• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

devildavid said:
No, it's a reality. All the evidence points to it. Humanity has been making up god concepts from day one. Each new concept made up then claims that it replaces the old ones which were false. The pattern is clear. There were no reported discoveries that led to the concept of god or changed it through history. All of it is obviously just based on ideas, just as all of philosophy is. Ideas are real, but only as ideas. There are no corresponding "things" out there in physical reality that literally exist that correspond to god, morality, ideology. They are all human created ideas and value systems and only exist as such. Every idea that humanity has had or is capable of does not have a corresponding thing that exists outside of human imagination. Human ideas are not the same as reality. The physical world does not operate according to every philosophy or concept that man has thought up.
Click to expand...


This is just question begging. It ignores all the actual arguments that have taken place over the millenia, everywhere from Greece to India, and just assumes naturalism is true. You also seem to assume the physical world does operate according to our idea of physicalism or naturalism. It would least be more consistent to opt for scepticism.
 
Russell797 said:
You mean no one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What's in a name though? The metaphor represents the same type of entity. There really is no difference. All these gods by whatever name are referring to something undefined, supernatural, capable of what to us are super powers in defiance of natural law. God, ghosts, souls, spirits and now the spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...

I don't think they do represent the same entity. The Christian God - that of orthodoxy Christianity and classical theism in general - is supposed to be a metaphysical being - infinite, eternal, absolute, much like Aristotle's unmoved mover. The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to be an empirical entity, like a superhero. This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of classical theist and Christian thought.

By natural law, you seem to mean what are called the laws of nature. Whether or not God violates these depends on complex philosophical questions about causation, in which the position that there are laws of nature per se that are cannot violated is very much open to question.

I'm not sure what is really supposed to be taken away from the FSM idea that would shake the theist or Christian.

By the way, there are philosophers, like William James, C. D. Broad, Alan Gauld, Stephen Braude, and Michael Sudduth, who are have made a decent case for taking the existence of apparitions and psi phenomena seriously, or at least not dismissing it. As they note, often sceptics are not very knowledge on the actual evidence.
 
Russell797 said:
I don't know what the outcome will be. If the odds as determined by past experience are highly in my favor, like getting on a plane, I will do so as a matter of risk assessment. I will not punch a wall with my fist because past experience informs me that to do so will cause me great pain. Neither event is 100% certain to happen the way I expect. There is a finite chance that the atoms making up the wall will arrange themselves in such a way that my hand would go right through unharmed, but those odds are vanishing small.

When we can not be 100% certain of an outcome yet we do it anyway we are taking some degree of risk. Even getting out of bed in the morning. However I can have a reasoned faith that things will most likely turn out the way I expect. I can't have a reasoned faith in god because there is no data from which to establish a probability.

It is a blind faith which you object to, and I agree. I change the meaning of the word faith by placing a qualifier before it.

Your entire rock climbing experience is a reasoned faith. You have experience. You have training. You have a reason to expect that you will more likely than not to reach the top...otherwise you wouldn't do it. You have assessed your chances as favorable to you. You trust your skills. That first move is NOT a blind faith.
Click to expand...

You have not seen some of the cliffs i have climbed. And on some i do not asses my chances as favourable i asses them as a risk. Something people do not understand about the kind of sports that can get you killed. There is no fun in doing the acheivable. The fun is in achieving what others say cannot be done. I can give affidavits that cliff climbing without safety equipment is pure stupid. That is not reasoned.
 
Wessexman said:
I don't think they do represent the same entity. The Christian God - that of orthodoxy Christianity and classical theism in general - is supposed to be a metaphysical being - infinite, eternal, absolute, much like Aristotle's unmoved mover. The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to be an empirical entity, like a superhero. This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of classical theist and Christian thought.
Click to expand...
An empirical entity??? Care to demonstrate the empiricalness of the entity.

I'm not sure what is really supposed to be taken away from the FSM idea that would shake the theist or Christian.

By the way, there are philosophers, like William James, C. D. Broad, Alan Gauld, Stephen Braude, and Michael Sudduth, who are have made a decent case for taking the existence of apparitions and psi phenomena seriously, or at least not dismissing it. As they note, often sceptics are not very knowledge on the actual evidence.
Click to expand...
That is because it is not there to shake them. The purpose of fsm is to ridicule.

And no, they have not made decent cases they merely made cases. Which can be dismissed as nothing more than hypothesis.
 
soylentgreen said:
An empirical entity??? Care to demonstrate the empiricalness of the entity.
Click to expand...

I mean empirical in the sense that it would be up to empirical observation to say whether it exists or not, rather than metaphysical speculation and proof, not that it actually exists.
 
Wessexman said:
I mean empirical in the sense that it would be up to empirical observation to say whether it exists or not, rather than metaphysical speculation and proof, not that it actually exists.
Click to expand...

Well that is confusing. Why is god any different in that it would actually take an empirical observation to say whether that exists. The 'or not' is a bit confusing in that one cannot empirically observe non existence. The other confusing bit is the "metaphysical speculation and proof". One cannot call speculation, metaphysical or not, proof. Because if you could prove something then you would not have to speculate.
On the other hand if you are saying that it requires two different things, one being speculation and the other proof then would not the proof also have to be empirical in nature which would make your use of the word "rather' kind of redundant.
 
soylentgreen said:
Well that is confusing. Why is god any different in that it would actually take an empirical observation to say whether that exists. The 'or not' is a bit confusing in that one cannot empirically observe non existence. The other confusing bit is the "metaphysical speculation and proof". One cannot call speculation, metaphysical or not, proof. Because if you could prove something then you would not have to speculate.
On the other hand if you are saying that it requires two different things, one being speculation and the other proof then would not the proof also have to be empirical in nature which would make your use of the word "rather' kind of redundant.
Click to expand...

The point is that the FSM, like Russell Teapot (of which it is just a modification that is supposed to be make religion look ridiculous), is not the Unmoved Mover of classical theism. It is not absolute, infinite, and so on. Rather, it is a entity, like any other, that exists within the universe. It is the kind of being whose existence could only be established through empirical investigation and experience. You could replace the FSM with quark or some rare species or rare element. It is the same kind of entity, fundamentally. The God of classical theism and orthodox Christianity is not like that. I suppose the term empirical might be misleading, because there are attempted proofs of God from empirical phenomena, just as there are inductive and probabilistic proofs alongside the a priori and deductive ones (and, of course, technically there are entities in physics whose existence is deduced from other empirically discovered entities but that have not been proved experimentally). But my point was mostly that the FSM is a totally different kind of entity to the God of classical theism and orthodox Christianity.

This is not trivial. The God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable from some very general observations about the world, for example, that there is change or that there is unity. Russell's teapot is not like this. It would only discoverable by observing it specifically, or at least by deducing it from some pretty specific and complex astronomical theories - which is just what can't be done according to Russell's scenario. So God and the teapot, or the FSM, are not comparable.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
The point is that the FSM, like Russell Teapot (of which it is just a modification that is supposed to be make religion look ridiculous), is not the Unmoved Mover of classical theism. It is not absolute, infinite, and so on. Rather, it is a entity, like any other, that exists within the universe. It is the kind of being whose existence could only be established through empirical investigation and experience. You could replace the FSM with quark or some rare species or rare element. It is the same kind of entity, fundamentally. The God of classical theism and orthodox Christianity is not like that. I suppose the term empirical might be misleading, because there are attempted proofs of God from empirical phenomena, just as there are inductive and probabilistic proofs alongside the a priori and deductive ones (and, of course, technically there are entities in physics whose existence is deduced from other empirically discovered entities but that have not been proved experimentally). But my point was mostly that the FSM is a totally different kind of entity to the God of classical theism and orthodox Christianity.
Click to expand...

The synonym for a priori is deductive. That is a tautology. It is also the only part i agree on. All discussion on gods whether defined as an entity or as a prime mover is deductive only.

This is not trivial. The God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable from some very general observations about the world, for example, that there is change or that there is unity. Russell's teapot is not like this. It would only discoverable by observing it specifically, or at least by deducing it from some pretty specific and complex astronomical theories - which is just what can't be done according to Russell's scenario. So God and the teapot, or the FSM, are not comparable.
Click to expand...
Again the words you use tend to confuse. You will have to explain what is the difference between "a general observation" and "by observing".

The God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable from some very general observations about the world, for example, that there is change or that there is unity.
Click to expand...
A part from the fact that if it could be proved at all then it would by your definition be in the same class as a meatball or a teapot.

Your going to have to explain this in more detail I have yet to see any observation of the world that would lead to a suggestion of a prime mover.
 
soylentgreen said:
The synonym for a priori is deductive. That is a tautology. It is also the only part i agree on. All discussion on gods whether defined as an entity or as a prime mover is deductive only.
Click to expand...
They aren't quite synonymous, but it is unimportant (especially as I didn't necessarily say they were different in that post). You keep focusing on minutiae and getting off track. Also, again, there are in fact attempted proofs of God that inductive or probabilistic, but that is not important in this context.


Again the words you use tend to confuse. You will have to explain what is the difference between "a general observation" and "by observing".
Click to expand...
It should be reasonably obvious, as I gave examples. The general observations are things like, "there is change". The specific observation I talked of was seeing the teapot, an entity far from everyday life, in space (presumably through some sort of scientific instruments). The difference between observation of something like "there being change" from observation of far off nebulae or quarks (or their deduction through very complex calculations from what is observed) should be obvious enough.


A part from the fact that if it could be proved at all then it would by your definition be in the same class as a meatball or a teapot.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean here.

Your going to have to explain this in more detail I have yet to see any observation of the world that would lead to a suggestion of a prime mover.
Click to expand...

I was assuming some familiarity with proofs of God, like Aquinas' Five Ways. They tend to proceed by starting with something like change, in the case of Aquinas' First Way, or with the existence of unity and multiplicity in the case of the neoplatonic version of the cosmological argument, and deducing the existence of God from there. I wasn't arguing for their correctness, of course, but simply suggesting there is a clear difference between God and the teapot. because of the nature of God and the alleged kind of proofs and knowledge of him. Russell's teapot assumes belief in God must be like believe in pink elephants on Alpha Centuari, both in terms of the kind of entities in question and the means of knowledge. This is simply incorrect for classical theism and orthodox Christianity.
 
Last edited:
God is a human created concept, an idea. It is nothing more than an idea. All ideas do not have to have existence outside of the mind. Ideas are not things, or entities. Physical reality is made up of physical things, not ideas. The human mind is not responsible for creating physical reality, it is something humans use to think about reality. There is no primacy of the human mind or thoughts or concepts or ideas in the physical universe.
 
devildavid said:
God is a human created concept, an idea. It is nothing more than an idea. All ideas do not have to have existence outside of the mind. Ideas are not things, or entities. Physical reality is made up of physical things, not ideas. The human mind is not responsible for creating physical reality, it is something humans use to think about reality. There is no primacy of the human mind or thoughts or concepts or ideas in the physical universe.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Man has make up gods in order to attempt to exercise control over a designer deity; however, the real nature of GOD is way beyond man's comprehension, or man would have no problem with terms like eternity, forever, everlasting to everlasting, providence, and three in one (triune) ---- to name just a few.
 
LittleNipper said:
I disagree. Man has make up gods in order to attempt to exercise control over a designer deity; however, the real nature of GOD is way beyond man's comprehension, or man would have no problem with terms like eternity, forever, everlasting to everlasting, providence, and three in one (triune) ---- to name just a few.
Click to expand...

Everything you mention are just man-made concepts, including the concept of something beyond our comprehension.
 
Wessexman said:
They aren't quite synonymous, but it is unimportant (especially as I didn't necessarily say they were different in that post). You keep focusing on minutiae and getting off track. Also, again, there are in fact attempted proofs of God that inductive or probabilistic, but that is not important in this context.
Click to expand...
Again not quite true. They are in fact synonyms which means they are not exactly the same, but quite the same or quite synonymous. It is not a trivial pursuit i am doing here. It is not as if i am pointing to something as trivial as spelling errors. I am instead pointing to a way of thinking demonstrated by your choice of words. For example your use of tautologies. Inductive is probabilistic use one or the other but no both. And yes i can agree there are attempts to prove a god in the only manner possible, by inductive reasoning but they all fail so can be disregarded.
It should be reasonably obvious, as I gave examples. The general observations are things like, "there is change". The specific observation I talked of was seeing the teapot, an entity far from everyday life, in space (presumably through some sort of scientific instruments). The difference between observation of something like "there being change" from observation of far off nebulae or quarks (or their deduction through very complex calculations from what is observed) should be obvious enough.
Click to expand...
One is an observed therefor empirical the other is hypothetical. How does this even connect to a god let alone offer proof of one.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Click to expand...
You stated that your "God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable ". How does this differ from a teapot or a meatball that is also allegedly provable.


I was assuming some familiarity with proofs of God, like Aquinas' Five Ways.
Click to expand...
Not proof, not even good reasoning. It starts from the assumption that a god exists without giving one good reason to start from such an assumption. Replace the word god with spaghetti and we the five ways of a meatball.
They tend to proceed by starting with something like change, in the case of Aquinas' First Way, or with the existence of unity and multiplicity in the case of the neoplatonic version of the cosmological argument, and deducing the existence of God from there.
Click to expand...
When broken down it basically states that failing to come up with any other idea of how it all began then lets pretend and use our imagination to create an answer. Again not good reasoning just wishful thinking.

I wasn't arguing for their correctness, of course, but simply suggesting there is a clear difference between God and the teapot. because of the nature of God and the alleged kind of proofs and knowledge of him. Russell's teapot assumes belief in God must be like believe in pink elephants on Alpha Centuari, both in terms of the kind of entities in question and the means of knowledge. This is simply incorrect for classical theism and orthodox Christianity.
Click to expand...
Only because you assume the possibility of a god while failing to justify any such assumption. Like aquinus you start from the position that a god is possible therefor we should consider it. Yet i have never been given even one plausable let alone credible reason to bother considering a god. Why should i hold a god to any more than a fiction, An equal of meatballs, flying teapots, santa or superman.
 
Wessexman said:
They aren't quite synonymous, but it is unimportant (especially as I didn't necessarily say they were different in that post). You keep focusing on minutiae and getting off track. Also, again, there are in fact attempted proofs of God that inductive or probabilistic, but that is not important in this context.
Click to expand...
Again not quite true. They are in fact synonyms which means they are not exactly the same, but quite the same or quite synonymous. It is not a trivial pursuit i am doing here. It is not as if i am pointing to something as trivial as spelling errors. I am instead pointing to a way of thinking demonstrated by your choice of words. For example your use of tautologies. Inductive is probabilistic use one or the other but no both. And yes i can agree there are attempts to prove a god in the only maner possible, by inductive reasoning but they all fail so can be disregarded.
It should be reasonably obvious, as I gave examples. The general observations are things like, "there is change". The specific observation I talked of was seeing the teapot, an entity far from everyday life, in space (presumably through some sort of scientific instruments). The difference between observation of something like "there being change" from observation of far off nebulae or quarks (or their deduction through very complex calculations from what is observed) should be obvious enough.
Click to expand...
One is an observed therefor empirical the other is hypothetical. Hoa does this even connect to a god let alone offer proof of one.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Click to expand...
You stated that your "God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable ". How does this differ from a teapot or a meatball that is also allegedly provable.


I was assuming some familiarity with proofs of God, like Aquinas' Five Ways.
Click to expand...
Not proof, not even good reasoning. It starts from the assumption that a god exists without giving one good reason to start from such an assumption. Replace the word god with spaghetti and we the five ways of a meatball.
They tend to proceed by starting with something like change, in the case of Aquinas' First Way, or with the existence of unity and multiplicity in the case of the neoplatonic version of the cosmological argument, and deducing the existence of God from there.
Click to expand...
When broken down it basically states that failing to come up with any other idea of how it all began then lets pretend and use our imagination to create an answer. Again not good reasoning just wishful thinking.

I wasn't arguing for their correctness, of course, but simply suggesting there is a clear difference between God and the teapot. because of the nature of God and the alleged kind of proofs and knowledge of him. Russell's teapot assumes belief in God must be like believe in pink elephants on Alpha Centuari, both in terms of the kind of entities in question and the means of knowledge. This is simply incorrect for classical theism and orthodox Christianity.
Click to expand...
Only because you assume the possibility of a god while failing to justify any such assumption. Like aquinus you start from the position that a god is possible therefor we should consider it. Yet i have never been given even one plausable let alone credible reason to bother considering a god. Why should i hold a god to any more than a fiction, An equal of meatballs, flying teapots, santa or superman.
 
soylentgreen said:
You have not seen some of the cliffs i have climbed. And on some i do not asses my chances as favourable i asses them as a risk. Something people do not understand about the kind of sports that can get you killed. There is no fun in doing the acheivable. The fun is in achieving what others say cannot be done. I can give affidavits that cliff climbing without safety equipment is pure stupid. That is not reasoned.
Click to expand...

More power to you. It's your choice to contest unfavourable odds. In that case you have no reason to expect that you will be successful. You are always taking a risk, whatever you do though. No outcome is 100% certain to occur is my point.
 
soylentgreen said:
Again not quite true. They are in fact synonyms which means they are not exactly the same, but quite the same or quite synonymous. It is not a trivial pursuit i am doing here. It is not as if i am pointing to something as trivial as spelling errors. I am instead pointing to a way of thinking demonstrated by your choice of words. For example your use of tautologies. Inductive is probabilistic use one or the other but no both. And yes i can agree there are attempts to prove a god in the only maner possible, by inductive reasoning but they all fail so can be disregarded.
Click to expand...

This is nitpicking and doesn't even make sense, as if one cannot use two adjectives expressing slightly different aspects of the same quality.

One is an observed therefor empirical the other is hypothetical. Hoa does this even connect to a god let alone offer proof of one.
You stated that your "God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable ". How does this differ from a teapot or a meatball that is also allegedly provable.
Click to expand...
It isn't supposed to. I was criticising Russell's teapot/FSM. It is essential to keep the actual argument in mind.


Not proof, not even good reasoning. It starts from the assumption that a god exists without giving one good reason to start from such an assumption. Replace the word god with spaghetti and we the five ways of a meatball.

When broken down it basically states that failing to come up with any other idea of how it all began then lets pretend and use our imagination to create an answer. Again not good reasoning just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

You will of course be able to show this? I would love to see your refutation of even the First Way on these grounds.
Only because you assume the possibility of a god while failing to justify any such assumption. Like aquinus you start from the position that a god is possible therefor we should consider it. Yet i have never been given even one plausable let alone credible reason to bother considering a god. Why should i hold a god to any more than a fiction, An equal of meatballs, flying teapots, santa or superman.
Click to expand...

This is not a proper response. My point is simply that the teapot is a fundamentally different kind of entity with an allegedly fundamentally different means of knowing it, therefore Russell's claim that though it can't be disproven, there is no reason to believe in it doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing the traditional proofs are correct, simply that they are very different from the sort of knowledge one could have over the teapot. You haven't properly responded to this. Mostly you have just asserted God is like the teapot.
 
devildavid said:
God is a human created concept, an idea. It is nothing more than an idea. All ideas do not have to have existence outside of the mind. Ideas are not things, or entities. Physical reality is made up of physical things, not ideas. The human mind is not responsible for creating physical reality, it is something humans use to think about reality. There is no primacy of the human mind or thoughts or concepts or ideas in the physical universe.
Click to expand...

And this is little more than question begging. You simply assume physicalism/naturalism.
 
Wessexman said:
I don't think they do represent the same entity. The Christian God - that of orthodoxy Christianity and classical theism in general - is supposed to be a metaphysical being - infinite, eternal, absolute, much like Aristotle's unmoved mover. The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to be an empirical entity, like a superhero. This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of classical theist and Christian thought.

By natural law, you seem to mean what are called the laws of nature. Whether or not God violates these depends on complex philosophical questions about causation, in which the position that there are laws of nature per se that are cannot violated is very much open to question.

I'm not sure what is really supposed to be taken away from the FSM idea that would shake the theist or Christian.

By the way, there are philosophers, like William James, C. D. Broad, Alan Gauld, Stephen Braude, and Michael Sudduth, who are have made a decent case for taking the existence of apparitions and psi phenomena seriously, or at least not dismissing it. As they note, often sceptics are not very knowledge on the actual evidence.
Click to expand...

The FSM can be anything you want it to be. It is not an empirical being any more than is any other god. No one has ever met the FSM. No one has met any other god. They are all the same imaginary nonsense. One is fundamentally no different from any other, except in the imagination of it's adherents. To an outside observer they are all the same irrational nonsense.

Of course there are apparitions and psi phenomena in the same way there are UFOs. People experience these events. What there is not is any evidence that they represent something supernatural or extraterrestrial. At best a belief that they are is nothing but confirmation bias.

Not in violation of natural law? What force holds a ghost or soul to the Earth. The Earth is travelling through space with the galaxy at millions of miles per hour relative to distant galaxies. Do ghosts or souls interact with the electromagnetic force or gravity? If not then how do people "see" them? Of course you can't answer the questions, no one can. You must appeal to an infinite set of unknowns, such as "Anything is possible" which is irrational.
 
Russell797 said:
The FSM can be anything you want it to be. It is not an empirical being any more than is any other god. No one has ever met the FSM. No one has met any other god. They are all the same imaginary nonsense. One is fundamentally no different from any other, except in the imagination of it's adherents. To an outside observer they are all the same irrational nonsense.
Click to expand...

The FSM is presumably flying and made of pasta. This means it has a body, location, is finite, is contingent, etc. The God of classical theists is necessary, infinite, absolute, omnipresent, etc. They are very different kinds of entity.
Of course there are apparitions and psi phenomena in the same way there are UFOs. People experience these events. What there is not is any evidence that they represent something supernatural or extraterrestrial. At best a belief that they are is nothing but confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Are you at all familiar with the literature?
Not in violation of natural law? What force holds a ghost or soul to the Earth. The Earth is travelling through space with the galaxy at millions of miles per hour relative to distant galaxies. Do ghosts or souls interact with the electromagnetic force or gravity? If not then how do people "see" them? Of course you can't answer the questions, no one can. You must appeal to an infinite set of unknowns, such as "Anything is possible" which is irrational.
Click to expand...

There are lots of questions about what the laws of nature are. Only if one assumes they are causal regularities that always hold would they rule out non-physical interference in the universe a priori.
 
Wessexman said:
The FSM is presumably flying and made of pasta. This means it has a body, location, is finite, is contingent, etc. The God of classical theists is necessary, infinite, absolute, omnipresent, etc. They are very different kinds of entity.


This is incorrect. Are you at all familiar with the literature?


There are lots of questions about what the laws of nature are. Only if one assumes they are causal regularities that always hold would they rule out non-physical interference in the universe a priori.
Click to expand...

The FSM has never been detected. It is presumed to have a body and to be able to fly but no one really knows. I don't really know why it is presumed to be flying and made of spaghetti, but it is not my place to question. The believers tell me I will go to hell if I don't just accept what I am told. Regardless I do not personally subscribe to the FSM, or any other god for that matter so I will not try to defend it.

You mean to say the classical theists god is presumed to be infinite, absolute, omnipresent. How does anyone know that? They don't know that any more than those who propose the FSM know of it's attributes or characteristics.

Are you telling me that there is peer-reviewed scientific literature which suggests ghosts have been detected. Wow, how did I miss it.

And finally, it is true we don't know what the laws of nature are, where they come from or why they are the way they are. Yes they are assumed to always hold true because they seem to be fundamental and have never been observed to fail. Supernatural phenomena are not describable by those laws. There are not suggestions given by those laws which compel us to search for something we can not detect in any way. We do science from a basis of previous knowledge, not from imagined possibilities not in evidence.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
The FSM has never been detected. It is presumed to have a body and to be able to fly but no one really knows. I don't really know why it is presumed to be flying and made of spaghetti, but it is not my place to question. The believers tell me I will go to hell if I don't just accept what I am told. Regardless I do not personally subscribe to the FSM, or any other god for that matter so I will not try to defend it.

You mean to say the classical theists god is presumed to be infinite, absolute, omnipresent. How does anyone know that? They don't know that any more than those who propose the FSM know of it's attributes or characteristics.
Click to expand...

Let's go back to the beginning to remember just what we are debating.

The FSM, like Russell's teapot, is supposed to show that although the FSM cannot be disproved, as there is no evidence for it, we shouldn't believe in it. It , however, ignores that God is not an entity in time and space, in the universe, as is the FSM, the teapots, quarks, or distant nebilae. The knowledge, or one important kind, that is alleged for God is very different from these sorts of entities - it is allegedly discoverable via proofs based on deductions from general observations of the world, like "there is change". Therefore you need to refute these proofs before talking about the FSM.
Are you telling me that there is peer-reviewed scientific literature which suggests ghosts have been detected. Wow, how did I miss it.
Click to expand...
There certainly is on laboratory experiments by parapyschologists stretching from Rhine in the 30s until today. There was a lot of fieldwork done between the 1870s and 1939s by the SPR. The authors I mentioned are philosophers who take the evidence seriously, and are often quite legitimately scornful of most sceptics, who don't show much familiarity at all.
And finally, it is true we don't know what the laws of nature are, where they come from or why they are the way they are. Yes they are assumed to always hold true because they seem to be fundamental and have never been observed to fail. Supernatural phenomena are not describable by those laws. There are not suggestions given by those laws which compel us to search for something we can not detect in any way. We do science from a basis of previous knowledge, not from imagined possibilities not in evidence.
Click to expand...
Whether they have been observed to fail is what is in question, so you simply beg the question there. There are several different philosophical understandings of scientific laws, many of which would not rule out paranormal and miraculous phenomena.
 
Wessexman said:
The point is that the FSM, like Russell Teapot (of which it is just a modification that is supposed to be make religion look ridiculous), is not the Unmoved Mover of classical theism. It is not absolute, infinite, and so on. Rather, it is a entity, like any other, that exists within the universe. It is the kind of being whose existence could only be established through empirical investigation and experience. You could replace the FSM with quark or some rare species or rare element. It is the same kind of entity, fundamentally. The God of classical theism and orthodox Christianity is not like that. I suppose the term empirical might be misleading, because there are attempted proofs of God from empirical phenomena, just as there are inductive and probabilistic proofs alongside the a priori and deductive ones (and, of course, technically there are entities in physics whose existence is deduced from other empirically discovered entities but that have not been proved experimentally). But my point was mostly that the FSM is a totally different kind of entity to the God of classical theism and orthodox Christianity.

This is not trivial. The God of classical theism is at least allegedly provable from some very general observations about the world, for example, that there is change or that there is unity. Russell's teapot is not like this. It would only discoverable by observing it specifically, or at least by deducing it from some pretty specific and complex astronomical theories - which is just what can't be done according to Russell's scenario. So God and the teapot, or the FSM, are not comparable.
Click to expand...

There is nothing provable about god, allegedly or otherwise, obtained by general observation in the world that there is change or that there is unity. I'm not even sure what that means. What is the change and what is the unity that is observed in the world that points to god? It makes no sense at all.
 
devildavid said:
There is nothing provable about god, allegedly or otherwise, obtained by general observation in the world that there is change or that there is unity. I'm not even sure what that means. What is the change and what is the unity that is observed in the world that points to god? It makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Are you not aware of the traditional proofs of God, as given by, for example, Aquinas or Plotinus and so on? I'm wondering why you'd be quite strident without even a basic familiarity with such material. Peter Kreeft gives a good summary (remember they are just that before you waste everyone's time) of twenty largely traditional proofs:

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Edward Feser has a good roundup on cosmological arguments, including the two varieties mentioned (those like Aquinas' First way, which really on change, and those like the neoplatonic argument based on unity).

Edward Feser: Cosmological argument roundup
 
Wessexman said:
This is nitpicking and doesn't even make sense, as if one cannot use two adjectives expressing slightly different aspects of the same quality.
Click to expand...
No, nit picking would be me pointing out spelling errors. But pointing out that you are making tautologies tells me you really do not understand the meaning of the word if you have to say it twice.

One is an observed therefor empirical the other is hypothetical. Hoa does this even connect to a god let alone offer proof of one.
It isn't supposed to. I was criticising Russell's teapot/FSM. It is essential to keep the actual argument in mind.
Click to expand...
So when i ask you how your argument s relevant you reply by pointing out the teapot is not relevant. How does that work?

You will of course be able to show this? I would love to see your refutation of even the First Way on these grounds.
Click to expand...
I already did. Aquinus started from the position that a god exists and he only needed an argument to prove it so. Yet he nor anyone else bothered to show why a god would exist in the first place, he just assumed it to be so.
This is not a proper response. My point is simply that the teapot is a fundamentally different kind of entity with an allegedly fundamentally different means of knowing it, therefore Russell's claim that though it can't be disproven, there is no reason to believe in it doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing the traditional proofs are correct, simply that they are very different from the sort of knowledge one could have over the teapot. You haven't properly responded to this. Mostly you have just asserted God is like the teapot.
Click to expand...
No they are really no different at all. They all have the same basic problem in that they assume a god must exist and the work backwards from that to produce premises that will fit a conclusion. Aquinus especially can be dismissed for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom