Thread: Flying Spaghetti Monster

Originally Posted by b!ll

However, something is a theory until proven. Once it's proven it's no longer a theory.

That's not true at all, and the reason is because it's impossible to "prove" anything in science. The scientific method does not transcend the logic of induction, in which absolute proof is impossible.

There is no scientific model that has ever risen above the rank of "theory," because no such rank exists. Even the term "scientific law" is something of a misnomer, since this only refers to a theory that is nearly universally accepted by scientists. I should point out that under this very criterion, evolution is itself a scientific law.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

the term 'theory' is reserved for models that have proven their worth and reliability, otherwise they're called an "hypothesis".

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

In science an hypothesis is proven and becomes a theory

This is actually not true, but it's a common misconception. A hypothesis is not simply an untested theory, and a theory is not simply a hypothesis with support. They are qualitatively different concepts.

A theory is a model or explanation for a natural phenomenon. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based on a theoretical model. You can't test a theory directly -- you can only test hypotheses derived from that theory.
In short:
Theory = explanation
Hypothesis = prediction

While I concede that my statements were simplistic, I disagree with your separation between hypothesis and theory.

A prediction IS an explanation.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

While I concede that my statements were simplistic, I disagree with your separation between hypothesis and theory.

A prediction IS an explanation.

No, a prediction is just that: a prediction.

For example: I predict that in 10 minutes, your computer is going to explode.

Why is it going to explode? I don't know; it just is. I predict that it will happen. No explanation is required for me to make this prediction. In scientific terms, I have offered a hypothesis without offering a theory to support it.

In scientific terms one wouldn't make a prediction for no reason, like you said a prediction would be based on a theory. With theories being objective, a prediction inherits the credibility of the theory that makes it and so it's rather pointless to call it an 'hypothesis'.

In fact, regardless of the source of the prediction, it seems pointless to call it an hypothesis. Why not just call it a prediction?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

In scientific terms one wouldn't make a prediction for no reason, like you said a prediction would be based on a theory. With theories being objective, a prediction inherits the credibility of the theory that makes it and so it's rather pointless to call it an 'hypothesis'.

In fact, regardless of the source of the prediction, it seems pointless to call it an hypothesis. Why not just call it a prediction?

Because then scientists couldn't use fancy words that only other PhDs are authorized to use thus making them feel superior, silly.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

In scientific terms one wouldn't make a prediction for no reason

Of course it wouldn't make sense to, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point was that a prediction is not the same thing as an explanation. That's why there's two different words (explanation and prediction) and that's why science uses two different terms (theory and hypothesis).

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

...it's rather pointless to call it an 'hypothesis'.

In fact, regardless of the source of the prediction, it seems pointless to call it an hypothesis. Why not just call it a prediction?

Because that's just what they chose to call predictions which are derived from scientific theories. Don't look at me -- I wasn't there when they devised the terminology. We could just as well call it a prediction and we wouldn't lose any meaning whatsoever. But the proper term is hypothesis.

For example, the theory of evolution is an explanation for how complex life formed. We can't directly test the theory of evolution (unless we could simply ask a magic all-knowing crystal ball or something), so we must test hypotheses (predictions) derived from the theory. Fortunately evolution gives us lots of hypotheses to work with. For example, it predicts (hypothesizes) that more complex life forms will be found later in the fossil record while the earlier parts of the fossil record will contain simpler life forms.

Then the hypothesis (predictions) of a theory passing the tests help the theory in gaining acceptance. That's not so far off from what I originally stated.

No, it's not. It's a pedantic distinction, to be honest. And to be fair, even scientists themselves are decidedly less than rigorous in the terminology they use. Just something of a pet peeve of mine.

I think a big part of the problem is that most of the teaching of science is done by scientists, who consider themselves to be something of experts on the topic -- which is ironic because science is a philosophy, and the real undisputed experts in the philosophy of science are philosophers. (The distinction between philosophers of science and scientists is that the former is concerned with what science is and how science should be conducted, while the latter is concerned with the actual doing of science.) You may be surprised to hear that almost no doctoral science programs require any formal training in philosophy of science. Scientists learn a whole lot about their field of study, and then just enough science to let them practice it. I think that this is unfortunate.

I know what you mean, the physics program I'm in for example has us working in labs in several classes but teaches nothing on the philosophy of science. (as far as I know at least) I guess it's expected for the future-scientists to figure it out through experience once they have their degrees.

Originally Posted by spockman

evolutionism

I knew it! It's just a conspiracy to destroy the One True Religion!

Originally Posted by Mark75

I knew it! It's just a conspiracy to destroy the One True Religion!

...

I guess creationism and evolutionary theory would have been more proper than creationism and evolutionism.

Too late, son, the Satan's out of the bag.

I'm more of a SubGenius guy myself.

The FSM is a good argument. It's funny because every single argument that is made for the existence of God applies equally well to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I agree with the first bit. However, something is a theory until proven. Once it's proven it's no longer a theory. Just because it has a bit supporting evidence does not make it 100% true. That's why it's called a theory.

Just like the theory of gravitation huh.

Go team you.

Originally Posted by Xei

The FSM is a good argument. It's funny because every single argument that is made for the existence of God applies equally well to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Just like the theory of gravitation huh.

Go team you.

Maybe a large number of, especially the fundamental arguments, do. But to say every argument is just silly.

Originally Posted by Xei

The FSM is a good argument. It's funny because every single argument that is made for the existence of God applies equally well to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Not really. I could make a many arguments for God that have no connection to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What is more important is the fact that it is naive to pose any argument against God at all. This is more of a deep spiritual understanding rather than stemming from how it appears religiously.

At some point, the mind has to admit it knows nothing and collapse. The sovereignty belongs to the Father, not to the ego.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's funny because every single argument that is made for the existence of God

No one, not a single person on the face of the earth or anywhere in the universe for that matter has

1. witnessed
2. communicated
3. or became ONE

with the FSM

religion is first and always based on the first hand experiences of human beings. The FSM is made up. No one experienced him.

God however is still experienced first hand to this day

Haha flying spaghetti monster...

Silly Kansas...

Wait...I'M FROM KANSAS! #$@%!

Originally Posted by juroara

No one, not a single person on the face of the earth or anywhere in the universe for that matter has

1. witnessed
2. communicated
3. or became ONE

with the FSM

You're quite the omniscient one.


But hey, just for the fun of it, on my next LD I'm going to summon, talk to and then become the great FSM.

Originally Posted by warhammer

http://www.venganza.org/

Anyone here a believer? I personally find it ridiculous but whatever I guess some people just want to worship a giant flying plate of spaghetti.

Post what you think about it.

ahem: http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=Poe%27s+Law

Maybe a large number of, especially the fundamental arguments, do. But to say every argument is just silly.

I'm willing to agree, but I want evidence; give me an example.

Until then; all of them do. If a counterexample should arise; most.

Not really. I could make a many arguments for God that have no connection to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What is more important is the fact that it is naive to pose any argument against God at all. This is more of a deep spiritual understanding rather than stemming from how it appears religiously.

At some point, the mind has to admit it knows nothing and collapse. The sovereignty belongs to the Father, not to the ego.

But that is exactly my point. Any argument for the existence of God makes no claims about which God. The argument always hinges on some quality of God and that quality can always be attributed just as easily to the FSM as, say, the Christian God.

Unless you give me an example otherwise.

No one, not a single person on the face of the earth or anywhere in the universe for that matter has

1. witnessed
2. communicated
3. or became ONE

with the FSM

religion is first and always based on the first hand experiences of human beings. The FSM is made up. No one experienced him.

God however is still experienced first hand to this day

And considering these people experience hundreds of mutually contradictory 'Gods', the entire thing must just be a delusion.

Hence it would be just as easy to do it with the FSM.

As said before it was created because of MY state's State Board of Education....I'm glad it was made

Originally Posted by Xei

But that is exactly my point. Any argument for the existence of God makes no claims about which God. The argument always hinges on some quality of God and that quality can always be attributed just as easily to the FSM as, say, the Christian God.

I guess the Christian God is the one caught up in typical argument, but that is mainly due to skeptical intellectualization over specifics and confusing both dogma and genuine spiritual truth, while attempting to discern a logical system. The Flying Spaghetti Monster critique demonstrates the mans' naivete to spiritual truth and the inability to recognize it within religious expression.

Let's talk about the mystical God, which has often been taught to be the essence of all the major religions.

• God is present within all things and beyond. God represents the Absolute Truth or Divine Reality and is beyond all time and space; not subject to it's limitations. This defines God as Omnipotent and Omnipresent.

This is only the first point. How does this relate to a Flying Spaghetti Monster? You might say because it cannot be proven. But that is also an ignorance. Since when do you have to prove the above point, and why would that be necessary? In the end, all that is happening is that man is seeking the truth but within the limitations of his own definitions, flaws and presumptions. This is where the saying "Empty the mind" comes in, because that is all that is required to know the Truth.

Originally Posted by b!ll

I hate the flying spaghetti monster. It's a half-arsed, cop-out of an argument. If anyone is a member then grow up. It does not even come close to an argument. I'm not religious at all. I'm a philosopher and this actually inspires some anger in me.

Lets take it seriously for a minute and apply some Philosophy to it:

Firstly, it's not a fitting argument. God (to the believers) is not a man-made phenomemon. spaghetti, unfortunately does not grow on trees. It's a man-made thing. So how can this flying spaghetti monster be anything of a designer of the universe?

In fact, i'm not gunna do anymore criticisms. I can't be bothered. It's a stupid idea and a stupid argument. Grow up.

It's all a joke...

Just saying.

And I was a Pastafarian for a while too! Even read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. lol, quite funny.