Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 02:32:14 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 07:47:30 AM

Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 06:51:28 AM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 06:27:27 AM

Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 05:13:40 AM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 29, 2014, 09:53:29 PM

Quote from: the joint on October 29, 2014, 08:43:10 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 29, 2014, 08:05:34 PM

Quote from: the joint on October 29, 2014, 07:55:46 PM

Quote from: Vod on October 29, 2014, 06:54:41 PM

Quote from: nsimmons on October 29, 2014, 06:52:22 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here. The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one. There's a huge difference between the two. Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote

Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go. Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russel's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

What exactly do you mean that my argument implies that there is no need to differentiate between mono- and polytheistic gods? Of course you need to differentiate between the two, which is exactly why using space teapots and flying noodles as analogues to a monotheistic god is invalid. My argument wasn't that it's stupid, it's that the FSM is likened to a teapot (i.e. a conditional event) which is then likened to a monotheistic god (i.e. a unconditionally necessary event). I'm not just using the word 'stupid' without explaining why.

How is a space teapot or the FSM like a monotheistic god? I'm not sure why you think this would be the case. Monotheistic gods are often described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. If that's the case, it would be akin to being a fly on an elephant such that, no matter which empirical angle you select, you will never be able to observe the whole elephant in it's entirety. This is why monotheistic gods are beyond the scope of empirical study. A space teapot/FSM, however, is not. Point the Hubble towards the sun's orbit and you will conclusively be able to determine whether a teapot exists there (same goes for FSM).

And I'm not specifically talking about the Christian god. I don't belong to any religion. I'm mostly going by the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" definition of God which I find to be most common.

The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Polytheism, is the belief in many gods. Neither definition specifies whether such gods need be "omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent" as there is no need for them to be as such. Therefore the teapot and FSM do qualify as being monotheistic gods in this respect.

Also, there is no need to liken the FSM to the teapot, just as there is no need to liken either of them to any other gods any more than there is a need to make any comparisons between Buddha and Allah. It was your choice to do so, but it was incorrect to assume it necessary to define any of them. Therefore I'd just like to reiterate, that the teapot and FSM are indeed monotheistic gods. Now if you like you can argue that they aren't as impressive as an "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" god, but that in itself does not make them any less valid, just less appealing to worship. BTW, since it is stated that the FSM is the one and only god and it did create the universe, I do believe it is just as worthy of being worshipped as much as any other god you may have in mind.

Wow, it's late. Good night all.

Dictionary definition of God:

Quote

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity;...

See that "creator and ruler of the Universe" part? Yes, there is nothing about 'monotheistic' or 'polytheistic' that speaks to this, but that's where the word "god" comes in. There is nothing about space teapots that says anything about being ruler of the Universe, but the word 'god' does. Referring to the FSM and asserting it to be "the one and only god and [creator of] the universe" as you did, let me point out the obvious which is that the FSM, made of spaghetti, would need to be spaghetti before creating a Universe that catalyzes spaghetti, thus invoking a contradiction. That's not a poor rebuttal, either, it's just your fault for selecting a bad analogy for comparison.

But, if all you're talking about is a semantic difference, then I can play that game, too. I'll just set the term 'absolute truth' equal to 'god,' and since the existence of absolute truth is easily proven, thus god is proven. If you want to arbitrarily set FSM and space teapots to 'god,' then I can do the same with the term 'absolute truth' by your method of reasoning.

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.