thank you for proving me point
How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
well if that isn't friggin ironic
evolution is the numerical science which interpolates the discrete archeological finds of living creatures.
no matter how far two points can be, no matter how some points might screw the trend, evolution always has, and always can, adjust its interpolating function to include those points.
to cut to the chase and proof the pudding by tasting it, give me a scenario in which evolution would be false. falsify it for me.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. "Numerical science which interpolates the discrete archaeological finds of living creatures?" Want some dressing with that word salad? And you bring up irreducible complexity in your next post, a half-baked pseudoscientific theory which has been completely debunked, further demonstrating your ignorance of this topic. Even the ID community has moved on from irreducible complexity, so you're not even current in your silly claims.
Evolution is a fact. It has a century of data and testing to support it.
At least you got the last part right.
Whoops. Should have said intent. Sorry. Long days.
Fair enough, but I don't see how that changes much. Its original intent was to parody Intelligent Design.
But that's not how it's used now. ID doesn't need a parody of that kind anyway; the original intent is almost esoteric. It's better just to attack the numbers and concepts behind ID. The FSM is archaic, fallacious and unnecessary, and its usage has been (a little maliciously) extrapolated beyond its invention - and it is an invention. It's not a suitable comparison.
You're all over the place. We know it's an invention, and nobody said it isn't, and nobody's saying it's evidence against the existence of God. That's not the argument, that's simply how you and (other?) theists want to frame it.
The FSM is not archaic. Follow the link I provided earlier; it's from 2005.
The FSM argument is not fallacious. "Fallacious" means to embody a fallacy or intend to deceive; this argument does neither. As I've said three times now, it exists to demonstrate the absurdity of the Intelligent Design argument. There is nothing fallacious about the argument against ID, nor does the FSM deceive. It parodies an argument that has been debunked by science. There's nothing deceiving about that.
The FSM in not unnecessary. As I've already shown, the parody works best if the object used is an obvious invention, and given the seriousness of the situation--Intelligent Design being taught as a viable alternative to evolution--I would say a common-sense argument against this poisonous pseudoscience was sorely needed.
Stop knocking down straw men.
I think this reply covered all bases. Now lets just watch as all the theists ignore the fact that it answers their arguments as they push on with repeating themselves and bringing up further faulty backup arguments. Or maybe they'll bring out the personal insults now... Ooooh lets wait and see what will happen... (just need some popcorn).
Also, not everyone can argue against the numbers and claims of intelligent design. Laymen such as myself can cite studies, but in a lot of cases it requires some knowledge of physics to even spot the faulty arguments. Go watch any debate featuring William Lane Craig. He's a theologian, but uses pseudoscience in arguments against atheists. I've seen him lose the philosophical side of debates to the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, but both have had to shy away from the physics claims because they're not physicists.
Now go watch his debate with Dr. Laurence Krauss, one of the premier physicists in the country, and maybe the world. Krauss predictably destroys him, demonstrating the fundamental flaws in Craig's claims in a way that only a physicist or someone with an appreciable knowledge of physics could. It's easy enough to dismiss the physics claims as a physics layman, but it's almost impossible to debunk them. And none of this stuff gets out to the public, who needs something a little less heady. For that, the FSM is perfect, because it's just ID's arguments turned back on itself. Average people may not be able to wrap their heads around ideas of infinite universes, but they understand the sarcasm and the point of a chart demonstrating inverse correlation between the pirate population and global temperatures. And that's why the FSM is effective and so popular, and it's why theists and intellectually dishonest agnostics have to employ the straw man when presented with it (once they've abandoned their initial arguments that it doesn't work as parody, of course).
Now go watch his debate with Dr. Laurence Krauss, one of the premier physicists in the country, and maybe the world. Krauss predictably destroys him, demonstrating the fundamental flaws in Craig's claims in a way that only a physicist or someone with an appreciable knowledge of physics could. It's easy enough to dismiss the physics claims as a physics layman, but it's almost impossible to debunk them. And none of this stuff gets out to the public, who needs something a little less heady. For that, the FSM is perfect, because it's just ID's arguments turned back on itself. Average people may not be able to wrap their heads around ideas of infinite universes, but they understand the sarcasm and the point of a chart demonstrating inverse correlation between the pirate population and global temperatures. And that's why the FSM is effective and so popular, and it's why theists and intellectually dishonest agnostics have to employ the straw man when presented with it (once they've abandoned their initial arguments that it doesn't work as parody, of course).
The goal is that they (ID and the FSM) are both unfalsifiable.scifes said:
In this there is no fallacy of analogy.
This was why the author of the letter raised the concept of the FSM - as it is as (un)provable as ID.
And noone is arguing that bananas are sour.
Unfalsifiability IS the point of the comparison.
It is NOT pushing that God and the FSM is both made up... it is saying that ID and the FSM are unfalsifiable.
You are raising a strawman to try to apply the analogy where there is none to be made.
No, evolution as a process is a proven fact. It has been demonstrated in the lab.
What is still a theory, and unproven, is the way that the evolutionary process works over the longer timeframes than we are able to monitor.
Welcome to science - where theories are adjusted to include the observed data and rejected if they are unable to be adjusted. It is the part of the scientific method that improves theories, or rejects those that are shown to be inaccurate.
For you to criticise scientists for improving the theory of evolution to take into account new observations says more about your lack of understanding of science than anything else.
Sure: if the fossil records showed no variations over time; or if new animals demonstrably appeared out of nowhere - both of these would show evolution to be false.
Yes it is.
The FSM is the kin of the celestial teapot, just one that is described as a deity rather than a vessel for holding tea.
Whether you think something needs a parody or not is irrelevant to what the intention is.
Nope, it's quite a new concept. Nothing archaic about it.
Already argued how it is not fallacious unless you take it out of context or use it beyond its intent (which would be fallacious to do).
Who are you to say it is unnecessary? If it helps get a point across why is it unnecessary?
The usage of the FSM has remained the same.
What has been added is a parody religion.
And the purposes behind the FSM and the religion are different.
You are mixing and confusing the intents behind them.
But you keep harking back to the fact that FSM is an invention.
Well yes, the FSM IS an invention - it is admitted as such - at least that is how the concept has appeared to have arisen.
But it is unfalsifiable - and there is thus NO evidence that the FSM does not actually exist.
As said before, it could be that an actual FSM could be "working in mysterious ways" and thought this the best way to get knowledge of Himself into the open.
Are you able to show that God is not an invention?
I said that kind of a parody. Nuance.
It's an old concept and unrooted even as originally described. Let it die its peaceful death and let us move on.
I applaud your reiteration.
I am me. I say: unnecessary. Who are you to say it's necessary?
OK, then we have progress: the religion thereof is not a good contrast, and even the initial contrast is a poor one: if someone wanted to set up aliens or unicorns or something with some kind of reasonable traditional base but which is still absurd, that would be something.
Actually, it's falsified in that it's a knowing invention. That isn't in dispute.
No; but neither can the concept of God be falsified. And I am able to show that the FSM is definitively an invention. It's not a good comparison; it's intellectually cheap.
The nuance does not make it any more relevant.
The idea of putting up an unfalsifiable creation to argue against the teaching of another unfalsifiable concept... is an old concept??? Do feel free to show an example that might suggest it an archaic concept?
Okay - let me rephrase... on what grounds do you claim it is unnecessary, given that it makes a clear point against a position someone disliked (i.e. the teaching of ID on a par with evolution etc).
And the point is we're not discussing Pastafarianism, the same way that we're not discussing Christianity.
We're discussing the FSM and we're discussing God.
So while you think we have progress - any such progress is only along a strawman argument.
Then you are demonstrating that you have no idea what being falsifiable actually means in this regard: one does not falsify something by stating it an invention.
A car is an invention. Is it falsifiable as a concept?
Precisely! NOW we're making progress.
Whether God or the FSM are an invention is irrelevant with regard the issue of falsifiability!
It IS a good comparison (are both unfalsifiable? Oh, yes, they are!). The only difference is that, as far as we know, one can have their roots traced back to a conception by a single person.
Can you prove that God is not such a human invention?
You also still fail to address the issue that while we certainly conceived the FSM ourselves, this is not to say that the FSM might not actually exist... and merely planted His idea in our heads - to get the ball rolling, so to speak.
You want to dismiss the FSM, yet nothing you have argued so far suggests anything other than a lack of understanding on your part of what the concept of the FSM attempts, and achieves. And your dismissal is based on logically flawed arguments, an attempt to belittle the arguments based on irrelevancies.
??
How can it be possible to "discuss God" apart from theistic religion?
That would be like discussing, for example, the meaning and use of a particular Italian word, but under the condition that no Italian dictionary, no Italian grammar, no Italian text and no Italian speakers be consulted.
You know the answer to this. Religion is not the only arena in which gods exist. One can be a theist without subscribing to any particular faith or holding any particular dogma. One can believe in a god without even being a theist. Oh, wait, do you still not understand deism?
God as a concept can exist without any reference to a belief system. But again, you knew this already.
Wrong again.
The same way that one can discuss the nature of pasta without necessarily referencing the various and numerous sauces that might accompany it.
The same way that one can talk about the merits of a pop-singer without reference to their fans.
The same way that one can talk about the qualities of computer hard-drives, without reference to the details that people store on them.
I.e. there is a clear separation between the item in question and accompanying (and possibly contingent) concepts.
If God exists then He does so irrespective of the religions that follow Him.
If God does not exist then He does not irrespective of the religions that follow Him.
i.e. the religions themselves are irrelevant with regard the issue of whether God exists or not.
No it wouldn't.
The dictionary, grammar, text and speakers of the Italian language define and cause to exist the various words that are used.
God surely exists irrespective of religion.
Or do you think He exists only because people believe in Him? (That way Pratchett lies!)
Actually, it completely does. I even gave an example of a parody with a more nuanced critique-in-being. Human culture is rife with such examples. Do you just really, really like pasta?
Unicorns. Aliens. The Loch Ness monster. FSM was a bad contrast to begin with and it hasn't got any better.
I must apologize, however: it should be archaic - bad logic always should be, yet often isn't - but stick in the minds of some of my fellows like unsalted pasta on a steel pot.
See above. I note that your usage in this thread is a bit loose too - this is where the social problem lies.
I thought you said that the FSM was meant to critique ID based on its roots in deism, rather than the concept of a deity itself?
Sigh...not really.
I like it when these arguments veer off into the veiled personal shots. I like to wave at them as they go by.
Observation: the FSM was produced artificially and deliberately so.
So now we're on to concepts as such? I thought we were talking about reality; this was not the point of the contrast?
Ho ho! Oh no, they are not. The FSM is, from the get-go, false. The same cannot be said of God. The FSM falls, and God remains in the unknown. Before you get angry, stop and think for a second here: I can trace the FSM back to a single kid who was critiquing ID. I don't think unicorns exist either, but I can't trace that back to a deliberate invention (although I could certainly allude to a miscomprehension. God appears quantitatively unlikely, but the FSM is far more so - and it could be argued that it's categorically false in a binary kind of way.
And that, to maul Yeats, makes all the difference. It would be a world of difference: you're admitting, in effect, that the FSM is indeed false - as it clearly is, and was so intended from its debut - but that that tiny world of difference shouldn't matter in the parody of a being that might exist, but who is not admittedly farcical in the minds of its adherents. The strange thing is that I've given you some other, worthwhile examples that could be used in such a way - or in a vastly more effective way than the limp FSM - but you don't take note. Can you really not see the difference? Unless by "conception" you mean that Henderson was secretly the messiah for a genuine and earnest religion. There are stranger things in heaven, Horatio, but I think we can probably shit-can that idea at the least.
Actually, that would be rather the central point of the entire discussion on theism and Abrahamism, and so is a much bigger invention. If I could prove that God was not a human invention, all debate would be over. Neither can I prove God is not a human invention. Frankly, there's no way to tell. On the other hand, I can indeed prove that the FSM is a human invention; and so it's hour has come round at last, slouching towards the spaghetti factory to be canned, if you'll excuse the pun. You can take the tack below, but...come on. As a likelihood ratio, I'd scarcely know where to begin to value the enormous coefficient that would be generated from such a comparison.
Well, when the author of the FSM wants to admit in all seriousness that this was the case, be sure to post it.
But in all seriousness, if I could imagine a more unlikely route to godhood than extant theological legends, that would utterly be it. Hence, its dismissal. :shrug: Aliens. Leprechauns. Dryads. Lots of much better contrasts out there.
I think Wynn's point here was that if there is no pasta, it would be difficult to have any sauces to go with it. There's a tendency - which occurs in this thread, and not unexpectedly - to abandon the stated purpose of the FSM at first introduction and go the extra mile to discuss God, rather than addressing the issue of teaching nonsense. It was a bad choice at first introduction, for reasons I've outlined.
The question was:
How can it be possible to "discuss God" apart from theistic religion?
It makes sense that God can exist without religion.
But it doesn't make sense to talk about God without reference theistic religion.
The term "God" gets its meaning in theistic religion.
Outside of that discourse, it has whatever meaning anyone ascribes to it, but with such ascribing, we're in Humpty-Dumpty land where a word means whatever someone wants it to mean ...
You yet need to show that these analogies apply.
Yours are only partial. The complete ones would be, starting with the first one:
"The same way that one can discuss the nature of pasta without necessarily referencing the various and numerous sauces that might accompany it, without necessarily referencing the way the pasta is prepared, what it is made of, who prepared it and why."
No. Such separation does not clearly exist.
That there exists such separation is an idealization. (Except for Humpty-Dumpty perhaps.)
No. For all practical intents and purposes, the Italian language precedes Italian grammar books, dictionaries, texts and speakers.
And thank you for proving minethank you for proving me point
. BTW it's "my point" "me point" sounds a little retarded.