Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 417. (Read 845809 times)

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

This is from the wiki:


Now, referring to the teapot...


So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

This is from the wiki:


Now, referring to the teapot...


So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

The serious side of the voices in the caverns thing is this. Does anyone remember in the Apostles Creed, where it says, "He [Jesus] descended into hell?" This is talking about the 3 days that Jesus was in the grave after he died on the cross, before He arose from the dead.

The word "Hell" has several meanings in the Bible. One of them pertains to a place of torment after the final end - the lake of fire in Revelation. Another is simply the grave. A third is a special "holding cell," where especially virulent and spiritually powerful people are sent, at death, because otherwise they might be able to affect things in THIS life right from the grave!

Saint Paul explains that Jesus went down to this last Hell to preach to the spirits of certain of the dead. The particular dead mentioned, were those who had lived in the days of Noah, but had died in or before the Great Flood.

While we don't, yet, have any conclusive evidence about what these people were doing back at the time before the Flood, they were probably certain people who:
1. Had used quantum entanglement to manipulate people (Consider The Silva Mind Control Method);
2. Were powerful in their use of quantum entanglement;
3. Had built a worldwide network of corrupt trading exchanges (probably the thing we know as Atlantis);
4. Were NOT knowledgeable enough about QE to use it to keep themselves alive in the Flood;
5. Were powerful enough that their spirits just might be able to reach out from the grave if they were not held at bay in the special kind of hell cell they are in.

Jesus went there to preach to them about their big mistake, that they thought that they could find eternal life without the help of God, on their own, using quantum entanglement (QE use, my idea). Jesus, however, is the only one who can use quantum entanglement correctly enough to grant eternal life both, to Himself, and to any of those to whom He decides to grant eternal life.

People attempt to do all kinds of things. There are those of our day who are trying to gain eternal life on their own. There are, of course, many who simply turn their backs on the whole idea, and simply decide to die. Some who try to live forever on their own, will try/are trying the quantum entanglement method (many without realizing that this is what they are using). Some of these might succeed in keeping themselves healthy enough that they could live for several hundred years if the earth lasts that long, yet. Others use their QE to become wealthy, retain riches, by more or less enslaving other people.

Wherever you happen to be in life, if you are inclined to use quantum entanglement for your own benefit, remember to use it in conjunction with the knowledge that you are not good enough at it to live forever by it. Keep your focus on Jesus, use QE only for good, and be ready to freely hand over any QE strength that you have to God, on a moment's notice should He call to you. If you aren't ready to do this, you may lose your very essence to the final dissolution of all material and energy, done in the lake of fire, at the final end of this universe.

The end might be here much sooner than we think.

I find it quite boring and egotistical of a monotheistic god to insist it is the one and only god. Aren't more gods far more interesting and just as likely to be true? Isn't it about time we invented some new gods, anyways? The ones we have to date are so antiquated.  

I know this will be tragic to some to hear this, but the Pope is not God.  Also, the Pope could actually be (gulp) wrong. 

I am now going to be cursed at and called blasphemous by my Catholic friends on here. 

I find it quite boring and egotistical of a monotheistic god to insist it is the one and only god. Aren't more gods far more interesting and just as likely to be true? Isn't it about time we invented some new gods, anyways? The ones we have to date are so antiquated. 

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion 

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion 

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion  

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.