Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

Maybe the FSM is just a money spinner for our Guru Bobby spaghetti man Henderson, check out FSM store of goodies for sale. He does claim ten million followers and if they all brought the shirt then he is now worth a lot of spaghetti.

http://www.venganza.org/fsm-store/

peace

Eric

 

[جوري]

Got to love America.. what ever it is, you can sell it :lol: FSM Ipod, Laptop, and IPhone covers :haha: this totally beats some of the gonzo items they sell on ebay..
thanks for the link

peace!

 

[ranma1/2]

....Secondly, your question doesn't make sense, because matter can not be created or destroyed. Matter has always existed. It's like you're asking me "how did God come to be"?

gonna call ya on that. matter can be destroyed. (unless your refering to energy)

as i recall a lot of different kinds of elements were created during the bigbang and others are created (or formed would be more accurate) with fusion.

 

[snakelegs]

Got to love America.. what ever it is, you can sell it :lol: FSM Ipod, Laptop, and IPhone covers :haha: this totally beats some of the gonzo items they sell on ebay..
thanks for the link

peace!

soooo true. even t-shirts with the suicide note of a drug addicted rock star!

 

[Muezzin]

I'm saying that's a bad thing.

Okay.

To be frank, I don't believe you. I think you'd think I was a severely disturbed individual.

I'm probably just weird. If you had the whole get-up and accent and everything... on a surface level, that is just hilarious.

More troubling, let's say that my faith that I am Napolean means that I also believe everyone should now submit to my own Napoleanic Code of laws, since I conquered them two centuries ago. What would you say to me then? "You'd be great at parties"?

Then you'd be hurting people and I wouldn't approve of your activities.

However, I wouldn't disapprove of the very idea of people impersonating Napoleon. I'd only disapprove of those particular people who harm others in the pursuit of their belief.

But that's the problem. Many people with faith are actively trying to harm people, based only on their faith.

And many more people with faith are not harming others.

To me, arguing points such as 'all religions should be banned' is the same as saying 'all knives should be banned'. Sweeping statements like the latter would make slicing bread a little difficult... My point being, just because something has been abused by people, it doesn't mean that thing itself should be banned or otherwise rendered non-existent. Just punish the people abusing it.

Even more people make important political decisions based only on their faith—how many Christian evangelicals voted for Bush for that reason?

That's more a question of secularisation isn't it? And secularisation is a separation of religion and politics, as opposed to an elimination of religion.

Superiority concepts like what? "I'm smarter than you"? "I think you're beliefs are wrong?"

I don't think this signals a superiority complex, I think it's just how people debate and argue.

'I'm smarter than you' is an assertion of intellectual superiority, not a debating technique. If it is a debating technique, it's very circular indeed. On the other hand, 'I think your beliefs are wrong, and this is why...' is a debating technique.

And I think this kind of statement is entirely different than something like "I believe I am chosen by God, but you deserve to be tortured forever in hell because you don't believe what I believe."

I agree that the above statement is (to put it lightly) rude and offensive. I try not to make such statements (and if I have, I apologise for any offence caused). I also tend to dislike it when other religious people say such things - they tend not to say it as a warning, but rather as an assertion of superiority, which I find detestable.

On the other hand, statements along the lines of 'oh, those religious types are stupid anyway' sting too. What I'm saying is, can we discuss these matters without the insults?

I don't think I'm better than anyone, in any intrinsic sense. I think I am right and you are wrong, though, about a great deal of things. And I'm sure you feel the same way about me. (I'm sure we probably agree on a lot of things too!)

Yeah. Like the old Star Wars trilogy was better than the prequels.

No! You can hope for something without believing that it will necessarily happen. I hope that my sick cat will get better if I give him medicine. I don't have "faith" that he will get better if I give him medicine, though, because obviously he might not get better at all.

Faith - not in the religious sense of the word necessarily - is, to me, basically a stronger form of hope. Having faith in something does not mean one discounts the possibility of failure - rather, they believe more strongly in the possibility of success, even more strongly than if they 'hope' something will happen.

I will agree that most, if not all people—including atheists—harbor various delusions. I am probably deluding myself about a great number of things.

I disagree that delusions are necessary to live one's life. Especially religious delusions. I also believe many delusions are detrimental to oneself and society (especially religious delusions).

Okay. I still think that, when it comes down to it, hope is really a delusion. That's not to dismiss it - it's a very important delusion, for it empowers us, but still... it's based on something that's not exactly... tangible.

I don't think faith is at all necessary for emotion or imagination. Can you explain exactly why you think it is?

Cavemen probably told stories about the moon to make sense of it. Stuff like a dragon continuously ingesting and excreting it, thus explaining away its various stages. Obviously, science explains that no such process occurs. Yet stories like that still possess an excellent creative impulse, as well as stirring emotions (be they of awe or fear etc). I'm not downplaying the role of science, or saying we should all reduce ourselves to caveman mentality (even though I think as a species, we still belong on the Flintstones...), I'm just saying that there are intanible things to be appreciated in religious belief.

Religion isn't the only pathway to emotion or imagination, no, but it is one of the most accessible - and even following a religion requires the exercise of both emotion (in the notion of brotherhood) and imagination (in the notion of a deity or deities or nirvana etc). Even if we subscribe to the notion that religion is a crutch for people of low intelligence or self-esteem... who is anyone to deny others the use of that crutch? Perhaps those religious people need it? Perhaps without it, they cannot 'walk' so to speak.

I'd actually say many forms of religious faith limit your imagination and your ability to experience genuine emotions. Many religions, including Islam, force you to suppress certain emotions instead of explore them.

It seems to me to be very similar to the concept of taboo in society. The difference is religions such as Islam make such concepts religious edicts rather than social. What is taboo will vary from culture to culture.

Islam also prohibits many forms of artwork as "haram."

Those depicting nudity, those depicting images of God or the prophets, those depicting images of living, animate creatures - all these types are not allowed.

Yet, speaking in terms of painting, there's still the huge world of abstract art to explore. There are also other media, such as sculpture, literature or poetry. There's a wealth of great Muslim poets, for instance.

When you have faith in a narrow set of scriptures, there is the idea that your imagination and your emotions can go here, to the limits proscribed by your God—but no further.

A little allegory, metaphor or satire goes a long way. True art finds a way.

 

[Chuck]

Greetings,


I see. Perhaps that's true, but the people who use it that way (mainly atheists, I would imagine?) should realise that that is just a side issue with the FSM. A better approach on the burden of proof question would be to use Russell's Celestial Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

These things appear to be silly, and they are, but they each make quite subtle and important philosophical points.

Peace

What difference that would make? FSM is not really different, if different at all.

 

[chosen]

Qingu

sorry....but i forget which scientist tried to prove spontaneous generation..I can look it up..but then again so can you....said it was impossible...therefore, something can not come from nothing..therefore the first something had to of been created...created by who?? is the question of the day....as far as my still believing even if I am wrong??? The bible is both a very simple book and a very complicated book...tons of symbolism that even takes scholars to figure out...so even if I see something I dont understand or something that doesnt make sense..it is just a matter of time and study before sense is made out of it..
P.S
calling you cute is not referring to the way you look...but your attitude and the way you express yourself...

 

[Muslim Knight]

What's the difference between having to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and idolatrous Hinduism (in which gods have weird features like six arms and elephantile snout) or pre-Islamic paganism (pantheon of gods created from the imaginations of the inhabitants of Hejaz) or even ancient Greek beliefs like Kraken and Gorgons?

They all seem pretty much the same to me. Idols and images created from the creative human mind.

There's even one Quranic verse reprimanding the folly of pre-Islamic Jahilli Arabs carving their gods from woods by their own hands, then worshiping them. (Knowledgeable LI members pls help me with this).

 

[Chuck]

What's the difference between having to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and idolatrous Hinduism (in which gods have weird features like six arms and elephantile snout) or pre-Islamic paganism (pantheon of gods created from the imaginations of the inhabitants of Hejaz) or even ancient Greek beliefs like Kraken and Gorgons?

Exactly!

 

[Trumble]

They all seem pretty much the same to me. Idols and images created from the creative human mind.

They are all the same. Atheists just add one more to the list.

 

[Qingu]

gonna call ya on that. matter can be destroyed. (unless your refering to energy)

as i recall a lot of different kinds of elements were created during the bigbang and others are created (or formed would be more accurate) with fusion.

Matter can be converted to energy; it cannot be destroyed. Einstein proved matter and energy are the same—E=mc-squared.

Elements can form from less complicated elements fusing together, plus the release of energy. This doesn't destroy or create matter.

To put it another way: the universe has always had the same amount of matter/energy.

(The exception to this is in quantum mechanics, but that's not on the scale we're talking about and doesn't help your argument.)

 

[Woodrow]

Matter can be converted to energy; it cannot be destroyed. Einstein proved matter and energy are the same—E=mc-squared.

Elements can form from less complicated elements fusing together, plus the release of energy. This doesn't destroy or create matter.

To put it another way: the universe has always had the same amount of matter/energy.

(The exception to this is in quantum mechanics, but that's not on the scale we're talking about and doesn't help your argument.)

true----if 2 assumptions can be proven true.

1. The universe is finite in total mass and energy

2. The universe is limited to the physical.

 

[Qingu]

true----if 2 assumptions can be proven true.

1. The universe is finite in total mass and energy

If it weren't, the sky would not be dark. Infinite matter/energy = infinite stars.

2. The universe is limited to the physical.

Define "non-physical." I've always been curious what religious people mean when they talk about spirits.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If it weren't, the sky would not be dark. Infinite matter/energy = infinite stars.

Obler's paradox!! -- I love it.

Which means that there are endpoints to time as well. There was a time when time itself was not. I.e., there was a beginning. A point in time when the first bit of something, of light was created in the midst of not just empty space, for space is itself something, but in the midst of nothingness. And in the midst of this formless nothingness, suddenly there was light. And in time, the matter that had suddenly been created coalesced and began to form together to make spheriods in the midst of the darkness of space. Some of these large ones gave off their own energy in the way of light. Others did not, but became gas balls and terrestial balls which would orbit larger bodies. And on one of these terrestial balls, there were seas and land rose up out of the seas. And then living creatures were formed in those seas. And after a time some of those living creature migrated to live not only in the seas but on the land, and there were all manner of creatures in the water, the land and even in the air, and finally, at that end of that process a creature very similar to you and me came to be.

The only problem with this story is that it must be fiction because I got it out of the Bible. Yet, if you don't call the author of all this God, you have pretty much the same story as you would get in a 7th grade science class. All the Bible is trying to say is to answer the question, "How did the process of something from nothing get started?"

Science says, "It was a Big Bang."

That may be true, but it doesn't answer the quesiton. "It was a Big Bang" does not actually answer the question of How? It answers the question of What? The answer to the question of How? is either, we don't know, or by the creative action of God.

Well, mankind has other questions:
Who am I?
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?


When we don't know how we came to be it is hard to answer the questions. But if we find the answer, "by the creative action of God" credible to the answer of how we came to be, then we find that we are also able to answer some of those other questions.

Where did I come from? From the mind and will of God.
Why am I here? Because God has a purpose for my life.
Who am I? A child of God.

Or, I suppose you could claim to be a coodle off the old noodle. The choice is yours.

 

[Qingu]

Obler's paradox!! -- I love it.

Ha, I'm glad someone remembered the name.

Which means that there are endpoints to time as well. There was a time when time itself was not. I.e., there was a beginning.

This makes no sense.

The word "beginning" implies that there is a time in which something does not exist, followed by a time in which it does exist.

At which point in time did time not exist? It's a nonsense question. Time has always existed, by definition.

A point in time when the first bit of something, of light was created

You are assuming it was created, and that there was ever a time in which this bit of something did not exist.

The only problem with this story is that it must be fiction because I got it out of the Bible.

Actually, the Bible (like every other Mesopotamian creation myth) begins with water, not points of light in empty space. God shapes the water into discernable parts, and separates them with a solid dome (the raqia) which he calls the Sky. The sky is there to hold up the above-sky ocean.

Then, after God had already created the earth and sky from the primordial ocean, he creates the lights. He puts them in the solid dome of the sky. They revolve around the earth. There is an ocean of water above them. During the Flood, God opens the "windows of the raqia" and floods the earth with this above-sky ocean. The earth is conceived like a bubble, and in the flood God pops the bubble. (This is why the ark has a roof sealed with pitch!)

Yet, if you don't call the author of all this God, you have pretty much the same story as you would get in a 7th grade science class.

I think you've drastically misrepresented the text of Genesis. It's nothing at all like what is taught in science class. It is, rather, almost exactly like the creation myths of the ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and Hindus (why am I not surprised).

Also, your retelling of Genesis is not actually what is taught in science classes.

All the Bible is trying to say is to answer the question, "How did the process of something from nothing get started?"

I absolutely disagree. Creation ex-nihilo is found nowhere in the Genesis creation story. The waters are already there when God starts creating. "Creation," as in other ancient religions, was conceived of as a creative act of order, like a sculptor molding a statue out of pre-existing clay. It was not conceived of as a sculptor magically popping the clay statue into existence out of nothing.

You don't see creation ex-nihilo until the gospel of John.

Science says, "It was a Big Bang."

It is a common misconception that the big bang was somehow a creative act, or a "popping into existence." The big bang is simply a description of what happened at the earliest moments of time that we are capable of deducing.

Big bang theory does not state that the singularity popped into existence. It simply describes what happens to the singularity as early as we can see—explosive expansion.

That may be true, but it doesn't answer the quesiton. "It was a Big Bang" does not actually answer the question of How? It answers the question of What? The answer to the question of How? is either, we don't know, or by the creative action of God.

Or:

It was always there. Since time and space are part of the same fabric, the universe has always existed, and so has its matter.

This is exactly what Stephen Hawking says in the book A Brief History of Time. The universe simply is, and requires no creator. (Note that this shouldn't be too hard to grasp, since you presumably believe the same thing about your deity, who has always existed and requires no creator.)

When we don't know how we came to be it is hard to answer the questions. But if we find the answer, "by the creative action of God" credible to the answer of how we came to be, then we find that we are also able to answer some of those other questions.

Where did I come from? From the mind and will of God.
Why am I here? Because God has a purpose for my life.
Who am I? A child of God.

These aren't answers. They just replace "I don't know" with "God did it." Which begs the question: how did God do it?

The answer is inevitably either "he sculpted my ancestor of clay to be his slave in a garden"—mythological nonsense—or "I don't know" and we're back to where we started. What is God's purpose for your life? "I don't know." Again, same place, you've just inserted a supernatural middleman.
Which is why religion is not particularly good at answering existential questions.

The theory of evolution provides fascinating and robust answers to those questions, though.

Or, I suppose you could claim to be a coodle off the old noodle. The choice is yours.

I choose to believe explanations that are evidenced, and lacking those, I choose to simply admit I don't know.

 

[Woodrow]

Ha, I'm glad someone remembered the name.


This makes no sense.

The word "beginning" implies that there is a time in which something does not exist, followed by a time in which it does exist.

At which point in time did time not exist? It's a nonsense question. Time has always existed, by definition.


You are assuming it was created, and that there was ever a time in which this bit of something did not exist.

Actually there is no separate thing as time. What we perceive as time, is the relative motion of one object to other objects. Without the movement of the objects, there is no time to perceive. In other words, a minute portion of what we call a second and what we call infinity are identical if there is no movement to be measured.

I can not find any definition of time which is not dependent on the relationship of one object to another.

Time is a measurement not a thing, basically a mathematical function. there is no time without motion and there is no motion without an object to move.

 

[Qingu]

Actually there is no separate thing as time. What we perceive as time, is the relative motion of one object to other objects. Without the movement of the objects, there is no time to perceive. In other words, a minute portion of what we call a second and what we call infinity are identical if there is no movement to be measured.

I can not find any definition of time which is not dependent on the relationship of one object to another.

Time is a measurement not a thing, basically a mathematical function. there is no time without motion and there is no motion without an object to move.

Well, there's the concept of spacetime, which I think is useful philosophically as well as scientifically.

We know, for instance, that time warps along with space in the presence of mass. This confirms your point about time being inherently related to space (perception of temporal motion is dependent on perception of spatial motion).

I also think speed of light is very interesting, in regards to time. Since what we see is made of light—and thus, takes a finite amount of time to get to us from its source—this means the further we look out into the universe, the further back in time we're seeing.

There's also some stuff in quantum mechanics about imaginary time that I honestly don't understand at all but sound pretty enlightening.

 

[Woodrow]

Well, there's the concept of spacetime, which I think is useful philosophically as well as scientifically.

We know, for instance, that time warps along with space in the presence of mass. This confirms your point about time being inherently related to space (perception of temporal motion is dependent on perception of spatial motion).

I also think speed of light is very interesting, in regards to time. Since what we see is made of light—and thus, takes a finite amount of time to get to us from its source—this means the further we look out into the universe, the further back in time we're seeing.

There's also some stuff in quantum mechanics about imaginary time that I honestly don't understand at all but sound pretty enlightening.

Dr. Einstein brought up some interesting concepts of time that preceded and helped formulate his 2 theories of relativity. In which the relative mathematical position of objects is our perception of time.

It time is a thing it should be either a continuous continuum or a discontinuous quanta continuum. The concept of it being a continuous continuum is questionable as it can not be proven that time occurs at the same rate in different locations. In fact it can not even be proven that 2 clocks side by side have the same time or that time passes at the same rate for both. This problem can be removed by perceiving time as a discontiuous quanta continuum, however it presents another problem that between the pulsations time would have to be non-existant.

Now, in the world of quantum physics. that is the field of physics that just may provide measurable proof of the existance of God(swt). although this next article is from a Christian site, the goal of the site is to prove the existance of God(swt) which is an area we do agree with, although we do disagree about the Nature of God(swt)

The Many Worlds Interpretation

It would seem that if chance is real (Copenhagen), God must exist as the Cosmic Observer. If determinism is real, God exists as the Hidden Variable that stops the infinite regress of causes. Doesn’t chance plus determinism cover the full array of possibilities? Have we proved God exists? Not exactly. If reality disappoints, you can deconstruct it. And that is precisely what some have done in construction of the many-worlds & superdeterminism models of reality.

As is explained well in Zukav’s The Dancing Wu-Li Masters (the Chinese designation for physicists), one can question a key assumption of rationality called contrafactual definiteness. When one questions ‘definiteness’ one constructs many worlds. Definiteness is a simple idea. It is as follows: if I choose option ‘A’, then option ‘B’ does not happen. But what if there is not a definite outcome to choice? What if ‘A’ and ‘B’ both still happen, but in different universes (the person in universe ‘B’ would have picked ‘B’). In effect, choice has no consequences. Again we are back to determinism. Perhaps you can see why this might be attractive to the atheist. This idea has the potential of removing the observer from a position of importance. It does not, however, solve the problem of why this multiverse exists in the first place. In fact, those such as Hawking that try to eliminate the need for a beginning to the universe and account for fine-tuning (the Anthropic principles) by proposing a multiverse model still try to appeal to the intrinsic randomness of an uncaused beginning (quantum fluctuation) to get the whole thing started. Yet intrinsic randomness applies only to Copenhagen, and Copenhagen and Many-Worlds are mutually exclusive. Hence Hawking is in the midst of a logical contradiction.

Source: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/the_metaphysics_of_quantum_mechanics.shtml

 

[Grace Seeker]

I went pretty fast and loose with both the Biblical text and with the 7th grade science class -- I am not a proponet of ID and felt no compulsion to try to do a detailed comparative analysis. But I do find that at a very general level there are some parallels which are very interesting for a people who would have had no special knowledge of the origins of the earth other than that received either from other cultures' myths or special revelation. Though you obviously disagree, I still think the Bible sounds a lot closer to the Stephens (Hawking and Gould) than it does Gilgamesh.

I agree that the concept of an eternal universe is not any more difficult to perceive than the concept of eternal diety. Said the other way, it makes the question "Where did God come from?" rather meaningless as well.

And while my general acceptance of the origins of the cosmos are enough for me not to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally, I would be interested in hear more of your "robust" answers that are provided by evolution. I don't see that in a universe where the value of a bacterium, an earthworm, and a human being would all be over equal insignificance.


As far as Obler's paradox goes in conjunction with the speed of light. (Assuming the univerese not to be expanding faster than the speed of light.) I imagine that some of the stars are so distant that the light from them has simply not reached us yet. And when it does, just as I know that when looking at the North Star that I am looking at light that set sail with Columbus, so we will be able to look up at that new starlight and looking back in time be able to see the exact moment when God spoke and said (at least for that particular star), "Let there be light."


Woodrow, I think I got lost somewhere in Denmark. Perhaps if we were discussing this on strings instead of threads I wouldn't get so knotted in confusion. But the whole thing seems to be folding back in on itself and that has left me in a state of duality where I am both with you and not at the same moment (though I guess I can no longer call it a moment in time, but in space).

 

[Qingu]

Dr. Einstein brought up some interesting concepts of time that preceded and helped formulate his 2 theories of relativity. In which the relative mathematical position of objects is our perception of time.

It time is a thing it should be either a continuous continuum or a discontinuous quanta continuum. The concept of it being a continuous continuum is questionable as it can not be proven that time occurs at the same rate in different locations. In fact it can not even be proven that 2 clocks side by side have the same time or that time passes at the same rate for both. This problem can be removed by perceiving time as a discontiuous quanta continuum, however it presents another problem that between the pulsations time would have to be non-existant.

Interesting, though I don't think your objection to quantum time is actually that problematic. It only seems like it is because we humans are used to seeing things as continuous wholes. For example, when we touch a chair or a keyboard, there is empty space between our fingers and the chair. The "touch" is electromagnetic repulsion; it is not matter physically pushing against other matter. Similarly, solid objects are not solid at all; most of our bodies are empty space between electrons and nuclei of atoms.

Honestly though, I'm not convinced we'll ever be able to figure out the true nature of time, since our thought processes in our brain are dependent on a preconception of time.

Now, in the world of quantum physics. that is the field of physics that just may provide measurable proof of the existance of God(swt). although this next article is from a Christian site, the goal of the site is to prove the existance of God(swt) which is an area we do agree with, although we do disagree about the Nature of God(swt)

Ugh. This is just Aristotle's unmoved mover argument. I'm sure you know the logical flaws to that. Also, Hawking's model is not a multiverse model.