Quote from: (oYo) on October 31, 2014, 03:34:33 AM

Quote from: the joint on October 31, 2014, 03:16:31 AM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 03:30:57 PM

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.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists. However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence. Same thing goes for the space teapot. Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look. Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example. This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition." God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge. Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience. As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).

You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound. The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always. Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful). Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all. Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

The semantic debate began over your definition of mono/polytheistic, but unfortunately you keep bastardizing and broadening your misuse of terminologies and concepts over the course of this debate to further your argument, therefore I decline to debate this any further.

Disappointing, for I'm sure you'll continue to use your invalid cliches far into the future.