Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 421. (Read 845654 times)

legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
October 30, 2014, 12:54:00 AM

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.

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

This is from the wiki:

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

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
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.

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.

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

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. 
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
October 30, 2014, 12:21:43 AM

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.

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

This is from the wiki:

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

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
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.

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.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
October 30, 2014, 12:13:40 AM

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.

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

This is from the wiki:

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

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
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.

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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
October 29, 2014, 08:17:44 PM
It's official. I have found god!



Well, at least one that I can say I believe in with as much faith as any other one. I am a Pastafarian convert now. I just wish I had known about this religion before I got my new driver's license photo taken, so I could've worn the proper religious headgear. (aka - a colander)



I was sold once I learned Heaven is a stripper factory inside a beer volcano! (Hell is the same except the beer is stale and the strippers have STDs. LOL!)



May you be forever touched by His Noodly Appendage.

R'amen!
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
October 29, 2014, 08:04:53 PM
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.

Smiley

Would you explain how sneezing can be defined with "field theoretic entanglement?"
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
October 29, 2014, 07:21:30 PM
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.  Tongue

It's just a perspective.

When imagining God, many tend to personify Him or project their own perspective on what they perceive God is (see: people saying that God "insists it is the one and only god" when it is actually people that insist that God insists so—although, the fact that we are alive, to me, is such an insistence, but that's beside the point), but if there was an original point of existence, then that's a bit hard to describe with human qualities, derivatives of that original point. It's like trying to integrate a derivative, there's a bit of information that might come short, hence the "+ C"

There are degrees of Godness, for lack of better wording ("experiencing God"?), that can lead to confusion when we compare religious gods. For example, many view or term Hinduism as a polytheism, but it is actually pantheist.

another Kabbalistic example (of which whose Judaistic origins arised or at least influenced Christianity's perspective of a "One and Only God", which also actually has at least three parts to its "One and Only God"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof


Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
October 29, 2014, 06:35:38 PM

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. 

As someone else said, we've been telling you that all along.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
October 29, 2014, 06:27:31 PM

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. 
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
October 29, 2014, 05:34:37 PM
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.  Tongue

Agreed.  Even Spaghetti was invented almost a thousand years ago.

I think the next god I worship will be the artificial intelligence that takes over the planet.  I'll have no choice.  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
October 29, 2014, 05:04:04 PM
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.  Tongue
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
October 29, 2014, 04:53:29 PM

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.

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
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
October 29, 2014, 03:51:17 PM

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion  Smiley

We've been trying to tell you that all along.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
October 29, 2014, 03:43:10 PM

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.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
October 29, 2014, 03:42:28 PM
Now even "Stupidity" is a religion  Smiley

What if it is true?  What if there is only a 0.01% chance there is a FSM?  You're risking your eternal soul by not believing. 

Why take the chance?   
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
October 29, 2014, 03:31:46 PM
Now even "Stupidity" is a religion  Smiley

Now? It always has been. Religion couldn't exist without it.  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
October 29, 2014, 03:22:50 PM

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
October 29, 2014, 03:05:34 PM

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.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
October 29, 2014, 03:01:38 PM
These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.   Wink

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics.  

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

I pulled that fact from The Cosmic Serpent which is a book written by a Stanford anthropologist who lived with these tribes for many months.  He was very skeptical at first but was convinced by the end that the means of knowledge acquisition adopted by these tribes is stunningly valid and accurate.  Specially he notes the number of Amazonian plant species (over 20,000) from which the tribes are somehow able to understand which plants ingredients to combine in order to produce a specific effect, such as in the discovery of MAOIs which are necessary in order for DMT drinks, e.g. ayuhuasca, to produce their desired hallucinogenic effects.  The chance randomly selecting the correct plants to combine is insanely improbable.

Edit:  Briefly edited for sloppiness due to iPhone
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
October 29, 2014, 02:55:46 PM

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.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
October 29, 2014, 02:42:54 PM

I thought of this thread when I saw that! But then I figured it was not worth my time to post it. Fundamentalists aren't concerned with facts so much as beliefs. This will change nothing here.
Jump to: