The 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' & The Evidence For God: Dr. William Lane Craig

[@wilburlua]

A short response to that - Mere ardent faith in something doesn't make it true, but it probably means that it is not blind, ie. there is some basis for their belief. What we have to do next is to investigate the basis and see if it's plausible rather than just dismiss it altogether. This is the reason why I am open to listening to the arguments for other religions and atheism because I think it is foolish to just dismiss what others hold so ardently without putting effort in the thought process.

[@Vic2point0]

Wow! Look at all the dislikes! How come? I thought he refuted the FSM argument quite well, myself.

[@kewltony]

When Craig was challenged to give an example of something that came into existence that wasn't just a reassembling of previously existing parts, he gave himself as an example. Sperm, egg, and everything required for his growth from a single cell apparently came into existence magically from nothing. The best part is when he specifically mentions, quite creepily, his mother's egg and father's sperm.

[@MeBeMat]

Humph, Craig said that the FSM has meatballs for eyes. Therefore, I find him to be ignorant of the Pastafarian faith and thus not in a position to criticise. If Christian's can pull that one on us, so can we.

[@100huntley]

no worries, your comments in agreement ;) or opposed to Craig's thoughts are appreciated.

[@djbanizza]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc. accentuate one very important logical point. Since there are infinite number of propositions, its up to someone who makes a claim to provide evidence for it. It's not up to its skeptics to disprove the claim ...

[@Birdieupon]

@sadlersinengland "Dr Craig tries to explain that the FSM couldnt be creator and therefore his god is!" And hes correct. A god made out of noodles is impossible because such material is subject to the spatio-temporal realm which this god is supposed to have created in the first place. God must be immaterial and transcendent, rather than a lump of food! At this point the atheist thinks its clever to say "ah but this is special, supernatural, noodles" without realizing they've shifted ontology.

[@Stairc]

WLC's argument about the FSM being too specific and not identical to intelligent design is just ridiculous. The point was that intelligent design has no scientific backing, and neither does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Craig's basically saying that the FSM isn't identical in properties to intelligent design, therefore it doesn't have equal claim - which is obviously ridiculous. He missed the point by a mile. FSM's evidence is just as FLIMSY as intelligent design, therefore it's as valid.

[@najhoant]

And in an instant Craig shows he has no understanding of FSM. It doesn't just work as a stand-in for God, but also for Allah, Osiris, Thor, all of them.

[@zozefup]

Why would anyone dislike this video? Even if you are an atheist and hate Christians, surely you can see the fallacys in the flying spaghetti monster as it relates to intelligent design.

[@ZanimaDeepkoreX]

The flying spaghetti monster is merely a Straw Man argument. You cannot compare GOD to the FSM. It is an irrational comparison- GOD is eternal, spaceless, immaterial and personal, the FSM is not, it can't be, otherwise, as Dr. Craig rightly pointed out, it would not be the FSM by definition.

[@MrRolemaster]

On the first day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster separated the water from the heavens; on the second, because He could not tread water for long and had grown tired of flying, He created the land-complemented by a beer volcano.

[@TheAbyrwalg]

Craig should read the FSM Gospel to learn that we can't explain biological complexity without spaghetti.

[@wbarquez]

@Abgef I got the point. I see your problem. That is why in my original proposition, if you would recall, I did not use the word "God", being aware of its connotations. I used the word "entity" and used "God" interchangeably only. I had in mind the reasonable basis (philosophy/physics) for belief. The probable existence and essence of this entity is based on human reason/philosophy, while the nature of this entity as personal and wise and powerful is based on divine revelation/theology.

[@caveatemp]

It's a sad day when a great intellect like Dr. Craig has to seriously debunk flying pasta as the creator.

[@MoonwalkerWorshiper]

"Take a break. Pace yourself Dude. Don't worry - I'm not interested in insulting you in your absence (or in your presence for that matter)." The King of Ad Hominems have spoken yet again

[@arp76]

@2:48, your argument falls apart. Jesus was material. the FSM is God reincarnate just as Jesus was. All hail the FSM -- Ramen

[@wbarquez]

@Abgef Ok, my proposition/argument was that: The nature of material reality as contingent and transient gives us a reasonable basis for believing in a nonmaterial entity, which exists necessarily and eternally, from which the whole of material reality initially came. Now, I am not talking about "proof" for my belief, but merely a "reasonable basis" for belief. This entity is nonmaterial, necessary and eternal since it is the transcendent cause of material reality. It is outside of time.

[@amitwolfson4681]

The FSM unlike god is a scientific fact acknowledged by many scientists today, and fully supported by undisputed evidence!

[@wilburlua]

I cannot fully know whether or not she would in the future. But that doesn't mean my faith is blind! It comes from a relationship built on trust and love. Similarly, we can have faith in God because He can be experienced and there is nothing out there to disprove His existence. Faith wouldn't be faith if you could know for sure. We wouldn't even need to have such a debate. But therein lies the beauty, isn't it? That God has given us the freedom to choose and not simply command us like robots.

[@sdb5151225]

Wiki--"The Kalām cosmological argument is a contemporary version of the cosmological argument taking its form from Kalām, a form of dialectical argument used in Islamic philosophy. It attempts to prove the existence of God by appealing to the principle of universal cause. Similar arguments are found in the theologies of Judaism (for example, in the work of Maimonides) and Christianity (for example in Thomas Aquinas), where it is known as the "uncaused cause" or "first cause" argument."

[@johnflux1]

Clearly the FSM is more powerful than your God, since the FSM can create the universe while he is himself in it, whereas your God has to be outside the universe in order to create it.

[@PicklesReallySuck]

i love how it takes absolutely forever for even the simplest of religious claims to be explained. it's like they're arguing semantics with themselves. That, or finding explanations which cannot be disproved and building a lot of jargon around it to make it sound impressive.

[@alexkidd3d]

@snarge Exactly, I agree. What I'm pointing out is that Mr. Craig misrepresents the situation because FSM wasn't created to contrast the vague transcendent 'intelligent designer' but to parallel the label of a christian 'God' being put on it. Basically FSM isn't about ID, it's about certain IDers pushing 'God' as the designer. Craig misrepresents the FSM concept by saying it's an analogy to deism, nobody ever said it was, its very theistic.

[@FruKaos]

@Stairc Sorry I didn't answer the other two points. Here we go. 2. The question isn't about what is stronger. The question is if you can say that something is good or bad no matter what the laws or societies says. I think we all have the objective morals inside us, I think most nazi soldiers felt bad about what they did against children etc. 3. In what way have the killings in Rwanda affected your life? Or if a child dies in China, does it affect you?

[@chebob2009]

@knowwaie And you think theologians genuinely knew the universe was finite? Hindu scripture said there were many planets and stars other than our own whereas Christians pretty much thought we were alone. Do you think that actually means the ancient Hindus knew? Or maybe they just got lucky!

[@sarevor]

The seven days are not literal days but are poetic expressions by God describing the stages that creation went through. An already created earth, had BECOME formless and void after it's creation. Then God took this chaotic world and fashioned it for human habitation. It's interesting the that the word used for created can also be rendered as a 'revealing'. The lights that were described were described BEFORE the lights in the sky, so what is meant by those lights is something to think on.

[@sdb5151225]

Wiki--"Kalām (Arabic: علم الكلام‎) is the Islamic philosophy of seeking Islamic theological principles through dialectic. Britannica Online--"In Arabic the word literally means "speech"." in Islām, speculative theology. The term is derived from the phrase kalām Allāh (Arabic: word of God), which refers to the Qurʾān, the sacred scripture of Islām. Those who practice kalām are known as mutakallimūn."

[@Abgef]

@wbarquez 1) How can God create time without the time to do it? 2) Why does the cause need to be conscious? 3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain? 4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist? 5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be? answer those logically & you may just be the first person to prove God's existence.

[@dreamextreme7]

another example of William Craig dissecting a point of view to his own bias without looking from the true perspective of those it's affected. The flying spaghetti monster is a beautiful analogy. It is used to prove the point that good reasons should matter. Too many people follow Christianity due to fear. The flying spaghetti monster "as god," points out that fearing a consequence to a creator without good independent reasoning for it's existence is not really justified.

[@lfzadra]

Proving that Dr. Craig´s God is false: Dr. Craig says that something appearing from nothing is impossible. But God made the Universe from nothing. And because we already concluded that something appearing from nothing is impossible, God, in fact, did the impossible. Beings that do the impossible are illogical, therefore, can´t exist, and that´s the end for Dr. Craig´s imaginary friend.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefor the universe has a cause. Were going in circles here, whether temporal becoming is real or not depends upon an a or b theory of time. As I mentioned before, on a b theory the universe beginning to exist at t0 is as absurd as saying a ruler comes into being at the 1 inch line. Not so on an A theory of time where temporal becoming is real.

[@TheAlexBody]

I don't care how rational this guy seems. Nothing will take away the faith I have in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[@Alaric11]

THE MEATBALLS ARE NOT HIS EYES. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, SINCE WE TALK TO EACHOTHER ALL THE TIME. HIS NOODLEY APPENDAGES HOLD UP HIS EYES.

[@furicon]

@MrAdam49567 I agree, this argument is contextually misplaced. The argument was that because you can 'conceive' a god that created us in his image does not make it anymore true than the belief in a holy teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars OR a flying spaghetti monster. It does not in any way support people who "see god in all creation". It bluntly says just because you can think it, does not make it true. There is a requirement of evidence.

[@AOPrinciple]

1 All that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is saying is simply that effects have causes that have (at least) logical priority to themselves. That is, of course, true. If we can determine that the universe does not possess in itself the attributes of necessary existence, then it exists contingently and needs a cause to explain it existence. the universe must have begun at a finite point in the past since... 1-To conceptualize time extending infinitely into the past is impossble...

[@wilburlua]

Only He has been truly able to satisfy and fulfill. Rather than be stuck with a mindset (like I did in the past) that the existence of God is impossible, I would urge you to just ponder for a moment about the possibility of a loving God, and try to find out for yourself if this could be true. You might see how all these can fit together logically. True, we can never fully understand God. But that doesnt mean He doesnt exist and thats why we need Faith .

[@evelsteev]

Intelligent Design isn't a science. It's just doublespeak for creationism.

[@kaoken1981]

Intelligent Design is a just (rather unsubtle) way of circumventing that pesky "Separation of Church and State" clause brought about by religious zealots. The whole point of the FSM was to challenge the 'I will believe in anything until it is disproven" idea. I find it amusing how theists require a much higher standard of evidence for the scientific community than they have for themselves; Most of their arguments are philosophically-based and end with "you have to have faith".

[@wilburlua]

It cannot be considered blind faith just because we cannot empirically feel or see God. The point is that the existence of God would explain many things which cannot be explained if there was no God. For example, the Universe and objective morality (which Dr. William Craig points out). The very idea of faith is essentially a belief in something which one cannot FULLY know or explain. I can have faith that my wife will not cheat on me.

[@jahoodunrama]

no, we're arguing about the evidence or the existence of a god, not its necessity. As to why an immaterial being cant affect a material universe, it should be fairly obvious, or do you not think that far ahead? HOW would an immaterial being affect a material universe? It cant without being material itself. As to how matter and space came to be, i dont know, but im far more inclined to believe in a natural cause over a divine one. Youre right about mudslinging tho, sorry about that.

[@wilburlua]

Continued: The idea that atoms exist is because this ideas best explains certain scientific phenomena such as the Brownian motion and thus, it leads to the irresistible conclusion that matter is made up of atoms. Similar, the idea of God explains the origin of the our universe and thus would lead to an inference that God exists.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

"It's logically possible to ontologically exist eternally yet have a temporal beginning in time." That's what I just said, on the be theory the ruler doesn't come into being at the 1 inch line, that's just where it starts, that says nothing about the rulers coming into being. That's quentin smiths view as well, check out this debate transcript of Craig vs smith. leaderuDOTcom/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard00.html

[@wilburlua]

Now, doubt is very common. But mere doubt does not disprove God. God can still exist even with doubt. Going back to a point I raised up, I can doubt whether my wife is faithful to me or have faith in her. If I choose to doubt, it doesnt mean she is not faithful. However, I can choose to have faith in her because on the balance of probabilities, the possibility that she is faithful may be a lot stronger. You said that I can empirically test for the existence of my wife, yes,

[@geoffreyefloyd]

"I think it depends a large part on if God is complex. A complex God doesn't solve the problem. " doesn't solve what problem...if you mean that in order to infer design you have to explain the designer that's crazy, you can infer that something is designed without having to explain the nature of the designer.

[@AletheianAeon]

Whenever people like this guy start spouting off shit like "immaterial," "timeless," "spaceless," and "omniscient" I can't help but wonder if they're thought this out beyond it's very obvious construction trying to counter logical empiricism. Our universe could have been easily spawned from another; a place with material, time, and space all its own. When you attribute to a thing absolutes like "timeless" and "spaceless" what you're essentially saying is senseless; it's nothingness.

[@wilburlua]

accurate and reliable compilation of documents of all time. Conversely, there is a lack of evidence against the death and resurrection of Christ. However, the reason for my belief in God is not so much a historical but a personal one. The God of the bible has given so much meaning to my life and has proven true again and again to me. I have lived a life without God and lived a life with God and I can tell you He makes all the difference in my life.

[@RadarKat73080]

@xrevisex I never said "good" and "bad' are fictional and I've never heard any atheist say they were. Do you assume to think there's right and wrong that one must accept the Christian God? Paul points out, in Romans 2:14-15: "For whenever people of the nations that do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law unto themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts."

[@runryrorun]

@FruKaos I think it is you that misunderstand, I did not say that the FSM was science, in fact that was my point. Just because you can create a philosophic proposition doe not mean that it is true. Aristotle proposed a geocentric solar system based off of his philosophy, but just because it fit philosophically doesn't make it less wrong. What we need to do is keep amending our idea of the universe as we learn more, not just hold onto a dogmatic "truth".

[@paleologue]

the problem with traditional theological hermanuetics is that it assumes that, just because Lane, Aquinas, Anselmn, Leibniz, Paley and Sorley, said a thing, that it must be true. What about the Bible. It says in the Bible...therefore it must be true. Well, by that logic alone, then it must be true what is written in the Vedas, the Lotus Sutras, the Q'uran, the Baghadvitas, the Manichean texts, etc.etc.etc. I am a christian. But I recognize that I believe in God, because I choose to.

[@wilburlua]

Anyway alieales, I really enjoyed having this discussion I have with you. I know I may not have convinced you of the existence of God because I feel mere arguments are probably insufficient. Nonetheless, Im very glad that at least youre open to the possibility of God. KZbin is not such a conducive place to have an argument and I think Ive said enough. So I think Ill let you respond one last time to my latest arguments and I will stop from here.

[@newbeats4]

The cause of the big bang does not have to be an external mechanism. At the time of the big bang there were no properties that we could possibly recognize (all forces like gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, time etc.) were non existent. So the mechanistic cause of that event is currently beyond our ability of reference or understanding.

[@Telamnar]

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject. -Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster RAmen!

[@wbarquez]

@Abgef I never said in my original proposition that the entity that exists necessarily and eternally is conscious. It was not my point. And time is progression, if nothing moved them time would stand still so to speak. I did not alleged that God created time. I merely implied that time started with the Big Bang for from the initial explosion, everything began to expand and move and this is how we measure time.

[@libertatus]

4) (cont.) "What would it take for you to stop believing in your Christian God?" I would say a cataclysm; the wiping out of the entire human race and I was the last(or among the last) to witness this and God never showed up to help. This hypothetical event of course is not mentioned in the Bible. But the Bible tells us we are created in His image, so.....5) I take your advice to heart and return it in good will, "Don't take things you are told as fact just because it fits you logic."

[@TamaMcGlinn]

"it attributes properties to the designer which can't be inferred from biological complexity" The only thing you can infer from biological complexity is evolution. A designer would choose a simple, elegant solution.

[@SqueakerAlpha]

neo-darwinian theory ? whats that ? who actually uses that term. ? FSM does not have meatball eyes, look at the picture. ID changed from "Pandas" when the court ruled that ID was creationism. Dover vs Kitzmiller. The IDEA website also makes it very clear that the Intelligent designer IS the Christian God of the bible , but legally they cant say that in schools , but science should accept supernatural events and allow god into science classes.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

when you say whatever begins to exist, it's akin to saying whatever comes into being has a cause. That something can't come into being without a cause. I think that's intuitively obvious. On the B theory of time to say that the universe began to exist just means that the universe has a front edge in the earlier than direction. So if the universe came into being, then it has a cause according to the first premise. You must deny the premise that the universe comes into being.

[@talover403]

@FruKaos The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.

[@jayjay00agnt]

If the creator of the earth and us is not god and not beyond the scope of this universe then we can assume that our creator must have had a creator and that creator a creator and that, logically, there can be no source of origin as an initial creator could not have existed. As an atheist and someone pursuing a background in the sciences, why is it so hard to say "we don't know" and stand by that. Because no matter what you believe that is the most honest stance on what we know about creation.

[@thehalfvolley]

@LordNapalm Actually he dismisses it based on the grounds that a being outside of space time would have to create space time and would therefore be immaterial. The Flying Spaghetti monster is made of spaghetti. We also dismiss the swamp monster who writes codes in primordial soups.

[@FruKaos]

@talover403 I understand if you think Christianity is weird if you really believe that this is the morality from God. I would recommend you to read the words of Jesus about love, forgiving your enemies, being humble, helping the weak etc. That is what Jesus spoke of and that is what Christianity is about.

[@MoonwalkerWorshiper]

Wikipedia: "The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion. Whoever does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption. Whoever does must present sufficient evidence to move the conclusion to their own position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled both by establishing positive evidence and negating oppositional evidence." Craig has done that for his case, christianity, but hazydavey has not for his FSM.

[@wilburlua]

Also, if I alone claim that there are Goblins living in my attic, you can of course choose not to believe that. But many groups of disciples actually saw Jesus resurrected from the dead, and they held the belief with such faith that they would be martyred for their faith. Now, do you really believe such ardent faith is blind and came out of a mere hallucination of an individual?

[@wilburlua]

The fact that you can choose to disbelieve already shows free will in operation. And this choice is only available to us before He reveals Himself fully. So I am very encouraged, at least by the fact that you bother to think about the possibility of Gods existence :) You contend that there is weak evidence for the existence of a god. I submit to you that there is, on the contrary, compelling evidence.

[@wilburlua]

that it would be absurd to believe this. However, it is not absurd to believe in the existence of God as self-existing because the very definition of God is that He must be self-existing, Uncaused, Eternal, and Immaterial in order to be God. I think it is definitely more plausible that God is self-existing rather than the Universe be self-existing. There are some things that our human and finite minds can never grasp, for example, infinity.

[@sidmain19]

Aren't fairy tales true? Just because they are not historical fact doesn't mean they cannot contain truth. Also, where did I say I was a biblical literalist? The Bible is a collection of books (The word Bible comes from the Greek plural for book, not singular) and so I wouldn't say the Song of Songs is a historical account nor would I say that the first chapters of Genesis are scientific cosmology. Yet they are true in their fundamental meanings.

[@GrandSupremeDaddyo]

@GnosticReality Atheist is not to claim the negative is true, but to reject the positive. Say I flip a coin, and someone says "I know that it is going to land on its edge." I don't have to make the claim "I know it won't." in order to disbelieve the other person's assumption. An agnostic atheist is therefore someone who does not know, or claim to know that God isn't real, but will act as if God isn't until sufficient evidence can change their mind.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

"Well is it more probable the universe ontologically poofed out of nothing or it always existed in some form from eternity? " The evidence for the finitude of the universe of overwhelming. I don't know of any physicist who would argue the universe is eternal in the past. There could be a multiverse, I agree that you can increase your probabalistic resources but posting an infinite number of randomly ordered worlds...so the question is what arguments are there for a multiverse.

[@theclinger]

He is wrong, as the FSM is an argument for UNintelegent design.

[@Birdieupon]

It was addressed to whomever made the objection I quoted.

[@FruKaos]

@Stairc 2. Glad to you mentioned slavery. A socially accepted way to strengthen the society and the economy during history. Slavery contributed greatly to, for example, the growth and well fare of the US. The US "tribe" only had benefits from slavery. How can you then say that slavery is bad? The minority made the majority rich and wealthy. Slavery didn't hurt the US society so to them it was morally OK.

[@Telamnar]

Clearly, 2:40 reveals Dr Craig to be ignorant of the true nature of pastafarianiasm. All these secular, scientific and crudely materialistic means of measuring the universe are, when necessary, modified by His Noodly Appendage - RAmen! - in order to test the faith of His flock. This talk of 'singularities' and the like only goes to show how far this poor lost sould has strayed from the true faith. I will not be cruel, however; for as Our Noodly Creator has said:

[@100huntley]

@hdregmore Thank you for your response but please reissue it with more age appropriate language.

[@GrandSupremeDaddyo]

@GnosticReality Oh p.s. - The Kalam cosmological argument: Everything has a beginning and a cause. Therefore there is something that does not have a beginning or a cause. Think about it.

[@Kiesel]

i dont like how this man makes fun of my beliefs.... doesnt he have any respect for other beliefs???

[@MPaulHolmesMPH]

@theapeman10 He said God comes before science? No. He said that God is the cause of space and time. How can he be "BEFORE" space and time. Before only has meaning w.r.t. time.

[@FruKaos]

@Stairc On a philosophical point of view. You don't have to prove love to know it exist. You don't have to prove guilt, anger, happiness etc either. You simply know they exist becuase you have the feelings. You know objective moral exist because you feel in your heart and soul that child abuse is wrong, slavery is wrong etc...

[@wilburlua]

when he tries to learn how to ride a bike. I may KNOW that hes going to get hurt but that doesnt mean that I cannot be upset when I see him actually getting hurt. At the end of the day, I know he is going to learn cycling and even though the process may be painful, the end will be glorious. Anyway, EVEN IF God does things we cannot comprehend, which is very likely true, that doesnt mean that all biblical writing is conjecture.

[@Abgef]

@wbarquez "begging the question," is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." More specifically, it refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. Man1: God created the universe. Man2: How do you know that? Man1: because it fits God & I don't have a better explanation. (Man1 is clearly begging the question by assuming God's existence without actually proving God's existence)

[@AOPrinciple]

2 and leads only to the incoherence of infinite regress. 2-The universe has a finite amount of energy at its disposal, and the amount of that energy that continues to be usable is shrinking since after more and more submits to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is increasing. There needs to be a cause of the universe to explain the universe that must be timeless, spaceless... and Craig goes on with the list ad nauseum.

[@snarge]

FSM should only be used as a criticism of Specific Religions or religions that identify god as having specific non-transcendent characteristics. It cannot be used as a parody of the philosophy of god In General. "God has a beard and likes to have sex with pretty girls" could be parodied by FSM. "A transcendent God outside of space-time meets the requirements of something that could create space-time" cannot be parodied by FSM. That's all he's trying to point out

[@arktheball]

Atheistchaos, Thanks for replying. I feel that this subject is up for debate. I think that any person reading that statement having a good understanding of scripture, could safely and reasonably say that it doesnt refer to the form of humanity reflecting Gods form. Rather that the moral qualities, the ability to reason, and feel on the level we do, is the image of God within us. We are unique among the natural world, and I see in that uniqueness, the image of God. :) what do you think?

[@sidmain19]

I do concede that there are some apparent contradictions, but these are there to bring out another truth, or a different aspect, e.g. the first Genesis story tells us that humans were created last. This story emphasises the goodness of creation and the equality of men and women in their creation. The second story tells us that Adam was created, followed by every other creature, and finally Eve. It then continues to tell of the Fall, which is the point of this story.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

"Sounds like your still dismissing the objection and just stating your belief as fact. " I told you I'm not here to give a defense of these arguments, if that's what your waiting for don't hold your breath. I don't know any other way to say which arguments I like, I like the cosmological arguments, yes it's a fact that I think the argument is true...I've said over and over that your belief in these arguments should be based upon the true premises and logical validity of the arguments.

[@sidmain19]

For example, with regards to fairy tales, beauty and the beast concerns the idea that there is humanity in even the most evil tyrant. It could also mean that it doesn't matter what someone looks like, their underlying humanity is what's important. Now, clearly this tale NEVER happened, yet the message it conveys is true. Hopefully now you get the idea that truth may not necessarily contain historical fact, but rather moral truths.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

the kalam argument pressuposes from start to finish an tensed theory of time, and that is where knowtje has turned his guns to. For that reason, Dr.Craig has written two books on the tensed and tensless theories of time. That a HUGE subject, and not really good for a superficial discussion like we're having. Read his books on it, but really knowtje is no expert either, I would look at criticisms from professional philosophers of time on the tensed theory of time (a theory).

[@jmdnarri]

The point of FSMism is to bring forth the point that just because science can not DIS-prove something, does not mean it should be taught in the science class room. If this man would ACTUALLY RESEARCH WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT He would know that the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has all the same excuses and none of the falsified beliefs that Christianity holds. It is therefore a better explaination than Creationism.

[@FruKaos]

@Stairc I realize you think I was refering to Jesus but I wasn't. I am just showing that if you agree that the sacrifice of a minority to gain benefits for the majority is something that is socially acceptable. However morally wrong (like slavery) social morals can accept even the worst attrocities if the majority thinks it is ok. Objective morals never do.

[@sarevor]

God didn't kill people out of lack of belief. They died because they refused to play fair with the Jews. They enemies of the Jews merely were reaped what they were sowing. But that's beyond the point now since Jesus burned that bridge and has commanded all of his spiritual servants to not harm anyone and that does that break this vow would not be considered Christians. Also, there is nothing being made up about FSM being bigoted toward Christianity, it generates hatred towards Christians.

[@Stairc]

@FruKaos If I and my friend agree that you should give me all your money, does that mean that YOU agree? No. It doesn't. Stop being silly and trying to throw the points aside. Everyone has to agree and be well-informed about the implications of their choices, and not forced to agree by threat.

[@FruKaos]

David F. Coppedge points out that: Many of the greatest scientists in history were Christians or had Biblical presuppositions. For most of these, their faith was the driving force behind their discoveries. True self-sustaining modern science (not just engineering, logic or mathematics) was born within a Christian society. Tough luck talover but science is a chrisitan discipline :P

[@talover403]

@FruKaos a) I dont answer silly questions.....give me something solid to work with b) How can I take your viewpoint seriously if its not backed by evidence? Faith is not backed by evidence c) I have TONs of evidence. What specificially do you want evidence for? Unless its something silly d) I was mimicking your immaturity That was the best statement you said so far.......

[@wilburlua]

I will proceed to ask you what you mean by empirical; because for me, for all the times Ive put my faith in God, Hes never failed me, thus I feel He has passed the test. That is not to say that I always get what I want, because I may not know what is best for me, but Ive never regretted any decision that I made trusting Him because the result always made me a better person. Thus, it doesnt take a great leap of faith for me to believe in Him.

[@Abgef]

I already agree the universe had a beginning but beginning to exist doesn't necessarily mean created out of nothing by an eternal deity...for your God hypothesis to be accepted you must answer the following: 1) How can God create time without the time to do it? 2) Why does the cause need to be conscious? 3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain? 4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist? pls wiki "begging the question"

[@Roper122]

It is so brilliant that he is forced to deal with the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! ( and once again he cleverly talks himself into a corner... ) Long Live the Flying Spaghetti Monster His Noodliness is timeless and causeless and particularly fond of pirates You cannot refute his existence Long Live the Al Dente Deity

[@eddiedko]

@groovyengineer 1. The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. 2. there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

craig gives 2 arguments for the personhood of the creator, one is the impossibility of an eternally existing impersonal cause resulting in a temporal effect. If the cause were timelessly present the effect would be timelessly present as well. The only way an eternal entity can cause a temporal effect is for the cause to be a mind endowed with free will.

[@thekidsog]

one of the notes on the side doesnt make william craig look to good,around :33 seconds he says that the spaghetti monster eyes are made of meatballs,but the note picture shows it having two eyes not made of meatballs,either it makes craig look bad or the person that put the note on there,some one didnt do there homework lol jk

[@DiminishedStudios]

No, ID theorists do not make it a part of their science to identify the designer. It is not a part of the ID process to try and identify the designer. It is a part of the process to detect design in natural phenomena. So basically what Craig is saying is that this is not religion. ID is not about doing experiments and saying "Thats proof of Jesus" it is just a branch of science that attempts to detect design.