Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

funny how this was pretty much my reaction in the ct board, except I added that implications of the belief should be discussed

here in chit chat I think this thread is totally fine to talk about because we're not being InTeLlEcTuAlS and ironically more people are now saying that

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

thanks for making it 4 pages

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Just a few remarks:
-gonna let FSM = flying spaghetti monster since it's a long phrase
-I'm going to define creationism as the involvement of a higher deity in the creation of the universe and/or the contents within it
-none of this post should be read with respect to any particular religion, especially Christianity.

The FSM monster argument is essentially an argument by analogy. The claim is that believing in the existence of a greater deity is, for the same reasons, as ridiculous as believing in the existence of a FSM. Now, why is believing in the existence of a FSM ridiculous? Well, it's ridiculous because it's a completely arbitrary explanation with no logical force behind it. However, creationism, in the most general and abstract sense possible, is not an arbitrary explanation.

Sure if you take any particular religion, then a lot of the details do say rather arbitrary. And I especially challenge one to question any of their religious rules or customs if they seem arbitrary. However, this post is not about any particular religion and their arbitrary explanations for things or their arbitrary rules.

The main motivation in considering creationism is that we observe that usually a lot of complex systems are the cause of an intelligent being. For example, buildings are caused by humans, beehives are caused by bees, dams are caused by beavers, etc. Considering that we ourselves our complex beings, it is not too unreasonable to make the inference that we ourselves have some intelligent designer. Thus, the reasoning for believing in creationism is not some arbitrary, but based off a somewhat reasonable inference.

If one pours water into a cup and turns the cup upside down, they will notice the water will spill out of the cup. If one pours water into a bowl and flips it upside down, they will observe that the water will spill out. What if I pour water into a pot? It would be reasonable for one to infer from the first two experiences, that turning the pot upside down will cause the water to spill out of it. Of course one would need to actually run experiments by flipping pots upside down filled with water to gather a strong amount of evidence but the point is that making inferences based off of similar observations is not an unreasonable thing to do. (However, I will say claiming that one's inferences are objectively true is an unreasonable thing to do.)

Thus, the FSM argument fails because the underlying assumption that creationism is an arbitrary explanation simply isn't true. Now, one might claim that the explanation for creationism is dumb considering the amount of evidence we have for alternative explanations but that's not the point of the FSM argument.

PS This post is not intended to persuade or dissuade anyone to/from creationism, it is simply a post intended to analyze the FSM argument.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

i always thought the fsm argument was bad because it's related to reddit in some shape or form

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Why does it fail? Why is the FSM any more unlikely than the Christian god? You just made a couple of inferences about creators and then without reasoning just concluded that FSM is a less likely alternative than the Christian god.

What you're arguing -is not- the point of the FSM argument. The point of the FSM argument is to show that you can replace the Christian god with anything you wish and it'll still make just as much sense (that is, none).
Who is to say that our creator -isn't- an all powerful flying spaghetti monster? Without proof it's just as likely and you simply can't make an assumption regarding a creator of the universe. We know that bees create beehives because we observe them create beehives. We don't know that for the creation of the universe.

edit: why do I even seriously reply to this thread..
edit2: The words you're looking for is "caused by", not the "the cause of". Buildings being "the cause of" humans would suggest buildings created humans.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Anyone who is mad about this needs to get a grip on reality

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I fixed the grammar issues, I obviously didn't proofread my post. However, I don't even want to respond to your arguments because you seem insistent on bringing Christianity into an argument where it isn't needed.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

For once I am actually too lazy to reply to that argument



:(

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Replace it with Zeus or Ra or Allah, I don't care, the point stays the same. You're dodging the argument.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

What if I don't want to replace it with anything? What if I want to leave it open as a general generalization? What if I leave open the possibility that the FSM may actually exist?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

oh god

reuben please don't make me, I'm doing so well right now

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

What the fuck is your point? You're dodging the argument.....

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

but what is reality, and how did it begin riddle me that FOOL

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

You're right, there probably isn't a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. But perhaps there is something. :o :o :o

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Ok?.. but that wasn't what was being asked now was it? Why does the FSM argument fail? What makes creationism not an arbitrary story?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

stop... I... can't...

I have to go, or else I'm going to get sucked in

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

is this the point where i just start posting gay porn in the thread and get banned for a week

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Is this you right now?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

A story for creationism is only arbitrary if you choose an arbitrary story. Consider all the possible stories one could possibly come up with. Each one probably has an extremely low probability of holding true especially if it's filled with arbitrarily chosen details (e.g. like our creator is a pink fluffy unicorn who stuffs its face with candy and poops out rainbows). But I'm not considering any one particular story. I'm considering the set of all possible stories for creationism because I don't care about the details.

Here is a terrible example: Suppose I ask you to think of a prime number and for you not to tell me. And I ask you, "is it odd?" Now did I choose to ask if it was odd arbitrarily? No, I chose that because I know that all but one of the prime numbers are odd. Now consider each prime number that is also odd. If I had asked you, "Is it 17?" or "Is it 23" those would seem like arbitrary choices but considering all the odd numbers as a whole is not. However, it may actually be the case that the number chosen was in fact 17 or 23.

Similarly, the story of the FSM is pretty arbitrary. However, the set of all possible stories for creationism isn't trivially arbitrary.

PS I'm done...I don't want to waste more of my day stuck in this thread.