I'm no longer interested in this discussion. I thought it had some potential, but it is quickly turning into something mundane, banal, commonplace, ho hum, and altogether uninteresting.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy

Ha, that's funny. That poor excuse of an argument could be used for practically anything, so it falls flat on it's face.

It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence.

Now what that argues is that — there is more to comprehensive reality than what meets the eye. — SethRy

And all it does is make the proponent of the argument look like they haven't thought things through reasonably.

Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster — Devans99

Blessed be His divine Noodly Appendages. Ramen.

(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance. — Noah Te Stroete

Argument from incredulity.

Perhaps you find this arguement compelling. — Noah Te Stroete

No, I don't find fallacious arguments compelling.

There is quite a theory to it:

"The central creation myth is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". According to these beliefs, the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth. Furthermore, according to Pastafarianism, all evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in an effort to test the faith of Pastafarians—parodying certain biblical literalists. When scientific measurements such as radiocarbon dating are taken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Creation

You cannot expect people to know things they don’t know, or even be willing to learn about what they don’t know - to them it is a ‘spectral’ entity unworthy of attention ;)

Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster. — Devans99

Does it come with meatballs? I'll take one of them. :ok:

One of the two holy texts should say: 'The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster' or the 'The Loose Canon'.

If Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster exists then I would personally class him as God.

The existence of Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally likely as any other arbitrary description of God. You could even say it is more likely that some of conventional religions far fetched claims.

So Jesus is a 'portion' of God rather than the whole of God. So Jesus is not a faithful copy of God - the part is not equal to the whole. By creating Jesus, God has subdivided himself, rather than created a copy of himself. — Devans99

Jesus is a portion in a way that he is separated by the label 'God the Son', and likewise God is 'God the Father', his human emanate differs from an impeccable God, like Jesus atoning to sin. The creation of Jesus does not require division, for infinity cannot be divided (At least I think so).

If Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster exists then I would personally class him as God. — Devans99

I would classify it as dinner.

∞ / 2 = ∞

...according to conventional transfinite arithmetic (which is wrong IMO). But the conventional math would suggest if Jesus was a part of God, then Jesus is infinite too. The question then arises how did an infinite Jesus then fit in a finite sized human body?

Maybe you can see why I don't buy infinity... too many contradictions.

Ha, that's funny. That poor excuse of an argument could be used for practically anything, so it falls flat on it's face. — S

Yes, well, no. Anselm's argument, that causes isolation between theists, forms the foundation of necessary and contingent beings. Somethings apply to necessity, and some to contingency, so the argument as you label 'excuse', is not much practically for anything.

It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence. — S

You and I know that, that is only satire to taint theism, so even your own mind would concede total faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with meatballs - so I would not think it applies to evidence from belief. Moreover, the history of the made deity can be traced back to our contemporary society, christian theism falls exponentially further than that.

Theism being looked upon as a fallacy, and treated with no respect is just egocentric and elitist.

The question then arises how did an infinite Jesus then fit in a finite sized human body? — Devans99

Because Jesus was not infinite, with his death being the evidence. Jesus as an emanate of God in human form, will consist of humanly, inevitable flaws like anger and sin. But Jesus as human, with the holy spirit dwelling inside him, will also have a portion of Divine Authority - thus having abilities of banishing evil, with an example as it follows;

Matthew 8:28-34 - "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?' Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, 'If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.' He said to them, 'Go!' So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region."

Edit: His portion of Divine Authority is also reinforced with the capability to permit miracles, forgive sin, and apply healing.

Because Jesus was not infinite, with his death being the evidence. Jesus as an emanate of God in human form, will consist of humanly, inevitable flaws like anger and sin. But Jesus as human, with the holy spirit dwelling inside him, will also have a portion of Divine Authority - thus having abilities of banishing evil, with an example as it follows; — SethRy

So Jesus is not infinite and Jesus was a part of God. That means God cannot be infinite (because ∞ / 2 = ∞; IE any division of infinity is itself infinity). That or the whole concept of infinity is wrong (2nd IMO).

My last post relies on a strict definition of division. It should actually be possible to take a finite part of an infinite whole... sorry.

So Jesus is not infinite and Jesus is a part of God. That means God cannot be infinite (because ∞ / 2 = ∞; IE any division of infinity is itself infinity). That or the whole concept of infinity is wrong. — Devans99

Infinity in real life I would not think applies to Mathematical concept. Infinity metaphysically would include infinite resources and infinite time, from those resources and time, substances and amount can be taken off that, hence Jesus is a portion. The earth is a portion. We can even get complicated - the universe, of which is infinite, is a portion, but an ever-growing portion.

Although I do understand, that infinite concept mathematically is questionable, given that if infinity can be added, can it also be constantly subtracted? However, in a metaphysical sense, resources are concrete - thus provided material, like Jesus and the universe, are portions.

The defective in this is I am begging the question, I presuppose the universe is infinite. To add, there is also too many presuppositions. But my point is, infinity in mathematics is distinct from metaphysical infinity. Provided that what we know of God is approximate, he is undefinable essentially. God I would say, also has accidental attributes, like he created the universe.

My last post relies on a strict definition of division. It should actually be possible to take a finite part of an infinite whole... sorry. — Devans99

All good :grin: :up:

I am looking forward to seeing defectives in what I argue for.

The defective in this is I am begging the question, I presuppose the universe is infinite. To add, there is also too many presuppositions. But my point is, infinity in mathematics is distinct from metaphysical infinity. Provided that what we know of God is approximate, he is undefinable essentially. God I would say, also has accidental attributes, like he created the universe — SethRy

God created the universe. It is impossible to create anything infinite (because you would never finish doing so) so the universe must be finite.

So infinity is not present in the universe (there is a similar argument - you can't create anything infinity small either - you would never finish 'chopping' it up).

I think 'metaphysical infinity' is the concept of something non-material (like the natural numbers) that goes on for ever. So infinity is a concept that applies to the non-material only. It occurs (as far as we are aware) only in our minds.

If God is somehow non-material then possibly he could have some form of 'metaphysical infinity' but it seems unlikely; it seems counter to common sense.

God created the universe. It is impossible to create anything infinite (because you would never finish doing so) so the universe must be finite. — Devans99

Creation for God, who has infinite resources and time to his disposal, doesn't have to be 'I add this, on top of that this, and this'. The universe can be in a form of infinity with its origins being created collectively; 'You are infinite'. Infinity would not have a degree of size either, so not only would you not finish creating it, you would also not finish destroying it.

Aquinas, a christian and an Aristotelian, proposed that the universe had a definitive origin, but God have made it in someway that it is infinite.

If God is somehow non-material then possibly he could have some form of 'metaphysical infinity' but it seems unlikely; it seems counter to common sense. — Devans99

The presupposition that the universe is created, includes the supposition that God does exists. His ability to have created a physical world, justifies his constant ability to intertwine with contingent existences. If he is non-material and pure mind, that does not imply he cannot create infinite metaphysical resources.

As the OP suggests, there is no unambiguous evidence that any gods exist...and no unambiguous evidence that there are no gods.

Some people guess there is a GOD; some that there are gods; some that there are no gods.

Nobody should be asked for proof. I never do. There is none. If people want to guess for one reason or another...let 'em.

HOWEVER, if a person makes an assertion in a philosophical discussion...that person incurs the burden of proof for that assertion. So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof.

The Big Bang looks like empirical evidence for an unnatural first cause: — Devans99

It looks like that to you because of confirmation bias.

So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof. — Frank Apisa

The burden of proof applies only to when someone makes a claim. You cannot add burden of proof to "there are no gods" since it would require there to a viable theory with some evidence of there being gods in the first place. This is the point of Russel's teapot. Start at the beginning, the claim is "there is a god", burden of proof starts there, everything else is a follow-up. Otherwise, you can claim there is a teapot in space and claim that because of burden of proof, no one can prove that there is no teapot in space. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, if proof is then provided, the burden of proof shifts over to the one claiming against what has been established as proven. Einsteins theories were under burden of proof, then got proved. Anyone who claims against those theories now has to prove against them and burden of proof is applied to their claims.

To apply burden of proof to both claiming "there is a god" AND "there are no gods" is ignoring Russel's logic for how burden of proof works. Prove there is a god or gods first, that's the initial claim that burden of proof applies to.

Yes, well, no. Anselm's argument... — SethRy

Why have you changed the topic from Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you, to Anselm's argument?

You and I know that, that is only satire to taint theism, so even your own mind would concede total faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with meatballs - so I would not think it applies to evidence from belief. Moreover, the history of the made deity can be traced back to our contemporary society, christian theism falls exponentially further than that.

Theism being looked upon as a fallacy, and treated with no respect is just egocentric and elitist. — SethRy

All I see is waffle, instead of a recognition that the reasoning fails because it can be applied in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and innumerable other inventions which you dismiss as ridiculous or some sort of insult, even though you can't do that and still claim to be reasonable, because that is special pleading, and special pleading is a fallacy. You must justify your exception.

So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof. — Frank Apisa

The burden of proof applies only to when someone makes a claim. — Christoffer

If one makes the assertion (claim) "There are no gods"...

...the burden of proof accrues.

The claim "there are no gods" is an unfalsifiable claim upon an unfalsifiable idea. The claim "there is a god" or "there are gods" must first be made before someone can claim "there are no gods". A child born in isolation and who knows nothing of religion will not claim "there are no gods". Burden of proof applies to the initial claim. By saying that burden of proof applies to "there are no gods", you are ignoring Russel's whole logic, simple as that. Read Russel.

Atheists generally make the same mistake as the classic empiricist, they are intellectially comitted to the law of contradiction, to the point that they become inured and lost in understanding and reflection.

Asking for evidence is basically asking for the justification for belief, where it's hoped that theists have some justification for belief. Evidence can be logical, heuristic, etc.

(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals. — Noah Te Stroete

I really don't understand when people use "likely" that way. Likely based on what? It seems like it's just shorthand for "based on my intuitive preconceptions . . . "

Atheists generally make the same mistake as the classic empiricist, they become intellectially comitted to the law of contradiction, and get inured and lost in the sphere
of understanding and reflection. — Merkwurdichliebe

That sounds more like an oversimplification of atheism. Generally, the ideal is to commit to that which can be proven or logically and rationally reasoned. Anything else is a belief, and belief can lead to a corruption of knowledge. Just because someone is an atheist, doesn't mean they can't use metaphors, stories, symbolism etc. to form ideas and understand new perspectives. I would argue that it's more impossible to be high in "openness to experience" on the big-5 if you have a strong unsupported belief, as that ideal generally dismiss any new perspective in favor of that belief or influenced by it. To narrow the perspective of atheists through viewing them as only able to think in binary terms; is a radical simplification of atheism.