Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

[Sculptor1]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

[Belinda]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

I hope you mean that it's of no moment what sort of persona you clothe your deity in.
Maybe it does matter after all! The medium for the message does matter when people aim to persuade each other.

[Lagayascienza]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

Yes, his wonders know no bounds. We had holy communion at dinner this evening. A mot joyous lasgna. Washed down with a nice chianti. We felt very close to the the FSM. Hundreds of millions enjoy communing with him in ths way daily. His holy, gustatory presence is clear for all to see and taste and, thus, his existence is irrefutable. Praise be to the FSM.

[Sy Borg]

You failed to address any of the points I made - all of them - and just repeated the same answer you've used to stonewall me for months.

What points? You simply ask daft and provocative questions intended to ridicule my position. What do any of these questions have to do with the existence of God, as opposed to considering some of the more off-the-wall notions (with which we *both* disagree) that extreme theists have come up with over the years?

As Sculptor said, what do you mean by God? Which conceptions of God do you find more credible than leprechauns and the FSM?

[Pattern-chaser]

Which conceptions of God do you find more credible than leprechauns and the FSM?

None of them. That's rather my point, and my position.

Credible — able to be believed; convincing. Credible means 'believable', trustworthily so.

I see no reason to accept (or reject) any of these things. I see only reasons to withhold judgement, pending the arrival of evidence, or anything else, that might justify a reliable conclusion. Only when that has happened can I see any reason to accept any of the things you mention.

[Sculptor1]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

I hope you mean that it's of no moment what sort of persona you clothe your deity in.
Maybe it does matter after all! The medium for the message does matter when people aim to persuade each other.

I am given to understand that Pastafarianism already has a schism in the ranks; those that favour European Style pasta, and those that chose the holy oriental Ramen noodles.
No violence has yet broken out , but of other religions are any thing to go by rivers of blood will run.

[Sculptor1]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

Yes, his wonders know no bounds. We had holy communion at dinner this evening. A mot joyous lasgna. Washed down with a nice chianti. We felt very close to the the FSM. Hundreds of millions enjoy communing with him in ths way daily. His holy, gustatory presence is clear for all to see and taste and, thus, his existence is irrefutable. Praise be to the FSM.

You seem to be an acolyte of Italian style Pasta? Are you away that there are splitters that revere only the oriental type noodle?

[Lagayascienza]

Ah, yes. I am aware. But there is only onse true pasta. The other lot are wrong. My brethren and I are right. There will be a great war between us. We will win. And our victory will mark the end days whereafter we will be raptured. We will go to pastafarian heaven and sit at the right hand of the FSM eating endless lasagnes, spag bolls etc. as we enjoy watching the other lot burn in their noodle hell. What's not to like?

[Sy Borg]

Which conceptions of God do you find more credible than leprechauns and the FSM?

None of them. That's rather my point, and my position.

Credible — able to be believed; convincing. Credible means 'believable', trustworthily so.

I see no reason to accept (or reject) any of these things. I see only reasons to withhold judgement, pending the arrival of evidence, or anything else, that might justify a reliable conclusion. Only when that has happened can I see any reason to accept any of the things you mention.

Okay, so you are actually atheist rather than agnostic - "Only when that has happened can I see any reason to accept any of the things you mention" is the same position as the rest of us. It's passive atheism, "apatheism" rather than the more actively skeptical atheism of Lagaya, Sculptor and me.

Personally, I think that the various conceptions of God vary as regards credibility. The anthropomorphic God is obviously just wishful thinking by humans, wanting to think that they are special (as opposed to a modern secretion of the Earth's surface). A God that infuses everything cannot be proved or disproved, and there is no known physical means how such a thing could be.

But the subjective God ... we know it exists because so many people have described it. People have believed that agency exists in the ostensibly inanimate since probably before H. sapiens.

While witness testimony is not conclusive, so many witnesses cannot be ignored. Nor can the many witnesses, who have never at any time felt or perceived this "subjective God", let alone a physical one.

That, of course, is the nature of subjectivity - it's variable, unreliable and mercurial. Unlike objectivity, the subjective domain is not limited by physics, but it is limited - by one's mind. Gods can, and do, exist there. In physical reality, the closest we have to gods (so far) appear to be galactic superclusters.

[Pattern-chaser]

Which conceptions of God do you find more credible than leprechauns and the FSM?

None of them. That's rather my point, and my position.

Credible — able to be believed; convincing. Credible means 'believable', trustworthily so.

I see no reason to accept (or reject) any of these things. I see only reasons to withhold judgement, pending the arrival of evidence, or anything else, that might justify a reliable conclusion. Only when that has happened can I see any reason to accept any of the things you mention.

Okay, so you are actually atheist rather than agnostic - "Only when that has happened can I see any reason to accept any of the things you mention" is the same position as the rest of us. It's passive atheism, "apatheism" rather than the more actively skeptical atheism of Lagaya, Sculptor and me.

You misunderstand. Above, I present the reasonable and logical argument that you seem unable to discover. Personally, however, I retain the theist beliefs you know me to hold, even though it is irrational to hold such views. Just as your views are irrational, and illogical too.

[Lagayascienza]

Choosing to sit on the agnostic fence and withold judgement about the existence of leprechauns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is to be entirely unreasonable. And it's hard to see how unreasonableness is conducive to good philosophy.

If we use inference to the best explanation, and take account of prior credences, posterior credences, and any new evidence, the only reasonable position to take is that leprechauns and the FSM do not exist. And that appears to be the case no matter what reasonable form of epistemic justification we use.

Saying simply that something cannot be disproved is not a good reason to sit on the agnostic fence. Lots of crazy things cannot be disproved but we don't sit on the fence in respect of their existence. Even serious, thinking theists can do better than fence sitting. They speak of personal experience of god, visions, and such like. Of course, this is extremely weak evidence that can be easily challenged, but it is something. But what could believers in leprechauns or the FSM cite as evidence that would cause a reasonable person to be agnostic about their existence? ?

Fence-sitting can be reasonable with respect to a lot of questions. For example, it would be quite reasonable to sit on the fence in respect of the existence of, say, dark matter or on the question of whether the Riemann hypothesis is true. But leprechauns?! My response to such fence-sitting is to wonder whether the person taking the agnostic position is serious, or whether they are merely being deliberately contrary and pig headed.

[Sy Borg]

PC says: "Only when that has happened can I see any reason to accept any of the [gods, leprechauns and other mythological beings] you mention".

This is typical apatheism. It is not agnosticsm.

If you do not believe in God at all - which is your position, that is atheism. You don't have to actively disbelieve or even have the slightest interest in the question. If you don't believe in God, then you are an atheist. That's what the word means. If you were in a country that killed atheists like Iran or its proxies, you would be in danger, as would Lagaya and me.

By contrast, an agnostic entertains the idea of God, but is not certain enough to fully believe. This is very different to having no interest or opinion, as you do. That's textbook apatheism. In fact, I'd say I'm much closer to being agnostic than you are because I have seriously thought about it and have a certain concept of God (entirely subjective) and one very arguable one (hyper-advanced remnants from prior universes). All you have are leprechauns to say "never say never".

If you are an agnostic, please name me a concept of God that you find credible enough to almost believe.

Rather, I agree with Lagaya, you're taking the p1ss. I will now contemplate the possible existence of vampires. So far, there's zero evidence to say that they don't exist ...

[Belinda]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

I hope you mean that it's of no moment what sort of persona you clothe your deity in.
Maybe it does matter after all! The medium for the message does matter when people aim to persuade each other.

I am given to understand that Pastafarianism already has a schism in the ranks; those that favour European Style pasta, and those that chose the holy oriental Ramen noodles.
No violence has yet broken out , but of other religions are any thing to go by rivers of blood will run.

All flavours of Pastafarianism are cults.
This is because pasta is an inanimate physical substance not the living ,experiencing substance it was made from i.e. wheat, barley , and so on.
Ideas such as the idea of the living experiencing God are fertile ideas not manufactured items such as pasta.The traits of the living experiencing God come from one of two wellsprings----fear or love--- and it is which wellspring that matters to the acolytes of the God idea and others affected by the idea.
Pastafarians idolise pasta . Capitalists idolise money. Cowards idolise personal safety. Zionists idolise a nation. Magas idolise Trump. Superstitious people idolise a religion.

[Sculptor1]

How dare you insult his Noodly appendages? The Pastafarian creed has established the existence of his pastastic existence beyond all doubt!
Have you not seen the evidence in every shop, every country ,the world over. The amazing and wonderful infinite variety of his creation from Conchigli to vermicelli? to Ramen? Unifiying the world in pasta?

I hope you mean that it's of no moment what sort of persona you clothe your deity in.
Maybe it does matter after all! The medium for the message does matter when people aim to persuade each other.

I am given to understand that Pastafarianism already has a schism in the ranks; those that favour European Style pasta, and those that chose the holy oriental Ramen noodles.
No violence has yet broken out , but of other religions are any thing to go by rivers of blood will run.

All flavours of Pastafarianism are cults.
This is because pasta is an inanimate physical substance not the living ,experiencing substance it was made from i.e. wheat, barley , and so on.
Ideas such as the idea of the living experiencing God are fertile ideas not manufactured items such as pasta.The traits of the living experiencing God come from one of two wellsprings----fear or love--- and it is which wellspring that matters to the acolytes of the God idea and others affected by the idea.
Pastafarians idolise pasta . Capitalists idolise money. Cowards idolise personal safety. Zionists idolise a nation. Magas idolise Trump. Superstitious people idolise a religion.

HERETIC!!!

Tell me now - what is it that you are idolising here in this statement?