There is a certain scene from The Incredibles that always gives me chill bumps and so I thought I’d add it to my “Christian Moments in the Movies” section. (Click on the picture above to watch the clip.)
We see a mother bravely try all she can to keep her children from being blown up. She dodges, spirals and maneuvers out of the path of the on-coming missiles as Mr. Incredible looks on helpless.
At the last moment it becomes apparent that she cannot save her children.
When I first saw the movie, I didn’t expect this scene to become so serious so quickly. In a split second the mother jumps and covers her children with her own body in a last-ditch effort to save their lives.
It is a very powerful scene…the most powerful in the entire movie.
May 22, 2009 at 11:13 am |
Good point–I had forgotten about that scene. I also enjoyed the movies’s preview where Mr. Incredible could not fit into his old super hero suit.
June 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
Odd question, how is that Christian? Isn’t that just human? Loving your children is a human reaction.
I get a feeling of disgust at the story of Abraham and Isaac. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and his response is “Okay” rather than “Screw you!” Protecting your children is human.
And just as a point of interest, inside your child’s magical force-field is a pretty safe place to be if everything is going to blow up.
June 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
Self-sacrifice, love, honor, and appreication of beauty are possible only when the Christian worldview is at some level presupposed. This act by Elasta Girl is a wonderful moment when Christian virtue is unhesitatingly displayed. In this clip we see how wonderful and powerful the covenantal family structure is.
The fact that you are disgusted by the Christian worldview frankly isn’t an interesting observation. We are told in John chapter 1 that the light has shone in the darkness but the darkness rejected it. I don’t expect you to submit to God’s sovereignty in your current unregenerate state…(even though I hold you morally accountable to do so.)
At the risk of going off topic, I could point to the situation with the governor of South Carolina. Consider the comments of Rep. J. Todd Rutherford (Dem.):
“I don’t think that most people in South Carolina have a problem with the fact that he had an affair. We do believe that is between he and his wife and his kids. But I don’t believe that having your staff lie, or your lying about your whereabouts, disappearing, all of that in the aggregate, can be left and we leave him as governor in South Carolina.” – NPR
His attitude is interesting here. Lying and breaking the covenantal bond with family members is A-ok…something to be between “them.” However…breaking bond to the messianic state is an unforgiveable sin.
Thus the family bond (even to death) displayed by the Incredibles…is far stronger (and God-ordained) than the humanist bond between a slave and the Messianic State.
June 30, 2009 at 7:46 pm |
So non-Christian self sacrifice doesn’t exist? Or does non-Christian self-sacrifice simply demand use of the Christian worldview? It isn’t the Christian worldview I find disgusting but rather the story of Abraham and Isaac that faith should lead to child sacrifice. Or the story of Jephthah where he actually goes through with it and murders his own child. Self-sacrifice is a human and honored as human (you’ll note the Incredibles is non-religious). My objection isn’t to the humanity of self-sacrifice but to the attempt to Christianize it. Reading the Bible it seems that child sacrifice is typically exalted. Not simply in Abraham and Isaac, or the other child sacrifices in the Bible, but even in the central tale of the Gospels. It seems that Christianity is more apt to teach one to sacrifice their children for religion than give your life to save theirs.
Which brings me back to the question, why is self-sacrifice necessarily Christian? Rather it seems a pretty clear attempt to Christianize an extremely laudable act while the whole of Christianity actually teaches the reverse.
June 30, 2009 at 8:10 pm |
Once again…
You cannot divorce “self-sacrifice” from the Christian worldview.
All of the Biblical instances you bring up in your reply demand the sovereignty of God. I could certainly take the liberty to correct you on your understanding of the specifics concerning each situation…but that would neglect to address the underlying and quite offense assumption that God is LORD over every aspect of life and creation.
This is something the God-hater simply cannot allow.
Thus we have you…actually expecting me to accept your proposal that “self-sacrifice” means something apart from the Christian worldview.
You may object to God’s moral proclamations in the Bible…but, as I said before…that’s not really a big story.
To the naturalist…all that exist ultimately is matter in motion. Therefore…the actions of certain atoms taken against other atoms…is just as meaningful as any motion anywhere in the universe.
The moon’s orbit around the Earth is just as moral as self-sacrifice. I like the illustration pastor Douglas Wilson made in his debate with Christopher Hitchens…(an illustration Hitchens failed to address): If you shake up two cans of soda, and watch them fizz…that’s all the difference between two life forms. Why is the fizzing of one soda different morally than the fizzing of another?
No sir Mr. Tat…I’m afraid arbitrary assertions of moral opinions are not going to convince me of your position.
This remains a wonderful example of a Christian moment in the movies.
June 30, 2009 at 8:49 pm |
You have much to learn of naturalistic morals and equating it all to atoms is pretty silly, but it suffers from the same problem as above (I could show the science of self-sacrifice and the humanity but this isn’t the chiefmost disagreement).
You are simply trying to Christianize various aspects of reality. It’s an odd sort of cousin to presuppostionalism. Self-sacrifice for your children is Christian even though the Bible depicts child sacrifice. Empiricism holds that the future looks like the past because Christianity allows such even though it equally fails under Godel.
Couldn’t the same be true for any deity I pull out of the hat? Doesn’t self-sacrifice reveal Flying Spaghetti Monster values? It is the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all who allows the future to look like the past. Empiricists simply rely on the consistency of character of the Flying Spaghetti Monster when they make their conclusions. Pastafarians have a basis for making the claim that the future will be like the past because we know why this occurs.
There’s no actual logic in assuming Christianity as a prerequisite for everything. So the same applies for Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you are simply Christianizing the reliably and virtue of the FSM.
RAmen.
July 2, 2009 at 10:20 am |
If I have much to learn…well, I’m willing to have you teach me. Please suggest some moral philosophy that is not predicated on the metaphysical view of the philosopher making the proposition and I’ll jump at the chance to read such a thing…(so would the Nobel Prize committee.)
You disagree with the entire Chrisitan worldview…and so it really isn’t surprising for you to disagree with what is or is not a “Christian-Moment” in film.
As for your attempt to use the “Fristianity” argument by trying to claim that random dieties can provide the same epistemic foundation as the Christian God…well, that has been well refuted in Christian literature. (See Michael Butler’s debate with God-hater Michael Martin.)
Additionally…I’m currently working on a transcendental critique of Zeus. I initially wanted to do it for your friend Mr. Catalyst over on the Myspace blogs…(Mr. Cat was fond of appealing to Zeus as as unproveable concept.) These sorts of gods…even the FSM…are inherently self-contradictory. (I’ve been spending time in George Mason’s library here in D.C…trying to seek out the most systematic and coherent theological statement for Zeus. If you have any suggestions…I’d really appreciate it.)
To conclude:
If you’d like to write a paper demonstrating a positive moral theory that can make sense out of this scene from the “Incredibles” without appealing to the Christian system in any implicit way…or if you’d like to point to one already written (I may already own any of the books you’d refer to…) then please do so.
Also…if you’d like to demonstrate how the Flying Spagetti monster can provide for epistemological certainty (without arbitrarily giving the FSM all the same qualities and attributes as the Christian God) then please do so.
Those are your options…and I’d be glad to continue our discussion on that level.
It must be concluded that if the Christian worldview is true…then all my statements here are correct, and this scene is profoundly Christian.
If your naturalistic humanism (in whatever form you’d claim) is true…then you are correct in your assertions.
Let’s discuss our real disagreement instead of flinging assertions from different paradigms.
July 2, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
Please suggest some moral philosophy that is not predicated on the metaphysical view of the philosopher making the proposition.
Sure, why not Richard Carrier’s book Sense & Goodness Without God. He lays out a good defense of scientific naturalistic ethics. If one wants happiness, and it is the case that moral behavior makes one happy, than one ought to be moral. In a very real sense, given the choice to strive for the purely scientific or purely religion worldview, we should strive for the purely scientific view. Further, there’s a lot to the idea of evolutionary morality and the evolution of our moral senses. In the sense of cooperation, society, game theory and a large array of varying sciences brought to bear on the question of goodness. Suffice it to say that nearly every moral action you take is in the self interest of your interests and for your propagation.
I disagree with your Christianized humanist worldview that presupposes that any action to protect your worldview presupposes and requires the truth of your worldview. Under such assumptions, everything Good is cuz of Jesus, and every argument you make is necessarily circular.
There’s nothing special about the non-sequitur deity you decide to jump to. The flying spaghetti monster does work just as well as Jesus. And dismissively stating that “that has been well refuted” is not a refutation. Further, Butler’s debate with Martin was on TAG, which is an absolutely terrible argument. Moreover it’s one that still doesn’t demand something special about the non-sequitur deity one leaps to, as you see the transcendental basis required for logic, morality, science (as I previously mentioned) is anchored safely within the character of His Noodlyness, rather than your fictional Jesus.
Zeus, like the FSM and other Gods are not inherently self-contradictory. The entire point is that they are just as reasonable as the Christian God. The entire point is that in absolutely no argument is the Christian God a necessary conclusion. I can just conclude the Flying Spaghetti Monster in every case just as easily. There’s nothing special about Jesus. In fact, most of the exact same arguments used in favor of your God are also borrowed and used in all seriousness in favor of Allah.
They are no more contradictory than your God. You simply assume Christianity and use that to establish that Christianity is therefore not contradictory but all the other gods are. However, that argument is entirely circular.
There’s no point in finding a systematic and coherent theology expression of Zeus. If you find something, to preserve the analogy we would simple weasel like Christians. Oh, on Mt. Olympus but there’s no God’s there? He moved. You can’t see him. You didn’t look with your eyes seeking Zeus.
The concept behind the “Christian system” as you say is the problem. It’s a human reaction to sacrifice for your children, that is why stories like Jephthah and Isaac in the Bible are so disgusting. You have a Christianized humanist moral sense which is both evolved biologically and culturally. The reason I cite Jephthah is to point out that applying a proper humanist ethic to the story demands that we consider the stories of the Bible to be unchristian.
However if you like, Elastagirl wasn’t going to live through a blast as such anyway. Covering her children, especially one who can create a forcefield isn’t going to cost her anything. The sacrifice trades certain death for certain death with the slight possibility children living (assuming the mother didn’t suppose the forcefield would kick in, the daughter just couldn’t do the entire plane, the small bubble was always a possibility). This sacrifice is an obvious improvement in the survival of one’s family. In a strictly biological sense, we should find self-sacrifice for one’s children. This goes to the point of parents in some species dying and allowing their children to eat their carcasses, which is a highly disturbing parallel with much the same implications, the difference is that we are primed to see the human actions as moral.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster provides for epistemological certainty by allow us to depend upon the consistency of his character to make the future resemble the past. If you claim that this is “arbitrarily giving the FSM” “Christian attributes”, you should bear in mind, that’s false. Christians are the one’s who arbitrarily gave the Christian God, Flying Spaghetti Monster attributes!
The paradigms are our disagreement (you stated as much by noting that if the views are true than our arguments stand). You have a Christianized humanist view of everything in which you demand that we assume your God as accurate and move on from there. I’m sorry but that claim is categorically unacceptable. Your entire worldview is predicated on an unproved assumption that can only be proved without your worldview, such are the implications of Godel. You can never assume the Christian God as the basis of logic and use that logic to prove the Christian God. It’s not possible. You must use properly secular logic to attempt to draw that conclusion. However, in either case your argument fails.
July 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
Before I begin my reply I will warn you that I do not tolerate blasphemy of my God on this blog. I took the liberty of editing your blasphemous insults out. In the future, keep that in mind.
I was first introduced to Richard Carrier’s book “Sense and Goodness Without God” by a guy calling himself “Rook Hawkins” who associated with a group of God-haters called “The Rational Response Squad.” I often refer to it in order to critique simplistic understandings of moral philosophy.
Carrier necessarily must presuppose certain metaphysical truths in order to compile his philosophy. In lieu of a critique of Carrier, you can read my critique of Robert T. Pennock’s attempt to arbitrarily define the metaphysical out of the scientific method: http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/a-critique-of-robert-t-pennock%e2%80%99s-attempt-to-arbitrarily-define-supernaturalism-out-of-science/
I asked for an example of a moral philosophy that was not predicated on some form of metaphysics. Carrier’s is demonstrably reliant on his metaphysical assumption of naturalism.
Try again.
Additionally…I like to make it a point to present my opponent in the best possible light. It is very important to me to represent them as fairly as possible.
You take no such pains when you attempt to discuss the Christian position…especially the Pressuppositional position of the likes of Michael Butler.
Additionally…I welcome any and all attempts by anyone to arbitrarily build a FSM system modeled after the Christian God.
This places the (usually) arrogant God-hater in a precarious position. Since you wont read Butler as I reccomended…I’ll tell you why this is bad for the unbeliever:
1. You must explain why the FSM position (when given all the attributes of the Christian worldview) is then able to provide for epistemological certainty, where as empiricism cannot.
2. You must then provide for some explanation as to why the Christian system was revealed in history, and not the FSM system. Remember, if the FSM is a liar, then the entire system falls apart.
You have your work cut out for you Mr. Tat…
Additionally…in the past, throwing around the name of Kurt Godel, and alluding to his Incompleteness theorum, may have helped you intimidate some Christians…but don’t expect that here.
About two years ago, I first encountered a skeptic who tried to appeal to Godel’s theorum to invalidate a proper Christian epistemology. (Keep in mind…like you…he didn’t try to draw any dots, or analytically demonstrate his case…he merely tried insisting that it refuted my position somehow.) So, I began reading and researching about him.
There is no reason why Godel’s theory causes me any problems as a Christian. If you’re interested, you could read Vern Poythress’ article on the epistemological foundation of mathematics in the book “Foundations of Christian Scholarship.” Additionally, Mr. Poythress has a great book called “Redeeming Science.” In addition to those articles, I suggest John Frame’s discussion on the use of Paradox in Christian apologetics. (It is also available in the book Foundations of Chrisitan scholarship, as well as online.) Both Frame and Poythress have a blog where I believe these works can be found.
Don’t expect me to be intimidated by the destruction of ridiculous straw-men.
On the other-hand…you still have two directions to move in…as I highlighted in my previous post. You have two options.
I look forward to either one, or hopefully both.
July 2, 2009 at 7:57 pm |
There can be no blasphemy of your God; your God does not exist. Blasphemy is a victimless crime and censorship is pretty petty. They don’t hate God, they know the truth, there is no God. I don’t hate non-existent things.
Richard Carrier goes to pretty good lengths to establish naturalism. Suggesting that I can read something else is hardly proper. You asked for a naturalistic ethic, I gave you one. Just saying it’s metaphysical doesn’t serve to negate it. But, again, it relates back to the foundational error you have in your epistemology. You’re assuming Christianity as true, and proceeding from there. This is why you think naturalism is unsupported when the existence of natural phenomenon provide great evidence for the efficacy of naturalism.
You claim to attempt to present others in the best light when you call them “arrogant Godhaters” this and “Godhater” that. Further, why should I take any pains at all to respect a “position”? Not the difference there. “I try to respect other people. But you make no attempt to respect X position.” I don’t respect presuppostionalism at all. It’s a vacuous and intellectually dishonest position. TAG is a horrible argument. These aren’t insults directed at people they are comments about a position.
Again, I don’t need to build a FSM system modeled after the Christian God. The model we use is predicated on the Flying Spaghetti Monster presuppositionally. It’s the Christian system that is arbitrary and haphazardly composed by borrowing the epistemological reliability of FSM. You can’t conclude anything unless you understand that the consistency of logic itself is an element of the character of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Using your God in a vain attempt to discredit this notion, is self-contradictory because you are opposing the very nature of logic and reason itself. You cannot use logic to defeat logic. You are cutting off your own (logical) head by attempting to discredit the FSM.
I’ve read the debate. It’s a rehashing of the same old. If you think the arguments are compelling present the compelling parts. I’d be happy to point out the errors.
1. The FSM has FSM attributes. The Christian worldview is simply predicated and dishonestly claiming those attributes for their God. It’s sad really. The FSM makes epistemological certainty in empiricism possible by making the future resemble the past. Without this science and logic would not function. RAmen.
2. The FSM system was revealed in history. It’s actually one of the oldest religions known to man. It was kept largely secret for a very long period of time before being revealed to the Prophet Henderson (I’m not making this up, it’s actual FSM dogma). The FSM is known to get a little drunk from time to time. But, he’s an honest FSM.
I don’t see how that was any work at all. You assumed Christianity did something it didn’t and I easily established the parallel argument for FSM. Because, again, your conclusion doesn’t follow. It’s always a non-sequitur conclusion.
I am not trying to intellectually bludgeon you with Godel’s theorem. I’m sorry if that’s the impression I gave. I fully expected you to understand the theorem and the implications thereof. You cannot under any circumstances prove a system within the system you are using to establish the proof. For example it is not possible to mathematically prove mathematics, or logically prove logic, or empirically prove empiricism. The implications are clear, the only way you can establish the reliability of a system within that system is if that system is not reliable (in which case you can conclude anything).
Now, given presuppositionalist assumptions for the nature of logic and science being predicated on God. One can never conclude that God exists with that system. It started with the assumption that God exists. Any arguments made with regard to God within that system are necessarily unreliable. All systems under Godel are necessarily unable to establish their veracity within that system. So using a presuppositionalist logic system, by Godel, cannot ever logically conclude that God exists (as that’s the basis of the system) and can never establish their own veracity. — Godel is thusly a fancy way of pointing out that God is an assumption on the part of presuppositionalists. By assuming the mantle of presuppositionalism one entrenches that God can never be proved (within that system, if you want to switch to real logic… have at it). Further, given the unacceptable nature of presupposing that God exists as a necessary component of the functionality of logic, all presuppositionalism is left with is an unprovable assumption and a poisoned middle ground where even the most basic premises cannot be agreed upon.
In short, presuppositionalism is the theological equivalent of plugging your ears with your fingers and shouting God exists, over and over again. — As this is certainly doesn’t rely on any necessity on the part of the “God” role to be the Christian God, the flying spaghetti monster suffices.
So, bless his noodly appendages for this touching moment of self-sacrifice. It was truly a touching pastafarian moment.
July 3, 2009 at 11:01 am |
1. I don’t care what your opinion of Christianity is…or how the Christian God makes you feel. (At least, such information has no bearing on this particular post.)
2. If you can look at the Christian system, and see how I’ve erred in applying it to this particular clip…then do so. I realize you don’t like Christianity and disagree with my conclusions based on your bias. Please see number 1.
3. I thought of writing an essay demonstrating the proper place of Godel’s theorem in Christian epistemology. If I do so…it will only be for my own exercise, as well as to provide an article I can link to in the future when some God-hater tries to appeal to Godel to refute me. In the mean-time, Vern Poythress has written a wonderful critique of it in his article on the epistemological problems in secular mathematics. (I discussed this above.) You can read his critique, or wait for mine.
4. The “Fristianity” argument is used in various ways (most are incoherent) by various God-haters. None seem to realize the unique nature of the Christian God. You can read Michael Butler’s discussion of the issue…(in which you can find corrections to your lame attempt at an FSM argument) or you can wait for my article…(that I’ve been working on for quite some time) called “Shotgun Chows Down on the FSM.” Part of the reason I’m doing a transcendental critique of Zeus is to demonstrate the incoherence and arbitrariness of an Olympian system. All forms of secular humanistic materialism are equally self-refuting. Additionally, any ad-hoc systematic expression of a FSM will likewise refute itself.
These are your options. I’ll not continue having you post unfocused arguments on my blog. I realize you may want to engage about our central differences…if so…choose a more appropriate blog to critique.
I suggest you read my critique of Robert T. Pennock, and begin commenting on that blog. There, our differences can be relevantly discussed. Additionally…you will be able to easily see how my conclusions there apply to Carrier’s system. At some point, if you insist, I may do a series of posts on Carrier. I’d be open to that…and we could have an ongoing discussion concerning each chapter.
In fact…If you’re dead set against reading my critique of Pennock…and you also happen to own a copy of Carrier’s book…I could suggest a mutual study. We could decide in advance what our reading for the week will be…say a chapter a week…and we’ll blog about it chapter by chapter.
This particular blog needs to stay focused on the Incredibles.
July 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
It isn’t my opinion of Christianity at issue. It’s the topic at hand. This is not a Christian moment. This is a human moment. There’s nothing inherently Christian about it. You are simply taking self-sacrifice and applying your presuppositionalist Christianized ethic to it.
I’m sure the famous image of the monk lighting himself on fire to protest the abuses of the state was doing something very Christian too. It’s entirely a non-sequitur on your part based on a completely unprovable assumption.
The error on your part isn’t the application of your worldview, it’s your worldview. It isn’t bias on my part to point out that this isn’t necessarily Christian and it’s only your assumption (and circular logic) that says anything different.
Godel’s theorem works the same in Christian epistemology as every other type. You can’t prove your system is valid.
There is nothing unique about the Christian God. You really can easily replace the words with any other words you want. Calling it a “lame attempt” is simply a genetic fallacy. What exactly is wrong with it? It uses different letters? The Christian system is self-refuting. It uses the reliable basis of the FSM and uses that to try to attack the flying spaghetti monster. That’s self-refuting.
The parallels are apt, your system is baseless, the act was very pastafarian obviously. RAmen. Elastagirl earned her stripper factory!
July 3, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
You’ve got the options I’ve displayed for you. Which will you choose?
July 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
I’ve aptly made my point and you’ve done nothing to refute my criticism. The scene is human not Christian. Your assumption is based only on your assumption.
July 3, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
Your “criticism” consists of (1)a half-cocked and frankly uneducated statement of the Fristianity argument. You then (2)allude to Godel to demonstrate that, in some mysterious way you’ve yet to demonstrate…his incompleteness theorem invalidates Christian presuppositions.
You also mix in your own feelings towards Christianity.
As for your feelings towards Christianity…I’ve already told you, I could care less.
As for (1)…you can wait for my article or read the material I suggested.
As for (2)…you can wait for my article or read the material I suggested.
You can also go to my critique of Clark Pennock and see if you can refute my observations there…though I’ve never seen a God-hater refute my critique.
Our disagreement is over the fundamental nature of reality.
Your next post to the Incredibles thread, needs to demonstrate that…as a Christian…I have somehow erred in claiming this clip is a “Christian Moment.” Though…it’s quite clear that the clip is very “Christian” from the perspective of my worldview.
Otherwise…you need to critique Christianity as a system…and this thread is not the place to do that in. I suggested my blog critiquing Pennock as a more appropriate place for that sort of discussion…and I also proposed a mutual study through Carrier’s work.
As it stands…I see no reason that the clip I’ve included here is not a Christian moment in the movies.
July 3, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
Correction…I meant…Robert Pennock. Here is the link for you:
http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/a-critique-of-robert-t-pennock%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-arbitrarily-define-supernaturalism-out-of-science/
July 3, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
Butler’s criticism of Fristianity misses the point and tries to make suggest that there’s just too many things that would change. The main point however is absolutely apt. Rather than deal with Butler attempt to muck up the question. I’m simply switching to Pastafarianism wholesale for the analogy.
The entire point is to say that there’s nothing special about your worldview and proven about it, and nothing special. One could just as easily conclude Islam as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jesus. Elastigirls action was clearly reflective of His Noodliness. — There is no refutation possible for this point. You can’t use logic. Logic is based on the presupposition that the FSM exists to make logic coherent. This is why your logic fails you, because you can’t refute my statements because any attempt at refutation would be self-refuting.
My allusion to Godel was straight forward and spelled out. You can’t prove your system within your system. If you’re going to place “God exists” at the foundation of that system, then you can never prove that with the system. I’m pointing out that not only did you just assume God at the start, but by supposing it as a presuppositional requirement for empiricism, logic, etc. you make it unprovable period. That’s not mysterious, it’s an unproven and unprovable assumption on your part.
The sum of your statements here have simply been insults, strawmans, claims of “uneducated”, naive, explained elsewhere, refuted by other people, and everything short of an actual refutation that you can throw at me. You refuse to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the most fundamental part of our existence. Only by his sauces do we exist. You attempt to dismiss this point, but you never actually offer anything but misdirection.
Your next reply to me had better be an apology and a relabeling of this section bit FSMMIM because that’s exactly what it was. RAmen!
P.S. You can’t simple use your twisted presuppositions to call any and all-self sacrifice Christian, but then whine when I address those suppositions.
July 3, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
If you can prove that reason itself is impossible without alluding to the FSM, then you might have a case.
If you want to do that, then write it up in your own blog.
Don’t post here again unless it’s within the guidelines I’ve proposed.
July 3, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
“If you can prove that reason itself is impossible without alluding to the FSM, then you might have a case.”
Hello? That’s what I’ve been saying the entire time. Logic doesn’t work without the FSM keeping things together. The law of non-contradiction is based entirely on the character of the Flying Spaghetti Monster keeping the consistency of logic from contradicting. Also empiricism is also based on FSM keeping the consistency of everything, the future resembling the past.
Have you even read my posts. This has been my argument the entire time. Thusly, I can only conclude that you agree that I “have a case”. Thank you for conceding the point. Though, I guess it was pretty well expected as you can’t refuting it because logic is based on the FSM and any attempt at refutation would be self-refuting.
RAmen.
July 3, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
Is the FSM a triune being? Or is he monolithic?
One of the classic problems of philosophy through the centuries has been the problem of the “One and the Many.”
Plato describes universal concepts being brought into contact with particular objects via a “demiurge.” Aristotle says the universal concept is contained within the particular object. In the Medieval times…the nominalists said the “universal” is just a naming convention of various particular objects.
Which is true? Which is right? It’s readily demonstrable (and generally accepted) that none of these methods is sufficient for solving the one and the many problem. (See Bertrand Russell’s essay “Problems of Philosophy.” Additionally…his proposed solution is no better than the others as can be demonstrated.)
The Christian God, as Cornelius Van Til has shown…can adequately answer this problem. Van Til appeals to His triune nature.
How does the FSM solve the problem of the One and the Many? (If you need a good statement of it, Werner Heisenberg provides a very nice one in his series of lectures “Physics and Philosophy.”)
I am currently … (as of right this minute) writing the article “Shotgun Chows Down on the FSM.” So…I’m a little eager to discuss it…(especially since I think I have a unique contribution to the debate.)
I will transfer the above comment of yours to that thread when I’m done writing it…but will let it stay here for now. (If you read this before I’ve posted the new blog…you can respond if you’d like…though I’ll be moving it to the other thread…that is, unless you have some relevant comment to make about the Incredibles clip.)
July 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
The Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in many forms. Though in any form he’s the basis of logic and reason so everything you say as an attempted refutation is self-refuting. So you’ve already lost.
Genuflections by presuppositionalists to needing a triune basis is just silly. FSM is the source of logic and reason, be it the sauce, noodles, or meatballs.
There is no point to logically pointing out that all spaghetti even flying spaghetti is many parts and yet a single dish that is the same, as clearly, logic is based on the FSM and thus can only testify to the truth of the flying spaghetti monster. The fact that logic works and that there are many and there are one is itself evidence and proof of the flying spaghetti monster.
If you want to prove there is no flying spghetti monster, establish that logic stops functioning one day or the assumption of science (which is based on the truth of FSM) that the future will resemble the past stops being true. Only then will you possibly have an argument.
July 3, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
So then…the Flying Spaghetti Monster has all the same attributes as the Christian God?
If not…can you expound on exactly how he is different?
If the FSM is all Gods, at all times…then he contradicts himself…since he can be no god or any god. Thus, he is trivial, and cannot provide for the preconditions that make rational thought possible.
July 3, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
The Christian God usurped the attributes of the FSM where it needed them to steal credit for the consistency of the natural world provided to us by His Noodliness. The FSM is no gods at no time, he is once and always the flying spaghetti monster. It is upon that consistency of character that all science and logic arises. It’s impossible for the FSM to be contradictory as logic is based upon the FSM monster.
You have done nothing to deny this truth. RAmen.
July 3, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
At what point in history did Christians usurp the FSM theological system?
Christianity is 2000 years old, so it must have happened back then. You must have documents and empirical data to suggest this. And furthermore, you have to provide a reason why the FSM would allow his followers to be confused for thousands of years. Also, you have to enlighten us all as to how you’ve been able to rescue the true FSM theology from that of the corrupted versions floating around out there.
The FSM is slowly being digested my friend.
July 3, 2009 at 7:21 pm |
The FSM isn’t a “theology system” there’s just logic, science, and morality and they are based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It isn’t like there was an established theology which demanded such. It’s just that logic and reason worked, and though people didn’t know how or why they worked they knew that they did work and used them accordingly. They didn’t know at the time that they worked because the FSM made them work.
The Christians came along, saw that they worked and saw that scientists didn’t have a firm understanding of why they worked and supposed it would be a good crack in understanding to shove their made up God into. At whatever point that happened, that was the point where the Christians became usurpers of the flying spaghetti monster.
I have revealed information that all of this is true. Though, I find your demands for “documents”, “empirical data”, and desire for “reasons” amusing. Why should I be asked to acquiesce to such requests when you, yourself, simply quote trash that other people have said. That’s not evidence. That’s not empirical data. And what do documents have to do the truth? The FSM is real whether you like it or not, and if you don’t believe and accept him you’re going to go to hell.
Clearly you just haven’t been touched by His Noodly Appendage. It just is the way it is. The FSM’s followers have never been confused. They always understood this. They were just admonished to keep it a secret until the appointed time. There are no corrupted versions of FSM theology.
Also for my point the theology is secondary. It doesn’t matter whether you accept it or not, it’s true. And logic, reason, science and empiricism itself are all based directly on the consistency of character of the FSM.
July 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
You contradict yourself.
“They didn’t know at one time that the FSM made logic work”
Yet … you also say…
“The FSM worshipers always knew.”
Get your story strait, then make another post.
You also fail to provide any historical evidence of your claims. If the FSM provides for the consistent working of logic and rationality, then he does so, (presumably) in order that you should use them. Denying their use is a childish game of fideism and in no way mimics the Christian use of logic and reason.
Do you want to give up now? Or shall we continue?
July 3, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
“They” refers to the scientists. Whereas the “FSM worshippers” refer to a different group. Those who followed the religion before the religion was revealed, always knew the ultimate truth.
The truth of the FSM is universal. It doesn’t only apply to the followers of the flying spaghetti monster. The reliability of science works regardless of belief. The reason it is reliable is because of the FSM.
The scientists at the time didn’t know that it was the FSM, neither did the Christians who saw that it was reliable and tried to claim the reliability provided by the character of the FSM for their God.
No, the FSM doesn’t care if we use logic and rationality or that we should use them (in fact the scriptures speak quite highly of getting sauced). They are simply reliable because that’s what the FSM wants them to be, and it is his character to make them as they are.
What historical evidence could ever establish such grand claims? Couldn’t that evidence just be faked or misinterpreted? History is a pretty sketchy and desperate thing to appeal to, especially for an ancient religion which specifically was hidden throughout most of history. Indeed finding any evidence of the flying spaghetti monster prior to the Prophet Henderson would be a grave sin of the followers who should have maintained the secret.
We need only look at his creation to know of the power of the FSM and only be touched by his noodly appendage to know the truth. We need only observe that these truths apply equally throughout history to know the reliability of the FSM.
I’m not denying logic or rationality. Indeed you are denying logic and rationality by ignoring the very basis of them. You are making self-refuting claims against the very logic and rationality you are claiming to use!
July 5, 2009 at 10:50 pm |
Mr. Tat…
I hope your 4th of July vacation was as refreshing as mine.
To focus this discussion…let me propose a simple syllogism for you:
(1) If the FSM is true, no other system can be true.
(2) All other systems are demonstrably false.
Conclusion: The FSM is true.
Would you agree with this conclusion?
Keep in mind…to make the FSM argument as you’re making it…you must agree that only the FSM provides all the rational preconditions of intelligibility. You’ve asserted as much by making your argument as you have.
I wait for your reply.
July 6, 2009 at 1:37 am |
The FSM is true. Whether the FSM allows other systems to be true is up to him. But, again, you can’t use logic against the system because the FSM is the basis of logic and any argument against the FSM is self-defeating because it’s using logic against the source of logic.
—
The analogy is sound. There’s nothing special about Christianity. I can just as easily call the Incredibles scene a Pastafarian moment because it makes exactly as much sense and it really does convey why we should be touched by his noodly appendage.
July 7, 2009 at 9:40 am |
Sure you want to stick with this answer?
July 7, 2009 at 8:49 pm |
The truth isn’t just an answer. RAmen.