How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

[wynn]

this monster is made out of sentient semolina?

i think it is likely we will evolve to be godlike in nature
semolina on the other hand is problematic

Excellent points.

[river]

Excellent points.

why ?

[wynn]

It sounds like you have no idea what the concept of falsifiability is.

Oh, I very much do. But I also know a thing or two about human nature and how science is actually done in practice.

Falsifiability is when you say "Here's my theory. And if you can show that X happens, then my theory must be wrong."

On principle, yes.

IF you can show that chlorine and sodium combine to form water, then the theory that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms is wrong.

IF you find a fossilised rabbit in precambrian rock strata, then the theory of evolution is wrong.

IF you find something that falls upwards when you drop it in a vacuum, then the theory of gravity is wrong.

and so on.

And there is usually a way to contextualize such findings in a way that doesn't threaten your theory.

It's not problematic. The FSM is unfalsifiable, just like your favorite god.

You really need to stop assuming you know who my "favorite god" is.

What experiment or observation would prove beyond doubt that the FSM doesn't exist?

In that case, I would first ask why would we need to prove such a thing one way or another?

ID is falsifiable. In fact, every purported example of ID has been falsified. Falsifiability is not the problem for ID; the problem is that it's just wrong.

That depends entirely on your goals and values.

They do preach that you need to have faith in God rather than asking for evidence. And if you ask them what would convince them that God doesn't exist, what is their reply? What is your reply?

I don't preach that, so I don't have such problems.

I'd venture that most atheists were religious at one point in their lives. Moreover, they tend to have a better understanding of religion that most believers, who learn not to ask uncomfortable questions but instead to have faith.

That's your projection that this is what they do.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism.


Also, some atheists do manifest a strong unwillingness to ask uncomfortable questions - especially when those questions are about their own intentions, their goals in discussing the topic of "God". This can be seen here at the forums often enough.

[wynn]

why ?

Gustav succintly pointed out some aspects of why the FSM analogy is inadequate.

Humans do strive for God-like qualities (not angry-Christian-God-like) - and the FSM characteristically omits that, while traditional theistic religions focus on them.

Beauty, fame, power, wisdom, riches and being above-the-fray are core qualities ascribed to God in traditional theistic religions, they are also qualities that humans find extremely attractive.

The FSM has none of them.



(And I hope you all know that pasta is usually made out of semolina, not ordinary flour.)

[river]

“ I'd venture that most atheists were religious at one point in their lives. Moreover, they tend to have a better understanding of religion that most believers, who learn not to ask uncomfortable questions but instead to have faith. ”

That's your projection that this is what they do.

so have you questioned ?

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism.

especially to the religious

Also, some atheists do manifest a strong unwillingness to ask uncomfortable questions - especially when those questions are about their own intentions, their goals in discussing the topic of "God". This can be seen here at the forums often enough.

I am an atheist

my tough question to is , do you or have you explored the History of OUR Ancient past ?

[wynn]

The problem, as I've been trying to relate to you for some time now, is that no one really knows whether God is unreal or real.

I don't think one can rationally assert that - it is an untestable assertion.


I am more interested in investigating why people fight over whether someone knows the truth about God or not. Also, in why some say that "nobody knows the truth about God" and similar untestabel assertions.

[wynn]

so have you questioned ?

Do you think I am a theist?

If yes, why do you think so?

my tough question to is , do you or have you explored the History of OUR Ancient past ?

Whom do you mean by "our"?

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
so have you questioned ? ”

Do you think I am a theist?

don't know really

If yes, why do you think so?

above



have you questioned ?

[river]

I don't think one can rationally assert that - it is an untestable assertion.

I am more interested in investigating why people fight over whether someone knows the truth about God or not. Also, in why some say that "nobody knows the truth about God" and similar untestabel assertions.

well I know the truth about god

[wynn]

Sure. But the issue is merely one of falsifiability - i.e. If the chair is not in the room, is it possible to demonstrate that the chair is not in the room?
If you think the answer is yes, then the claim is falsifiable.
If you think the answer is no, then the claim is unfalsifiable.

You're arguing from a truism. That doesn't prove anything.

How so? What can falsify God? I.e. if God does not exist, what observation would prove it?

Why would one have to prove or disprove God?

2. Whether those observations are actually accepted or not is a matter of practical interpretation, and whether one follows good scientific practice or not.

And this is what makes all the difference.

But it does not alter whether the theory is in principle falsifiable or not.

Practice trumps principle 100%.

No. The Christians failed because they overstepped their competencies.

Can you elaborate?

As we are already discussing - they were trying to override the separation of State and religion.

On a more subtle note - they also attempted to take upon themselves the whole responsibility for inclining people toward God, ie. they left God out.
They didn't trust that if God wants people to believe in Him, He will see to it that they will. Instead, they presented belief in God as a unilateral effort on the part of humans.
Christianity has gone through schisms over this issue of how it is that a person comes to believe in God, so even for Christians, the matter is far from settled. So it's no wonder they can't present a unified front to secular society, and thus also can't achieve much.

Not really. Either they see God as falsifiable or not. If not then to continue to believe in God must mean they are willing to overlook that aspect.

Projection ...
You are talking about what you would do if you were in their position.

Unless you wish to claim you can read minds?

Possibly. But the issue remains whether one acknowledges it or not. Ignorance of an issue might make one happy, but it doesn't mean the issue is not there.

As above.

Then feel free to point that out when discussing with them, and to correct their view.

Have been doing that all along.

If it lies outside the scope of testing (as I inferred from your statement) then this makes it unfalsifiable almost by definition.
So to say "God is not meant to be tested" is to reinforce the very idea of unfalsifiability.

No, that's just all you seem to see in this situation.

If you meant "God is not meant to be tested - but one can still test God if you wish" then I'd like to know how one can test God?

That's not what I meant.


Can you tell us why you seek certainty on the topic of "God"?
What do you hope to achieve by having such certainty one way or another?

[wynn]

have you questioned ?

Sure.

well I know the truth about god

And this is supposed to scare me off or something?

[river]

[QUOTE=wynn;2935912]

Sure.

And this is supposed to scare me off or something?

no

but you know were I coming from

now prove me wrong

[wynn]

but you know were I coming from

now prove me wrong

I've no desire to do so.

[wynn]

And yet he could have ACCIDENTALLY created a satire that conforms to some truth.

We just don't know and have no way of knowing.

Ah, all that certainty about uncertainty ... makes the whole thing suspicious.

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
but you know were I coming from

now prove me wrong

I've no desire to do so.

as I thought

what we have here is simply no desire to understand or have knowledge of our , our , meaning , Human past , Ancient past

so many pass it off as , inconsequential

it is so far from the truth , its troublesome

because of the lack of knowledge , of the Ancients , the bible dictates our thinking upon religion , and religion will be our down fall

[wynn]

Have you ever heard that one ought to choose one's battles wisely?

[river]

Have you ever heard that one ought to choose one's battles wisely?

yes

so are you saying I should back off ?

[river]

wynn

whatever

continue this empty discussion

I'm gone from this thread

[Sarkus]

You're arguing from a truism. That doesn't prove anything.

I'm not proving anything - I'm highlighting what it means to be falsifiable. Some people do not understand.

Why would one have to prove or disprove God?

Because some people do not place belief/trust/faith in that which has no proof, or at least no possibility of proof.

And this is what makes all the difference.

Not with regards what is falsifiable or not - only with regard whether one is scientific or not.

Practice trumps principle 100%.

Sure - when discussing practical things. But when regarding the pure conceptualisation of a concept, and whether it is falsifiable or not... there is no practice... just principle.

As we are already discussing - they were trying to override the separation of State and religion.

They were, that is true.

On a more subtle note - they also attempted to take upon themselves the whole responsibility for inclining people toward God, ie. they left God out.
They didn't trust that if God wants people to believe in Him, He will see to it that they will. Instead, they presented belief in God as a unilateral effort on the part of humans.
Christianity has gone through schisms over this issue of how it is that a person comes to believe in God, so even for Christians, the matter is far from settled. So it's no wonder they can't present a unified front to secular society, and thus also can't achieve much.

Perhaps, although some sects make it their mission to convert, and feel it is what God wants, so far from taking on the whole responsibility - they feel it has been delegated to them.

Projection ...
You are talking about what you would do if you were in their position.

Sure it is projection, but I would (obviously) consider it a reasonable one. If you wish to offer something different, or feel there is some deficiency in the analysis, please do state. Just to point out that it is a projection, while highlighting the limitation/weakness such that it not be accepted as fact, would be better served constructively.

No, that's just all you seem to see in this situation.
...
That's not what I meant.

Then please do clarify what you meant. If one merely responds with a "you're wrong", it clearly is not as helpful as "you're wrong, and this is why and this is the answer," etc.

Can you tell us why you seek certainty on the topic of "God"?
What do you hope to achieve by having such certainty one way or another?

I'm not sure I do seek certainty. It would be nice to know one way or other, sure, especially given the influence that believers have on my life - directly and indirectly (my family all believe, politicians are led by their beliefs etc). It always good to know whether one is right or wrong.
But I do not seek certainty where I know none can be found. Such would be a futile endeavour.
I merely seek consistency and critical thought on the matter.

[Gustav]

Humans do strive for God-like qualities

it is not so much striving but natural consequences
in x# of years, we might be able to big bang a universe into existence and seed it with life

what god is supposed to have done is not entirely implausible. barring some attributes that are conceptually illogical (?), we could very well evolve to be gods of something somewhere at sometime.

still tho, i suppose sentience might evolve from a semolina sludge given enough time. perhaps a fortuitous mutation might even give rise to an opposable thumb

garcon!
prepare for war