Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:Probably the most overrated, overused, and tiring arguements that the new atheists use is the argument of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." First of all, the FSM is a concept that was invented in 2005. Ever since then, the FSM has become one of the most annoying fallacy used by the new atheists. Is anybody else annoyed by this?

The flying spaghetti monster was created as a parody to protest the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design in public schools. The claim was if intelligent design gets equal time as Evolution, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti monster should get equal time as well. It was also used to refute some of the claims Christians used to prove God.

As irritating as it may be, it appears to be somewhat effective in accomplishing what it was created to do because the School that was the target of its creation quit teaching intelligent design, and Christians don’t seem to use the arguments it was designed to refute, as often as they used to.

Ken

It created a straw argument that NEVER existed other than those believers that insisted that belief in God was/is based on blind faith.
Which is an insult to EVERY believer and every religious thinker that ever existed that based his/her faith on reason ( see Aquinas as the prime example).

I think you will be a bit surprised at how many Christians view belief in God as based on faith.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:Probably the most overrated, overused, and tiring arguements that the new atheists use is the argument of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." First of all, the FSM is a concept that was invented in 2005. Ever since then, the FSM has become one of the most annoying fallacy used by the new atheists. Is anybody else annoyed by this?

The flying spaghetti monster was created as a parody to protest the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design in public schools. The claim was if intelligent design gets equal time as Evolution, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti monster should get equal time as well. It was also used to refute some of the claims Christians used to prove God.

As irritating as it may be, it appears to be somewhat effective in accomplishing what it was created to do because the School that was the target of its creation quit teaching intelligent design, and Christians don’t seem to use the arguments it was designed to refute, as often as they used to.

Ken

It created a straw argument that NEVER existed other than those believers that insisted that belief in God was/is based on blind faith.
Which is an insult to EVERY believer and every religious thinker that ever existed that based his/her faith on reason ( see Aquinas as the prime example).

I think you will be a bit surprised at how many Christians view belief in God as based on faith.

Ken

faith by grace

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:Probably the most overrated, overused, and tiring arguements that the new atheists use is the argument of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." First of all, the FSM is a concept that was invented in 2005. Ever since then, the FSM has become one of the most annoying fallacy used by the new atheists. Is anybody else annoyed by this?

The flying spaghetti monster was created as a parody to protest the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design in public schools. The claim was if intelligent design gets equal time as Evolution, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti monster should get equal time as well. It was also used to refute some of the claims Christians used to prove God.

As irritating as it may be, it appears to be somewhat effective in accomplishing what it was created to do because the School that was the target of its creation quit teaching intelligent design, and Christians don’t seem to use the arguments it was designed to refute, as often as they used to.

Ken

It created a straw argument that NEVER existed other than those believers that insisted that belief in God was/is based on blind faith.
Which is an insult to EVERY believer and every religious thinker that ever existed that based his/her faith on reason ( see Aquinas as the prime example).

I think you will be a bit surprised at how many Christians view belief in God as based on faith.

Ken

Indeed, I am sure that ALL view belief in God based on Faith, just not blind faith ( although I am sure some do).
The difference is that those that belief based on faith from reason KNOW why they believe and those that believe based on blind faith do NOT know WHY they believe other than that they do.
Is this is a generalization BUT, IMO, I think a fairly correct one.
I think that some people believe because they were brought up believing and don't really see a reason NOT to believe.
This is a TYPE of blind faith, it is a faith not based on evidence and reason but simply a faith based on "comfort and tradition".

One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

Its just a silly remark from ignorant atheists that have no clue what real belief and faith is.
It goes along with that whole silly "logical fallacy" of argument from authority.
We take on faith pretty much anything that we are told to by authority figures all the time.

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vinishu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vinishu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vinishu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

This tells me you've understood absolutely zero of our last conversation (whether or not you agree with it is besides the point).

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

That really isn't the same thing, though it MAY appear to be to skeptic.
There is a rational behind believing in God and unless there is a rational behind believing in unicorn or Vishnu or Thor then you can't compare them that way.

Of course it should be noted that the bible does accept the existences of other "gods" (such as Baal and so forth).
There are a few theories behind this and I tend to subscribe to the view that these other "gods" were simply either fallen angels passing themselves of as gods OR simply angels being mistaken for gods.

Once again, from reason alone, we can emphatically state that there can be one and only one timeless, immaterial, changeless, omnipotent first mover (or first cause).

The flying spagehetti monster is as nonsensical as God creating a rock he can't lift, or a married bachelor, or a 4-sided triangle. All can be dismissed as violations of the law of non-contradiction.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

That really isn't the same thing, though it MAY appear to be to skeptic.
There is a rational behind believing in God and unless there is a rational behind believing in unicorn or Vishnu or Thor then you can't compare them that way.

Of course there is a rational behind believing in God to the believer; I'm not talking about the believer, I'm talking about the unbeliever. To the unbeliever there probably isn't a rational behind the belief in God just as there isn't one behind unicorns, or Thor.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vinishu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vinishu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vinishu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

This tells me you've understood absolutely zero of our last conversation (whether or not you agree with it is besides the point).

Our last conversation was about what YOU think. This conversation is about what the unbeliever thinks. Big difference.

Ken

Kenny wrote: To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

I agree that the history behind one or the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever. Their ignorance of the history is evident when they make the comparison.
Even though I believe both Vishnu and unicorns to be false, I wouldn't make the charge against a Hindu that their belief in Vishnu is like belief in unicorns.

As an aside, I suspect that there really is/was an entity that identified itself as Vishnu to man at some point in time.

Kenny wrote:To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

There is actually zero historical documents or claims regarding Thor or Vishnu as historical figures. There is literally no evidence to even consider as strong or weak. To be clear, I'm now going to invent some "evidence" as follows:

"Vishnu existed in India many years ago."

HEY LOOK WE HAVE A DOCUMENT CLAIMING VISHNU EXISTED NOW THERE IS EVIDENCE!!1!

But, of course, that's not evidence at all, and if you want to claim it is, you'll only be showing how juvenile your thinking is on such matters. If someone holds to the historical existence for either character, they literally do so on blind faith. The same is not true regarding figures such as Jesus of Nazareth or even Moses. And still worse, even if you could show those figures actually existed, it wouldn't say anything about the viability of the FSM as a parody of theistic claims. The only people who use such an argument are ignorant of the fundamental facts. The existence of God is not merely established by the historical record. Now, it is certainly the case that the historical record furnishes us with evidence that considered objectively requires a belief in God to explain it in a coherent fashion (so consider the resurrection of Jesus as a historical matter). But even there the inference that God exists by looking at the historical evidence is a philosophical claim. So as Byblos has repeatedly noted, belief in God's existence is a philosophical matter and is absolutely demonstrated by reason alone. As such, idiotic comparisons to the FSM or unicorns, much less comparisons to claims re: Vishnu or Thor, only go to demonstrate the ignorance of the person actually making the claim. As was said above, such claims are not to be taken seriously, and frankly, I'll be charitable enough to assume that they aren't serious but, rather, are meant merely to troll, offend, and mock. Anyone stupid enough to think that the comparison is valid doesn't deserve the time it takes to compose a response. They are not to be taken seriously for the simple reason that they are taking neither themselves nor their subject matter seriously. And if YOU won't take yourself or your subject matter seriously, then why should I take your claims on that subject seriously for you?

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

There is actually zero historical documents or claims regarding Thor or Vishnu as historical figures. There is literally no evidence to even consider as strong or weak. To be clear, I'm now going to invent some "evidence" as follows:

"Vishnu existed in India many years ago."

Just as there are some Christians who see the Bible as a historical document, I am sure there are plenty of Hindu who see the Vedas as a historical document. Of course to the non-believer, neither of the books qualify thus they see no historical documents claiming God the Father existing, or any claims of Jesus being anything other than one of many religious leaders of ancient past.

Ken