a fairly new theory

Originally posted by Rolfey
i had not realised this had been covered alreadly so gladly offer apologies for repeating - can you possibly point me in the direction of the existing discussion?!

while it is made in a very comical way don't you find the point that dawkins made originally a valid argument against the existence of god?

No worries about the repetition, it was only touched on. There might even be a clan with that name -- it was a quite a couple months ago.

I guess I'm not kindly disposed towards Dawkins, but his stance is logically flawed. He presupposes infinite knowledge for his stance of strong atheism -- rather presumptuous.

To expect science to prove God is like having Einstein explain general relativity with nothing but the numerals 1 and 2 at his disposal. God is an exploration of the spiritual not a tangible entity one can put in a box and study under a microscope.

Originally posted by Halitose
No worries about the repetition, it was only touched on. There might even be a clan with that name -- it was a quite a couple months ago.

I guess I'm not kindly disposed towards Dawkins, but his stance is logically flawed. He presupposes infinite knowledge for his stance of strong atheism -- rather presumptuous.

To expect science to prove God is like ...[text shortened]... ation of the spiritual not a tangible entity one can put in a box and study under a microscope.

interesting. I shall have a little think and come back to you.

Originally posted by Rolfey
interesting. I shall have a little think and come back to you.

Take your time.

Originally posted by Rolfey
interesting. I shall have a little think and come back to you.

bump --- for Rolfey

Originally posted by Halitose
No worries about the repetition, it was only touched on. There might even be a clan with that name -- it was a quite a couple months ago.

I guess I'm not kindly disposed towards Dawkins, but his stance is logically flawed. He presupposes infinite knowledge for his stance of strong atheism -- rather presumptuous.

To expect science to prove God is like ...[text shortened]... ation of the spiritual not a tangible entity one can put in a box and study under a microscope.

That's totally doable. You have to convert all the math into base 2, which is a pain in the balls, but it can be done.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
yes, but the difference between this and other religions is that the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER actually exists. We can infer it. We know spaghetti exists, and we know things can fly. Good start, no?

Spaghetti exists and flying is possible therefore spaghetti can fly.
Just the sort of logic one can expect from scottishinnz.

Originally posted by princeoforange
Spaghetti exists and flying is possible therefore spaghetti can fly.
Just the sort of logic one can expect from scottishinnz.

Did I directly say that spaghetti can fly? Did I? Go on, go on, answer me! Nope, all I inferred is that the necessary pre-requisites for flying spaghetti (i.e. flying AND spaghetti) can both be SHOWN to actually exist. None of the pre-requisites for YOUR god can though.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Did I directly say that spaghetti can fly? Did I? Go on, go on, answer me! Nope, all I inferred is that the necessary pre-requisites for flying spaghetti (i.e. flying AND spaghetti) can both be SHOWN to actually exist. None of the pre-requisites for YOUR god can though.

You said flying spaghetti monster does exists. I take that to mean you believe spaghetti does fly, unless you are trying your hand at sophistry again.

Originally posted by princeoforange
You said flying spaghetti monster does exists. I take that to mean you believe spaghetti does fly, unless you are trying your hand at sophistry again.

No, spaghetti does not fly, in much the same way that meat doesn't run around, hunt each other, reproduce and all the other interesting ways that animals do. I think you need to differentiate between 'wood' and 'trees'.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, spaghetti does not fly, in much the same way that meat doesn't run around, hunt each other, reproduce and all the other interesting ways that animals do. I think you need to differentiate between 'wood' and 'trees'.

Eh? whats that got to do with anything?

Originally posted by princeoforange
Eh? whats that got to do with anything?

Just in specific response to your post. Don't expect it to make any difference to you though .....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, spaghetti does not fly, in much the same way that meat doesn't run around, hunt each other, reproduce and all the other interesting ways that animals do. I think you need to differentiate between 'wood' and 'trees'.

No, spaghetti does not fly,

Oh yea, and have you ever put any in an airplane?

in much the same way that meat doesn't run around,

I suppose the local town's vegetable might agree with you, but even he agrees that he is rather 'beefed up'.

Originally posted by Halitose
No worries about the repetition, it was only touched on. There might even be a clan with that name -- it was a quite a couple months ago.

I guess I'm not kindly disposed towards Dawkins, but his stance is logically flawed. He presupposes infinite knowledge for his stance of strong atheism -- rather presumptuous.

To expect science to prove God is like ...[text shortened]... ation of the spiritual not a tangible entity one can put in a box and study under a microscope.

sorry for the delay halitose. i've been discussing this with others and only really have the following from another thread that i wrote:

"Despite how much you dislike the theory of the FSM you can not disprove it, like your mythical god can not be disproved. BTW, it doesn't have to be the FSM, it can be anything at all - I could state there was a three headed elephant with a lions tail (made up so if exists in some weird thing already it's coincidence) that was the maker of the world etc etc. This to you (and I) is equally absurd as the FSM, and equally so your mythical god that, again, can not be proven or disproven."

very inflamatary comments paraphrased from dawkins himself but i think a fair point. as always, the belief in the existence of god relies heavily on faith which as you suggest is something that can not be proved. clearly i have no faith. i'll manage without it though i'm sure

Originally posted by Rolfey
sorry for the delay halitose. i've been discussing this with others and only really have the following from another thread that i wrote:

"Despite how much you dislike the theory of the FSM you can not disprove it, like your mythical god can not be disproved. BTW, it doesn't have to be the FSM, it can be anything at all - I could state there was a three he ...[text shortened]... that can not be proved. clearly i have no faith. i'll manage without it though i'm sure

A few problems with your FSM, it appears. Unlike the living God, the FSM has no relevance, and cannot (at least, does not) speak to the human condition. The FSM does not proclaim responsibility for any creature on the planet, let alone allege a desire for a personal relationship with any of its creatures. The FSM has no place in historical records, has never intervened in the affairs of man, never given man the slightest indication of its administration, policies, or existence, for that matter.
FSM apparently has no claim, whatsoever, outside of someone's meaningless imagination.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A few problems with your FSM, it appears. Unlike the living God, the FSM has no relevance, and cannot (at least, does not) speak to the human condition. The FSM does not proclaim responsibility for any creature on the planet, let alone allege a desire for a personal relationship with any of its creatures. The FSM has no place in historical records, has ...[text shortened]... matter.
FSM apparently has no claim, whatsoever, outside of someone's meaningless imagination.

"FSM apparently has no claim, whatsoever, outside of someone's meaningless imagination"

just like god then.