Oh That Flying Spaghetti Monster

[KevinDW78]

Here's another discussion in my philosophy class that I am finding amusing:

AMY:

You have knowledge that indeed this God may exist but you have no fact backing it up. You may say the Bible but you have no way of backing that up so it is lacking antecedent. Now I know I’m taking antecedent out of context but I believe it also applies to this question. Now I belief actually knowledge such as 2+2=4 is Concrete for the fact that we indeed have proof to back it up. So I believe that Belief can be different from Knowledge in the sense that in some cases it has no Concrete evidence unlike other cases. As for knowledge, its own antecedent has to be true and there has to be factual way of backing it up.

JASON:

Forgive me, but I respectfully disagree that 2 + 2 = 4 can be "proven" in the way you are implying. Modern scientific "proof" is based on inductive reasoning which is based upon empiricism which is based on sense perceptive observations about the natural, physical world . 2 + 2 = 4 is a rational concept - not a perceivable or empirical one. It is self-evident. It does not need to be proven, and at the same time it cannot be proven. Considering these "facts," it makes little sense to speak of "proving" that God exists. If the parameters of such "proof" lie solely within a naturalistic framework, then we would be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by asking such a question. Rather, the fact of God's existence, like 2 + 2 = 4, is a rational concept that is self-evident. It does not need to be proven, and at the same time it cannot be proven - at least not in an empirical fashion.

How then is is "self-evident," then? It is self-evident in this way: When I look at a building, I may have no idea who the builder/architect was, but it is quite apparent that there must have been one. Buildings don't design and build themselves. I cannot "prove" to you the existence of the builder in a way that you can empirically perceive the builder, but that is not necessary for you to have knowledge of the builder's existence. The existence of the building is absolute evidence of the existence of the builder.

To summarize, God cannot be empirically proven, but He doesn't need to be. He is self-evident. Creation seems to be pretty conclusive evidence of a Creator. Now granted, this generality does not tell us anything ABOUT God, but it does tells us one thing that I do not believe can be avoided: He exists.

ME:

By your reasoning, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is self-evident. Who is the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He is the intelligence responsible for your creation. I don't need to prove that you were created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster - it is self-evident. Now back to reality. I do not see how you your god’s existence is self-evident, especially since it is not self-evident to me. If something is self-evident, how can it be limited to just being evident to your self and not mine? What is evident to my self is what is currently known (and continuing to be discovered) about science and the nature of the universe. You are begging the question when you argue that The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s (sorry, your “god’s”) existence is self-evident because we exist. You assume that since we exist (and for no other reason) that therefore, god must exist. You also state that your god does not have to be empirically evident. Why? He exists doesn’t he? If he exists, shouldn’t he be able to be empirically measured somehow? You are not arguing that he is an abstract concept, so he must be part of reality. If he is a part of reality, shouldn’t he be physically measurable?

JASON:

First of all, the analogy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, something of which atheist Richard Dawkins is fond of speaking, is a bit silly. Do you know of anyone who actually believes in such a being? I understand that the rareness of belief in this being is not a good argument against its existence, but I try to remain in the realm of common sense as much as possible.

Secondly, and more seriously, the notion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is not self-evident because it says something specific regarding the "deity" to which it points. God's self-evidence says merely that He, a deity, exists - nothing more and nothing less. It says nothing about who He is, what He looks like, or what He is made out of - if anything. The notion of a flying spaghetti monster addresses all of those aspects of nature and more - without any warranted self-evidence.

Now, with regard to the presupposition that something should be physically measurable if it is to be a part of reality, I believe this kind of thinking is the result of a the fatally flawed worldview of naturalism. Naturalism assumes that all of reality is 1) physical and 2) measurable. Therefore, by its very definition, this worldview excludes God or anything that cannot be perceived with the senses. The problem with that is there are many truths in reality that cannot be perceived with the senses - mathematical and geometric equations for example. These are rational concepts and cannot be "measured" just as God cannot be measured. But just because they are 1) not physical and 2) cannot be measured - this does not in any way prove or imply that they are not "real."

Finally, if you are a fan of Richard Dawkins, you should read the review of "The God Delusion" by Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who is one of the most brilliant minds of our time. In this short (4,500 word) review, Plantinga illustrates the glaring and even embarassing weaknesses of Dawkins' pop-philosophy. If you get the opportunity to read it (you can google it and find it - or email me and I'll send you a link), I'd be interested in your take on it.

ME:

Mathematical and geometric equations do not constitute an "intelligence" - the concept of deity does. Also mathematical and geometric equations are abstractions of reality. The concept of deity is not an abstraction.

[eficazpensador]

How then is is "self-evident," then? It is self-evident in this way: When I look at a building, I may have no idea who the builder/architect was, but it is quite apparent that there must have been one. Buildings don't design and build themselves. I cannot "prove" to you the existence of the builder in a way that you can empirically perceive the builder, but that is not necessary for you to have knowledge of the builder's existence. The existence of the building is absolute evidence of the existence of the builder.

This is a pretty crappy argument in my opinion. Our existence does not prove that there was something that created us. If his argument is brought to its logical end, you can see that it is silly. If God exists, something must have created him. So was there another God before him? You can go on and on but at some point you have to take somethings existence as a given. The universe has always existed and always will exist. You can't say the same for God, because you have no evidence that he has ever existed!

[KevinDW78]

That was my thought exactly. If he continues to press the issue, that will be my next point.

[FeatherFall]

The building-builder-creator leap of faith is an example of the fallacy of composition.

[Nyronus]

I might have something here she can play with;

The Argument from Design holds that since humans and life are so complex, they must have been designed. The implicit assumption is that an effect must be less than or equal to in complexity to its cause. Otherwise, what is to stop primitive non-complex amino acids from developing into complex humans?

Let us establish several rules. All effects must have a cause. This can be derived from the first law of thermodynamics, in which the total energy of the universe remains constant. Since energy, and therefore mass, can not simply come into being, all things have a cause. Nothing can be created out of nothing. To establish a formula:

E(X) -MH- C(X) (E(X) = Effect #X, -MH- = Must Have, C = Cause #X)

A second rule, all causes must have an effect. The second law of thermodynamics holds that energy is lost from a system and into the environment. So no system, even those existing in a vacuum, are perfectly self contained, and thus can and will eventually effect other objects So then;

C(X) -MH- E(X)

Now, going from this, since all causes have an effect, and an effect will eventually cause something else, we have established a chain of causality;

E(X) = C(X+1)

Ergo;

C(X) -MH- C(X+1)

Now, when we apply the Creationist assumption to the equation, we learn that the most recent cause in the chain must be of equivalent or less complexity than the previous cause. Therefore, in terms of complexity;

C(X) > C(X+1)

Now, since matter and energy can never be destroyed, it can be assumed that the cosmological universe (e.g.a. the cloud of energy and matter that was once the Big Bang singularity) (which is finite) has a finite amount of energy and matter. Therefore, eventually, we shall reach a point in the chain in which the reactions involve all matter and energy in the cosmological universe. This event shall be labeled C(0);

C(0) = M (M = Maximum Complexity)

Ah, but all Causes are equivalent to a previous effect, therefore;

C(-1) -MH- C(0)

And, since C(0) is at maximum complexity,

C(-1) = M

and since M is Maximum Complexity, and nothing can be more complex than its cause;

C(-X) = M

Now, since mass and energy can never be destroyed (1st Law), and all matter-energy systems interact with their environment (2nd Law), it can be concluded that the cosmological universe has always been operating at M

C(X) = M

Now, if the universe has been always operating at the current level of complexity, than we can conclude, based on the logic inherent in the Argument from Design, that the universe has always existed, in some form, as complex as always. Now, this either means that A) Since the universe has always been this complex, there is no creator God, or That the logical assumption of the Argument from Design is a false one, thus removing the need for a creator God.

-----

Now, I think the logic towards the end is a little less solid than the logic at the beginning, but the point is clear. This is essentially a formal proof for what I call the Dawkin's Argument (Who made God?). If there are any errors, I'd like to know.

[KevinDW78]

Except theists don't believe deity is bound by the laws of science or thermodynamics.

[eficazpensador]

Except theists don't believe deity is bound by the laws of science or thermodynamics.

Which brings you to the hardest question of all. How does one argue with people who don't accept reason?

[Benpercent]

Which brings you to the hardest question of all. How does one argue with people who don't accept reason?

The question and answer are actually easy: You don't. Since reason is the only way to rationally communicate, those who deny it are absolutely on their own until they figure it out for themselves, as denying reason leads to the exclusion of all the logic in the world. Nothing can be said to them.

[KevinDW78]

Except, this isn't just some schmuck at a dinner party - this is a college level philosophy course. The entire point of which is to learn to to make proper arguments with sound premises and valid conclusions.

I am going to conceed your point though. I have a bump on my head. Here my my final and his fina response:

ME:

In that case, allow me to point out an additional flaw in your reasoning. If you want to accept that because we exist, some intelligence must have created us, then you trap yourself into also having to accept that if deity exists, some intelligence must have created deity because your acceptance of the first implies that nothing can simply exist – everything must be created by another. So since I have established that, we can also establish that deity’s creator must have also had a creator, because deity’s creator cannot simply exist, it must have been created. So deity’s creator’s creator must also have a creator, ad infinitum. Eventually, you must accept the something can simply exist. And, once you must accept that, you must also accept that there is no reason the universe itself can’t simply exist.

JASON:

Wrong. The proposition "everything must be created by another," while correct, is part of the reality God created - a reality that includes not only this "law," but also other laws of logic, physics, and reason. However, since God created this reality, He is therefore not subject to the rules He created to govern that reality. Look at it like this: Draw a box, and inside the box exists everything physical and material. God created this box (the parameters) as well as its content (logic, reason, material, etc.). Furthermore, He exists outside of that box. Now, the weak logic and reasoning is not represented in my arguments, but in the ones contained in your last response. Here's why: It makes little sense to believe that the Creator of rules and reality, a Creator that exists outside that reality and its parameters, would be subject to those same parameters. And with regard to your suggestion that this same line of reasoning could also apply to universe's self-existence, that's a problem as well. Why? Because the universe is physical. It is part of the box. Therefore, my argument above could not be legitimately applied to the universe in the same way it could be applies to a transcendent God who is not part of the box and exists outside of it. The universe can be sensibly and normatively perceived, but God cannot - not in the same way the universe can. Therefore to say this argument, one that applies to a non-perceivable Deity, can also be applied to a perceivable physical world, is fundamentally flawed.

The argument that "if God is a creator, then HE must have had a creator" is, unfortunately, a weak and worn-out argument one that has been answered simply and accurately as I have just demonstrated. If you'd like to read a better and more thoughtful presentation of the argument than I just presented, I would suggest you pick up a copy of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." Lewis, a profound thinker and clear communicator, will do a much better job than I in responding to your objections.

Edited June 1, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Zip]

The question and answer are actually easy: You don't. Since reason is the only way to rationally communicate, those who deny it are absolutely on their own until they figure it out for themselves, as denying reason leads to the exclusion of all the logic in the world. Nothing can be said to them.

If you don't then you can never influence anyone, even a rational skeptic, that this persons views are garbage. Avoiding this argument leads to the acceptance of the exclusion of logic. The true unbelievers aren't the ones you are really talking to.

[Benpercent]

The true unbelievers aren't the ones you are really talking to.

I know. I just meant if it is the case one of talking to someone is really does deny reason, then communication is near impossible. However, in this college course, it is questionable as to how seriously these students are taking these ideas. It is when they have been carrying around these bad ideas for decades that the damage *really* sets in.

The people that really deserve to be ignored are those with an anti-conceptual faculty. Their inability and unwillingness to understand (although they may deny it and keep saying "come on explain it to me!") will lead to nothing but the greatest frustrations. My grandmother, for instance, does not have Alzheimer's, but she's constantly asking for the same information over and over again, as to what episode of this is on or what I plan on doing for the day. Such repeated questions saps the will to talk to them, knowing that they have no intent to remember even though they are capable to doing so.

[KevinDW78]

One thing I will say about this episode - Becaue he brought it up and exposed me to it, I am now going to go buy and read (and likely love) Richard Dawkins The God Dillusion lol.

...Blah, nevermind, I done a search on this forum about Dawkins and his book.

Edited June 1, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Nyronus]

Except, this isn't just some schmuck at a dinner party - this is a college level philosophy course. The entire point of which is to learn to to make proper arguments with sound premises and valid conclusions.

I am going to conceed your point though. I have a bump on my head. Here my my final and his fina response:

If they're really going to be so stupid as to pull the transcendent god line, stick it to them. Fine, an extra-physical being made the universe. The problem with this idea is that the god they love to say exists beyond reality has a nasty habit of messing with it. If God can interact with reality, then he is subject to its laws. If he wasn't, then we would have some really nasty fucking space-time distortions every time God answered a prayer. Because the universe operates under formulaic laws, that which enters it must either be governed by those laws, or simply not be.

Argue against the transcendent god from the axioms. If they insist on God's transcendence still, then they are committing something I like to call the "A Wizard Did It" Fallacy. Essentially, they have accepted without reason a premise so powerful that it is not only self-justifying but above the rules of logic. Imagine an omnimax wizard who can break reality at a whim. Or a God that can. once you accept this God or Wizard, it becomes impossible to argue against him, because the Wizard is so powerful he justifies not only himself but every single argument against him. Its all part of his ineffable plan you see...

If they still insist on such anti-logic arguments, I say fight fire with fire. Declare yourself God and use their bad logic against them. They can't disprove that your not God (you can't affirm a negative), plus, since your so powerful, every argument against you is really a subtle part of your ineffable plan which they, as mortals, cannot understand.

Humiliate them.

[KevinDW78]

lol that's a good idea. Unfortunately in this online course, the professor locks a topic when he get's bored with it, so they only last a few days each. This particular discussion was locked last night. I would continue fighting him but only if I can expose his nosense publicly to discourage any other theists in the class.

[FeatherFall]

Kevin, I still think you should have addressed the fallacy of composition. The point you were trying to make was that not everything has to be created. While it is necessary to assume a creator for a building or a computer, assuming a creator for existence as a whole is misidentifying a property of a part (the building) to true for the whole (existence/the universe).

Pointing out the contradiction of a deity outside of the universe that simultaneously causes miracles only works to thwart the assumption of an interested god. The argument bears no weight against the Deist position (which I often see Christians falling back on while ignoring the fact that they believe in miracles). To address that position you need to make sure that you identify terms like existence and universe.

You were acting on the assumption that existence and the universe are synonyms - which is correct. Your opponent was acting on some crazy dichotomy that holds ALL of existence to include God, with the universe being a compartmentalized subset. I think it would have been worth saying that you don't see a dichotomy. I don't think addressing the problem of infinite regression is useful until you've explicitly stated that there is no dichotomy.

[eficazpensador]

Kevin, I still think you should have addressed the fallacy of composition. The point you were trying to make was that not everything has to be created. While it is necessary to assume a creator for a building or a computer, assuming a creator for existence as a whole is misidentifying a property of a part (the building) to true for the whole (existence/the universe).

Right. I think now this would have been the right argument to make. A building must have had a creator only because you know it couldn't have existed without one. The universe is not subject to the same idea.

[Devils_Advocate]

I just wanted to add that that made me laugh. "2+2=4 is a rational concept that cannot be proven, but is self evident, so so is God." And to cap it off, "By your logic, the flying spaghetti monster is self evident." LOL!!!

I know I didn't sum it up quite right, but you get the point.

BTW

The question and answer are actually easy: You don't. Since reason is the only way to rationally communicate, those who deny it are absolutely on their own until they figure it out for themselves, as denying reason leads to the exclusion of all the logic in the world. Nothing can be said to them.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Last year, I had made the remark that "you can give me a rational explanation for God's existence or non-existance, I still will accept him based on blind faith". Hard to believe that I said that, but that's the sad truth.

But you can argue with people like those/old me - but it's really only art that can do it. Ayn Rand 'communicated' with me (well, sort of - through her books) and changed my mind, but only because Atlas Shrugged was a piece of art. Had it been a non-fiction analysis of modern society, I would have found it interesting but not really worth taking into account. Art can have a tremendous impact on people like that.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Am I to understand you "lost" Jeezus thanks to Ayn Rand?