you want to refute, you can be expected to put a bit more effort into it. "One is as good as the other" has never been the conclusion. The conclusion was much more precise.

The problem is that you're equating two different things based on a single quality, here being an epistemological problem in that neither can be proved, which shuffles away any other differences between these two things.

No, it doesn´t shuffle away other differences between those two ideas (the differences are acknowledged and undisputed). Subject to the comparison was solely whether and how the "truth value" of the claim "God exists" vs. "any other entity that is defined as 'supernatural'" can be determined and differenciated. The conclusion was accordingly: There is no difference between different "supernatural" claims in this respect (since "supernatural" by its very definition doesn´t allow for applying those very methods of verification and falsification we have to our disposal.

Anyone can take two completely different things and unfairly equate them given a single quality. I have an arm. A chair has an arm. Therefore, I'm analogous to a chair. Meh.

Except that the argument did not and wasn´t intended to result in "A and B" are analogous. It was very specific in which way they are analogous.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) science's existence.

Sure I can. As opposed to God and the FSM, science isn´t claimed to exist as an external entity. Science is defined as what people do. People can be observed to do science (to apply the scientific method, to derive scientific results, etc.). So the existence of science can easily be proven.

Science as a humanly invented and exerted practice differs from God and the FSM in that it isn´t defined as an externally existing entity/being. It is defined as a human approach. So comparing "science" and "God/FSM" is a category error right from the start.
If anything, you could compare *religion* and *science* (in that both are human approaches and activities), or you could compare *God* and e.g. "natural laws" (in that both are supposed to exist as external entities that humans claim to be able to *discover*).

So what? The FSM analogy is flawed.

In your strawman version of it it is indeed. In the way it actually was presented (and explained to you in the other thread countless times) it isn´t.

 

[Smidlee]

Atheist has no choice but believe in some kind of nature god. It's about as silly to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster as much as Frankencell. Frankencell is the first unknown cell that only exist in an atheist's mind. There is absolutely no evidence not only the existence of Frankencell but if it's even possible under natural laws. There is a limited amount of machinery that is required for a living cell to keep itself together long enough to reproduce.
There has to be a creator that is not bound by the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Received]

No, it doesn´t shuffle away other differences between those two ideas (the differences are acknowledged and undisputed). Subject to the comparison was solely whether and how the "truth value" of the claim "God exists" vs. "any other entity that is defined as 'supernatural'" can be determined and differenciated. The conclusion was accordingly: There is no difference between different "supernatural" claims in this respect (since "supernatural" by its very definition doesn´t allow for applying those very methods of verification and falsification we have to our disposal.

I fail to see this as equating God with the FSM along epistemological grounds, just like I previously stated.

Sure I can. As opposed to God and the FSM, science isn´t claimed to exist as an external entity. Science is defined as what people do. People can be observed to do science (to apply the scientific method, to derive scientific results, etc.). So the existence of science can easily be proven.

Science as a humanly invented and exerted practice differs from God and the FSM in that it isn´t defined as an externally existing entity/being. It is defined as a human approach. So comparing "science" and "God/FSM" is a category error right from the start.
If anything, you could compare *religion* and *science* (in that both are human approaches and activities), or you could compare *God* and e.g. "natural laws" (in that both are supposed to exist as external entities that humans claim to be able to *discover*).

You're equating science as a set of principles or ideas with its application as a set of behaviors which can be empirically verified. Those are two different things. A philosophy (e.g., science) is not its external application. That's why people distinguish theory from practice. To posit idea A and B is to open up the need for proof of these ideas; to simply say that these ideas are proven because they're acted out is like saying witchcraft is proven because we can empirically verify that witches do their thing.

 

[quatona]

I fail to see this as equating God with the FSM along epistemological grounds, just like I previously stated.

I know you fail to see. However, at this point I was merely pointing out the flaws in your criticism.
As I have repeatedly invited you in the other thread, you have all the opportunity to point out the substantial differences (in terms of epistemological options) between God and the FSM.
The fact that you haven´t even made an attempt at doing so (but instead insist on attacking strawmen) is telling.

You're equating science as a set of principles or ideas with its application as a set of behaviors which can be empirically verified.

No, I am not equating them. I was addressing both simultaneously for simplicity´s sake.
However, both - the existence of the principles and ideas as well as their application - can be shown to exist.
I am not sure, though, why you find this differenciation so important at this point. Which - the human made principles or the human application of them - would you like to put in the same category as "God"?

To posit idea A and B is to open up the need for proof of these ideas;

In which science is the idea itself, whereas "God" is supposed to be an externally existing entity.
Maybe putting "science" and "God" in the same category is meant to tell me that you feel God is a human made idea (and not an externally existing entity). In which case we don´t have much to discuss.

However, in case you happen to use "God" for an entity that exists independently of human ideas, your category error is blatantly obvious.

In any case it needs to be noted that science explicitly restricts itself to a clearly defined frame of reference (and it doesn´t even pretend to make assertions beyond this frame of reference). Whereas "supernatural" as an ex negativo (non-)concept strips itself off and rejects to define any frame of reference, from within which its claims open themselves up to verification or falsification). That´s terribly convenient, and "FSM exist" and "God exist" (since both are defined as supernatural) profit in the same doubtful way from this convenience.

to simply say that these ideas are proven because they're acted out is like saying witchcraft is proven because we can empirically verify that witches do their thing.

Sure, the idea of witchcraft is documented, and witches do their thing. To which extent these ideas and practices are effective is a completely different question.

Science exists, witchcraft exists, religions exist, Christianity exists, superstition exists. These are comparable categories, and they all can be proven to exist.
God´s existence is a whole nother category than religion´s (or any of the terms above) existence, though, in that it is the allegedly existing subject of religion.
The subject of science is the physically existing world (which, thus, would be the equivalent in science to what God is in religion).

Now, if your actual point is that there´s as little evidence or proof for the existence of the physical world (the subject of science) as there is for a God or the FSM (the subjects of supernaturalism)...this could be an interesting discussion. The analogy God - science, however, remains a category error.

Plus, in case witchcraft idea involves supernatural entities, these are indeed as unfalsifiable and unverifiable as God or the FSM. Science, however, doesn´t appeal to such entities (and if it did, the accurate comparison wouldn´t be God-science, but God-[whatever supernatural entity science appeals to].

 

[True Scotsman]

Atheist has no choice but believe in some kind of nature god. It's about as silly to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster as much as Frankencell. Frankencell is the first unknown cell that only exist in an atheist's mind. There is absolutely no evidence not only the existence of Frankencell but if it's even possible under natural laws. There is a limited amount of machinery that is required for a living cell to keep itself together long enough to reproduce.
There has to be a creator that is not bound by the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a "nature God" whatever that is. I believe that life came from existence. Since we observe that organisms are composed of matter and energy it is obvious that it is within the nature of matter and energy to organize into living organisms and natural laws are all that is needed to explain the existence of life. Where did the natural laws come from? They came from existence as well. They are simply principles describing how matter and energy interact according to their nature.

Scientists have shown that the precursors of RNA and DNA can form on their own from much simpler molecules that are found in great quantities in space. They have just recently discovered that RNA can form from these precursors spontaneously with simple catalyst molecules like certain types of clay are present and they have demonstrated that these same clay molecules can facilitate the formation of phospholipid cell membranes. They have also demonstrated that RNA can act as its own catalyst to self replicate. So scientist have demonstrated that the steps up through a cell membrane containing self replicating genetic material are possible naturally. No supernatural agent is required.

They don't actually have to show how the first cell came about. All they need to do is show that it is possible. Interestingly enough when they observed the RNA forming, certain molecules reproduced easier than others and quickly predominated in the solution, showing that even at this stage of development natural selection plays a role.

 

[KCfromNC]

So when you say science has a better track record, what do you mean?

That you should be using the other god-powered internet to ask questions like this rather than the one produced with the aid of scientific investigation.

What - religion doesn't produce useful things like that here in reality? You don't say...

 

[KCfromNC]

I think it's other other way around: testing (particularly replicability and generalization from experimental findings) presupposes uniformity

False - see e.g. 1980ApJ...236L.105T Page L105

 

[Colter]

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a "nature God" whatever that is. I believe that life came from existence. Since we observe that organisms are composed of matter and energy it is obvious that it is within the nature of matter and energy to organize into living organisms and natural laws are all that is needed to explain the existence of life. Where did the natural laws come from? They came from existence as well. They are simply principles describing how matter and energy interact according to their nature.

Scientists have shown that the precursors of RNA and DNA can form on their own from much simpler molecules that are found in great quantities in space. They have just recently discovered that RNA can form from these precursors spontaneously with simple catalyst molecules like certain types of clay are present and they have demonstrated that these same clay molecules can facilitate the formation of phospholipid cell membranes. They have also demonstrated that RNA can act as its own catalyst to self replicate. So scientist have demonstrated that the steps up through a cell membrane containing self replicating genetic material are possible naturally. No supernatural agent is required.

They don't actually have to show how the first cell came about. All they need to do is show that it is possible. Interestingly enough when they observed the RNA forming, certain molecules reproduced easier than others and quickly predominated in the solution, showing that even at this stage of development natural selection plays a role.

The promotion of a the theory that life evolved itself requires more gullibility than the most primitive religious system. What would be even more ironic is an uncaused evolutionary mechanism that evolved people who have consistently attributed their origins to an unseen deity! It would then be evolution, born out of existing existence that thinks there is a God.

 

[Received]

Did not my earlier example suffice?

Any presuppositions that may be made are tentative, and subject to modification, or abandonment. To compare that to religion is to build with straw.

I'm not following. What earlier example suffices in what way regarding workability and truthfulness?

BTW, thanks for not being quatona and responding concisely.

 

[Received]

In which science is the idea itself, whereas "God" is supposed to be an externally existing entity.
Maybe putting "science" and "God" in the same category is meant to tell me that you feel God is a human made idea (and not an externally existing entity). In which case we don´t have much to discuss.

However, in case you happen to use "God" for an entity that exists independently of human ideas, your category error is blatantly obvious.

In any case it needs to be noted that science explicitly restricts itself to a clearly defined frame of reference (and it doesn´t even pretend to make assertions beyond this frame of reference). Whereas "supernatural" as an ex negativo (non-)concept strips itself off and rejects to define any frame of reference, from within which its claims open themselves up to verification or falsification). That´s terribly convenient, and "FSM exist" and "God exist" (since both are defined as supernatural) profit in the same doubtful way from this convenience.

Science has implicit truth claims just like God does. This, again, goes back to the ideas and philosophical presuppositions underlying science.

I'm not claiming God via ex negativo. What I am claiming is that there is an epistemological comparison between stuff that can't be empirically proven (note the "empirical" here, which presupposes science) in terms of God and FSMs. Because science can't be proven empirically (given that it is essentially a philosophy with assumptions that can't be rationally, empirically, or anything other than intuitively "proven"), it also fails the test. That simple. So for you this probably goes back to the "category error" claim.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because science can't be proven empirically (given that it is essentially a philosophy with assumptions that can't be rationally, empirically, or anything other than intuitively "proven"),

Nobody has claimed that science produces proof, or that its underpinnings are proven. Nevertheless, science obviously exists.

Chess exists. But there exists no proof that bishops can only move diagonally.

I think you're using 'proven' in two senses.

1) Proof of existence.
2) Proof of self-consistency, completeness, truthfulness

Science and Chess can be proven empirically to exist.

No one is claiming that science or chess are 'proven' in sense 2.

Gödel famously showed that arithmetic is not 'proven' in sense 2. It is incomplete. Nevertheless, arithmetic exists. Its rules, like the rules of chess, and the principles of science, are known.

Gods have not been proven even in sense 1.

Science exists.
The scientific principle of isotropy has not been proven.

Religion exists.
The existence of gods has not been proven.

In these human structures, it is not science and gods that should be directly compared. It is science and religion. Principles and gods.

The principle of isotropy can be tested, and has been tested. The assumption is not proven, but we have centuries of confirmation that warrants provisional acceptance. Meanwhile, the gods remain no-shows.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that you're equating two different things based on a single quality,

You need to show that they are two different things instead of just assuming it. From where we sit, they are both invented deities.

here being an epistemological problem in that neither can be proved, which shuffles away any other differences between these two things.

Why can't the existence of God be proven? This appears to be an unjustified assumption.

 

[Loudmouth]

The promotion of a the theory that life evolved itself requires more gullibility than the most primitive religious system.

An argument from ridicule is a logical fallacy.

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there is some mechanism of evolution you have questions on, there is a creation and evolution forum that would probably be a better fit.

http://www.christianforums.com/f70/

 

[Loudmouth]

You're equating science as a set of principles or ideas with its application as a set of behaviors which can be empirically verified. Those are two different things. A philosophy (e.g., science) is not its external application. That's why people distinguish theory from practice. To posit idea A and B is to open up the need for proof of these ideas; to simply say that these ideas are proven because they're acted out is like saying witchcraft is proven because we can empirically verify that witches do their thing.

As alluded to above, you don't have to prove the rules of football in order to prove that football exists.

As it turns out, science is popular because it works. It works a heck of a lot better than supernaturalism when trying to explain how the universe around us works. That's why we use it.

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

Science has implicit truth claims just like God does.

God doesn´t have implicit truth claims, religion has. That´s why a comparison science-religion would make at least sense, but God-science doesn´t.

I'm not claiming God via ex negativo. What I am claiming is that there is an epistemological comparison between stuff that can't be empirically proven (note the "empirical" here, which presupposes science) in terms of God and FSMs. Because science can't be proven empirically

The existence of science can be proven empirically, that of God and the FSM can´t.

.

(given that it is essentially a philosophy with assumptions that can't be rationally, empirically, or anything other than intuitively "proven"), it also fails the test. That simple. So for you this probably goes back to the "category error" claim.

Indeed, and rightly so (see above). Plus I call you on an equivocation of "proving".
Apart from that, all my other points you haven´t addressed remain, well, unaddressed. I am left to assume that you concede them.

 

[Davian]

I'm not following. What earlier example suffices in what way regarding workability and truthfulness?

I did not earlier provide an example that would meet both of these new and differing goalposts.

How about: Riding a bicycle.

Science can explain the mechanics - the "truth" of how the bicycle/motorcycle stays up, steers, etc, well enough that it can be done by an autonomous robot.

However, if you were explain these scientific theories to the average child (and many adults), it would do virtually nothing in your efforts to teach them how to ride. I have taught my three children to ride, and have found that huge gulf between what is workable and what is "truth".

In the context of this thread, we could tell the child that the particular actions that we apply to the handlebars are to appease the gyroscopic pixies that keep the bicycle up. If that approach works, does it become truth? or should I say "Truth"?

BTW, thanks for not being quatona and responding concisely.

I do not believe that the lack of conciseness is on quatona's part.