₦airaland Forum

plaetton: I reckon that it would sound childish and absurd to you, but then, most religious fables have the same childish and absurd quality about them.

This says it all. I already told you that neither ridiculous notion negates the existence of God.

MacDaddy01: #logicboy's too much

Please have a look at ur words. Too much indeed. You just repeatedly show yourself to be about 12 years old. Really and frankly the da.ftest nit wit on this forum. Olodo.

MacDaddy01: 01010101010100101010101010101010101010

Request is invalid........can not compute.......irrelevant.............

Of course...... for m.orons.

plaetton: Ha ha.
And what cause are talking about here? The universe or existence?

I stated it already. You guys are being pathetically escapist.

Address the attributes required of a cause.

Reasonable and simple.

Running away from that is just cowardice and shows you have no argument.

plaetton: Huh?
Sorry, cannot process.
Too much spaghetti in my brain right now. lol

Escapism.

ADDRESS THE ATTRIBUTES REQUIRED OF A CAUSE.

SIMPLE.

plaetton: But we have repeated it to you that FSM does not attempt to refute the core questions of cosmological existence. It agrees with it and just offers an alternative and unique angle from which to view it.

The very fact that we are locked in a heated and lively debate with you, a very intelligent person, about the merits or absurdity of FSM theology , actually amounts to a validation of the FSM theology.

This is what I love about FSM theology.
It's the FSM Paradox.
If you think it is absurd, then you are indirectly a convert.
Ha Ha Ha.

Address the attributes required of a cause. Simple.

wiegraf: Don't worry, I'll survive, I have tissue around somewhere if I feel the need to cry. The issue seems to be one you've created to help you feel more special though.

No: it derives from the question of causality. Think about it. Let me be conscise:

1. These issues all arise because of the question of the cause of the universe.

2. In determining the cause we must look at the core questions of cosmological existence: was the universe caused? If so, by what? If not, then how.

3. We must look at the attributes necessary for a cause to be the cause. Those are the logical attributes i mentioned.

Simples.

MacDaddy01: Please, can we open a new thread to discuss the strength of the FSM?

Not with your current showing of poor logic, no thanks, I am se.xually masochistic, but not intellectually masochistic.

I would like to show you how biased and illogical you are. If the FSM is a religion with a deity, I wonder how you can overlook the christian religion and its deity to call the FSM rubbish.

Please can you see how much you dont read ? ? ? It is not surprising that the entire discussion has flown over your head. Everything I have been saying does not disclose what you have written here. The point has been that neither FSM nor religious garbage serve to detract from the necessity of a pre existent. And religious ontologies of God do contain the attributes derivative from the cosmological question of causation of the world, whereas the FSM id.iocy does not. Please learn to read.

plaetton: Just Why can't we be at liberty to bestow whatever superlative attributes to the FSM as the final bus stop? Is it because FSM is a relatively new concept?
If had come out of any ancient paper, I'm quite sure we would not be having this argument.
You shower superlative attributes to your god with relative ease. Is it not all about how far our imaginations can go?

Please go an re-read what i wrote. And read especially what was said about the source for the attributes relevant to be discussed. That source is causality and those attributes are at issue. Simple.

wiegraf: For the most part in situations like this I only read posts directed to me, so you'd be correct. My attention span is a little too low, I bore easily, so I just skim the other posts. Also, it's not mandatory. You state the Fsm is not relevant, I show how it could still be useful. You rant.

You're also right about how much I value the issues you raise, I think them useless. I'm not sure what a purpose is doing in there. Though I admit I've only skimmed through them. Again, they weren't addressed to me, nor did you point them out to me before your silly post.

To be fair I was the one that engaged you. I'll stay out of your way.

Lol, don't cry.

The issues raised derive from causality, and that is how we infer the attributes i raised. Those attributes are what should form the debate. FSM does not address such. It is thus a ridiculous non issue. Wrap your head around it.

MacDaddy01: lol.....is that all you can say?


Your ignorance has been exposed!


#Deep Sight debunked

Enjoy. I have no aptitude for the poverty of your intellect.

MacDaddy01: FSM is about intelligent design

Lol, keep contradicting yourself. You say its not about first cause but its about intelligent design. The first step in the intelligent design argument starts from first cause. Stop being such a nit wit.

MacDaddy01: Ignorance. Please read up before you expose yourself-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster



Spag monster is not about big bang or first cause.

Of course twoddles like you will fail to make the very obvious connection.

plaetton: FSM is the pre-existent, the primordial cause. Why is it so hard to accept that?
Is it all in the name?

No, it is not about the name: for the umpteenth time: it about the attribiutes which I listed, which are derived from the question of causality.

That is the connection you fail to make.

plaetton: I believe Purist has addressed these concerns much more elegantly that I would have.

Absolutely he did not: for his response did not compare apples for apples. The central issue that warrants the discourse is the cause of the universe. He has not shown how FSM is apt or relevant to that, or how it breaks the necessity of a pre existent. He has mis conceived the issue as being against the ridiculous aspects of religious notions of that pre existent - and not what it should be - namely the existence of the pre existent: and in this i have articulated the necessary attributes to be considered which dervive from the cosmological question of the cause of the universe. It seems the critical relevance of this connection is lost on you both.

plaetton: FSM does not as far as I know seek to debunk the existence of god or causality. No, my understanding is that it mocks the prevailing ideas(religious) of god by presenting its own for consideration and thought.

That does not work because whereas FSM is inherently absurd and illogical, and presents no tenability for discussion, the concept of a pre existeing element is a feasible logical construct to the extent that it addresses the question of time, space, eternity and causality, by referring to the cause of the universe as pre existing [as no event precedes itself] and as immaterial [as matter if caused cannot be the self same cause].

This is consistent because the precept of intelligent design is not limited to religious thought: and more importantly, even religious thinking delivers feasible attributes for a necessary pre existent - such as eternity, trancendence, self-existence, immutability AND intangibility.

These are profound and well articulated attributes that address themselves to teh cosmological question of the cause of the universe. For this reason such notions can only be contested with reference to their cosmological consistency and not by imaginative mockery such as FSM.

mkmyers45: Sorry Im Mobile: 1. Certain events spring up from nothing as we know and defy energy equations e.g Virtual Particle behaviours on Sub-Atomic Level

No: please do not be mis-educated by psuedo scientific enthusiasts ignorant of every canon or fibre of science.

Virstual particles DO NOT EMERGE FROM NOTHINGNESS. The quantum vacuums referred to are NOT nothing as there is no perfect vacuum ever observed and these vacuums do contain gaseuous pressure.

2. Don't we have a Duality complex when you propose Permanent (Pure) but you reject a state of not-bieng that even encompasses the supernatural.

Please see my last revert to you. I gave two explicit reasons why there is no such thing as nothingness. Address them.

You might also wish to take up Anony's challenge to cite an example of nothingness. As I told you, quantum vaccums are not nothingness.

3. Isn't it logical to assume the absolute to the a synthesis of Something and Nothing to be the becoming?

No, because by definition, nothingness is nothing and as such cannot exist.

4. I ask again: Can we assume that there might have been a state of affairs that was a pure vaccum?

Where is the pure vacuum please. Can you show me an example?

So please note that as somethingness cannot emerge from nothingness, [0 + 0 = 0] then since there is somethingness, it could not derive from that which does not exist.

plaetton: [/b]

You are now sounding like a pantheist.
Now, if permanent somethingness is what is defined as god,then the following should be true:

1. Permanent somethingness is what we refer to to as existence.

It is what we refer to as the eternal primordial somethingness.

2. That permanent somethingness is eternal, therefore there would have been no time when god created something.

3. God does not exist, since god, as your definition implies, should be indistinguishable from the permanent somethingness which we call existence.
4. Permanent somethingness nullifies the notion of something being created.

No: because you are referring to the permanent somethingness - which could not be matter because matter is mutable and tangible and hence not self existent, as to be referred to as the permanent somethingness.

As such, matter is a result of the permanent somethingness and is thus caused.

plaetton: You still don't get it.

Last year an Austrian court agreed that a man had the right to wear processed dough on his head as religious garb in his driver's licence photograph, where exceptions for religious garbs are allowed.

I do not think that the court ever considered the merits of FSM's propositions on cosmological causality before reaching that decision.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014553/Pastafarian-wins-right-wear-sieve-head-driving-licence-photo-does-belong-Church-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html

No sir -- YOU still don't get it.

We are not speaking religious freedom here, sir. Because religious freedom is not in question. As such, a court permitting any person to wear anything as part of religious freedom is not a problem.

IN FACT IT BEATS ME THAT YOU DO NOT SEE THAT THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT YOU CAN HAVE NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST RIDICULOUS RELIGIOUS NOTIONS OR PRACTICES.

That is what your court decision discloses, sir!

This has nothing to do with the question that seeks to debunk the existence of God with reference to asking if a creator-processed-food-monster-exists.

Simple.

plaetton: As a deist, once you make the claim that the creator of the universe had a purpose, you have to attempt to show what purpose is or should be. If you do not, then the religious theologians will fill in the blanks for you.
So far, they have done a good job of filing in the blanks for you.
They have not only agreed with you that a creator designed and caused the universe, but that he loves the tribe of isrealites, and wants us all to worship him or face eternal torment in hell.

The story is so ridiculous that others have said, wait, if that can believed, then why not also believe that a spaghetti monster created the universe with purpose of spreading love and meatballs to his creation.
It is just a case of absurdity matching absurdity.

The FSM theology does not pretend to address cosmology in any detail, rather, it addresses itself to the issue of religious belief.

It is not a logical or tenable propositionon on causality re: the universe. Simple.

Even animal heads appear in nature. Processed pasta and meatballs do not.

Let's stop being ludicruos please.

The question is: what are the tenable propositions re causation of the universe?

Is FSM one of any tenable propositions you can think of?

Finally, the ludicruousness of FSM does not negate the tenability of the pure idea of an apt and necessary creator - any more than the ludicruousness of any religious notion can negate the tenability of an apt and necessary creator.

wiegraf: Fsm is still relevant when discussing a deist god, it illustrates how much weight should be given to unfalsifiable or unfounded claims, which I believe is its primary aim. If you're going to accept claims arbitrarily, you might as well accept our processed god. If god showed up ready made, why couldn't the fsm show up processed? Both notions are equally ridiculous.

It appears you do not read.

I have already told you that the question is that of causality for material phenomena. Addittionaly i went so far as to point out the attributes at issue in light of that fact. In case it missed you, those attribute concern such issues as time and space, issues of eternity and causality.

It is eveident from your comment that these issues, their relevance, and well as their philosophical implications are as completely lost on you as light is from day.

For if that was not the case, there is no way you would see relevance in asking why these necessary attributes are not the function of spagetti and meat balls.

Go figure.

mkmyers45: 1. What is ''nothingness''? is it the absense of just physical existence or all existence: including God and the supernatural (Pure Nothingness)

Nothingness, as the word infers, refers to nothing at all. This means that nothingness does not exist: it is nothing.

2. Did time emerged from non-time?

Following from the premise that nothingess does not exist, then there can be no such thing as non-time.

Time as such, is thus permanent and self-existent.

3. Can we assume that there might be a state of affairs that consists of a complete absence of all existence?

No: for two reasons.

Firstly, nothingness by definition is nothing - it does not exist.

Secondly, given that -

[x] There is "somethingness", as we perceive

[y] "Somethingness" cannot derive from nothingness - which does not exist

- - -> Then there is only ever "somethingness," and never nothingness.

That permanent somethingness, is what is defined as GOD.

Questions that should guide the mind of discussants in making a serious discourse of the matter of the existence/ non-existence of GOD -

1. Did the universe have a beginning?

2. Was the universe caused?

3. If caused, what caused the universe?

4. Is it possible to derive something from nothing?

5. Why something instead of nothing?

6. Does the structure of the universe disclose any order?

7. Does the development of life within the universe disclose any order?

8. What is the possibility and then the probability of te development of life and particularly intelligent life within the universe?

9. If the universe is caused, what sort of cause can be envisaged?

These are the sort of issues I would expect arguments to be advanced for and against, and not silly questions as why it wasn't done by pasta and meatballs.

Purist: LOL! Bros Deep Sight, calm down abeg.

I've come to observe that you seem to get worked up when certain religious concepts are challenged. I have seen a similar reaction to the prayer concept in the past.

I get worked up at the celebration of congenital id.iocy.

The FSM and IPU arguments are perfectly reasonable arguments that simply seek to expose the absurdity of favouring one wild claim over another equally wild claim.

As I have shown in my reverts to wiegraf and pletton above, these arguments should rather address first causality in material phenomena and then proceed to show why the core ontological attributes of God as advanced by Religions is unreasonable.

Nothing to do with cosmology or infinite regress.

Doubtless, congenital id.iots such as those who created such arguments could never possibly see the lamentably obvious connection, could they?

Perhaps, somehow, you sometimes see these kinds of arguments as an affront to your deist beliefs

No: they are an affront to the existence of the human brain.

(I fail to see the connection though), but one thing you should realise is that the deist god remains irrelevant and insignificant to most people here. Thankfully, it is non-interventionist, so most people can't really be bothered. You really should take a chill pill bro.

My issue is not deism here: it is the necessity of a cause that makes me wonder how a discussion about such a huge cosmological issue could become about processed food monsters? In the face of such village-clowning congenital id.iocy, it is fair to presume that no serious discussion is intended, is it not?

MacDaddy01: [1] - - - An eternal uncaused element. The spaghetti monster caused the big bang and is an eternal creator.

[2] - - - Trancendental. The spaghetti monster is beyond humans and then universe.

[3] - - - Being. The spaghetti monster is a noodley supernatural being.

[4] - - - Purpose. The spaghetti monster brings love and kindness to humanity. He is the pasta of life.



See how a belief in God works in any religion?

If you really expect a response to this, you are far more unintelligent than I ever imagined. And I imagined you really daf.t already.

What next, a cookie monster?

You are a nit wit.

Enjoy the Pasta and meatballs. Should make a nice meal.

MacDaddy01: And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of an invisible old man or spirit is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

Please see my comments to Plaetton above. Secondly can you kindly note the ontological attributes I mentioned in that post - those are that which should be debated. Finally, please ask yourself what the meaning of the word "spirit" is.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously. Pasta and meatballs are processed food and do not appear in nature save by human processing. How you expect that a question which asks why a monster consisting of such is not the cause of the universe, should not be seen for the idle and unintelligent joke that it is, is beyond me.

But then, you are of course, both idle and unintelligent.

plaetton: I keep reminding you that this is the ridiculous, I mean religilous, sorry again, the religious section.
If the FSM argument is childish, what would you say of Yahweh did it argument, or the man from clay argument, or the talking snake argument.
Are they not in the same category of childishness? Well, that is excactly what the FSM argument aims to prove. Nothing more.
If you can hold on to one ridiculous notion to explain the origin of the universe, then why I can't I do the same?

In addittion to my comments to wiegraf above, I must say to you that once the discussion is the existence of God, it is altogether insufficient to make such an argument because the question of the existence of God is about causation for the universe.

For this reason that which should be of concern would rather be [x] the question as to whether the universe is caused and [y] if caused, what caused it.

It is crucial to note that in this respect the core ontological attributes of God advanced by religions are -

[1] - - - An eternal uncaused element

[2] - - - Trancendental

[3] - - - Being

[4] - - - Purpose

As such, it is against THESE attributes that such an argument should be made: namely to say that it is wrong to advance the idea that the universe was caused by an eternal uncaused transcendental being imbued with purpose.

That would be the sensible way to address the debate, and certainly not the silly mockery of a non-starter which asks why the universe is not created by a monster consisting of processed food [pasta] and meatballs.

Such is irredeemably silly, and verily discloses the asker as nothing but a philosophical nit wit, and also, a real life nit wit.

wiegraf: Pink unicorn and fsm have nothing to do with first cause or infinite regress, etc. They're meant to demonstrate who the burden of proof rests with. They also illustrate how absurd unverifiable claims are. Mac's variant is meant to illustrate the importance of being critical.

No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

Evil Brain: The Pink Unicorn argument is basically identical to the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument which was first proposed by the great Bobby Henderson seven years ago.

Back then the Kansas Board of Education was considering including creationism and Intelligent Design in the school curriculum alongside evolution. Mr. Henderson argued that he believed that the universe was created by an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that closely resembled spaghetti and meatballs. He pointed out that there was just as much evidence that the FSM created the world as there was that god did therefore both theories are equally valid. He then demanded that the FSM theory also be taught in schools and that it be given equal time in classrooms with Intelligent Design and Evolution.

Basically if you accept one outlandish idea without evidence, then you should be willing to accept others. And if you reject one, you should be willing to reject others. Otherwise, you are not thinking rationally.

You see, arguments such as that of the Flying Spagetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are puerile and I must say: very childish arguments. These arguments make a silly mockery of the people who make such arguments and here is the very simple reason: in seeking to make a caricature of sound and serious questions of theological/ cosmological relevance, such infantile arguments entirely side-step the core cosmological question at play in these discussions: to wit: how did the universe come to exist?

Now that is the pith of the matter: and not puerile imaginations of flying food monsters. Any person who approaches the discussion in such a fashion simply has no idea what he is discussing.

The Theists position is that The universe is caused by pre-existent intelligence. Now, if this is true, it would not become less true by reason of such arguments as an infinite regress; or the failings of religious notions of God.

The Atheists position is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a pre existent creative intelligence: or if an agnostic atheist: simply that he does not know and cannot know.

Within these positions there is a simple and clear issue to be discussed: the cause of the universe. It is a lucid and sound issue and in no way should provoke nonsense such as FSM into the discussion. Any person who does so is simply a village clown, a veritable foo.l; and absolutely not to be taken seriously.

Now the initial premises should be simple enough: It should start with causality: If the theist says that the universe is caused, then the first question should be if indeed the universe required a cause. As such we will have to look at the laws of motion in particular, and physics in general. We would also need to contemplate the nature of existence and see if it is a correct position to state that the universe needs no cause. Most atheists I know on this forum have been content to stifle the discussion at this stage: and in doing so they adopt a position contrary to known science; for known science discloses causality for material phenomena.

Nevertheless i do not intend to discuss the pros and cons here. My onlty intention is to show the proper line of argument in this matter, and to show how stupendously st.upid it is to advance arguments such as FSM. Such childishly misses the issues.

Now after the issue of causality, the next question would have to be what caused the universe - if it was caused. The debate would then be about if that cause is a lifeless principle inherent in reality or if it is a principle or entity imbued with life and intelligence as the concept of God suggests. In doing so, it will then be apt to look at what we know of the universe and also discuss the probability and the possibility of the evolution of complex systems and complex life and energy in an unguided universe.

This is the sensible way to debate this issue.

MacDaddy01: Wow, watch how the christians debunk my argument with no coherent rebuttal at all. Seriously, if something is wrong why not say what is wrong? Why no comment or point out what is wrong?


#Shameless

You really expect proper responses to that infantile "argument" up there?

Is this the sort of nonsense poor Anony had to deal with?

Grow up man.

Daft.

This is a level of hypocrisy which STINKS to high heavens.

Just show me one church in Saudi Arabia and I will agree that Islam is tolerant. Nonsense.