on the existance of gods.

a1s

here's how it goes:

axiom #1: everything either exists or it doesn't.
axiom #2: you can never know anything for sure, everything could just be a dream, or you could be schizophrenic.
assumption: in order to be able to do anything we need to think of certain things as existing, while others as non-existing, and to determine which it is, we simply see which state has more evidence supporting it, with direct evidence taking precedence over circumstantial ones.

now on to gods.

Hypothesis H0: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Hypothesis H1: The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exists.

evidence supporting H0:
direct:
none.

circumstantial:
There are pictures of it.
It has been described by several sources which are not related in ways other than all being on the Internet.
Total: 2

Evidence supporting H1:
direct:
none

circumstantial:
No one with a scientific degree has seen one.
Total: 1

Conclusion: we must assume that FSM exists, until we find more evidence to contradict this fact.

Sail

This is funny, I guess, but what are you actually trying to achieve with this thread? A religious argument? In case you missed it, there isn't going to be anymore religious debates until someone can refute the FSM argument. I'll repost it below for good measure. Mods, perhaps this should be added into the Forum Rules and Hints thread?

From now on, anyone who attempts to make an argument in favor of religion that fails to refute the flying spaghetti monster argument will be closed. I know this might make us seem cowardly, like we are avoiding the argument, but if you look at our history of debate in this forum I think you will see we are nothing if not afraid to defend our position. The reason for this policy is because we do not have the time for this bullshit anymore. We have posted the same exact arguments repeatedly in multiple threads, and you people still do not comprehend the basic tenets of logic, reason, and burden of proof.

If someone can manage to actually make a new argument that actually warrants a reply that we have not already posted a billion times, we will let the thread live. If you want to attempt this, I suggest you start by trying to refute the flying spaghetti monster argument. You must make it at least that far.

For the final time on this forum I will post the FSM argument.

There is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster.
It is possible that it could exist.
Do you believe in the FSM? No, that would be crazy.

There is a mountain of evidence that suggests the sky is blue.
There is a possibility that the sky is not blue.
Do you believe the sky is not blue? No, that would be crazy.

There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, including any god or gods.
It is possible that supernatural things could exist.
Do you believe in god or gods? If you do, you're as crazy as someone who believes in the FSM or someone who believes the sky is not blue.

Everything you can think of has a philosophical possibility of being true. For all we know we are in the Matrix, it is possible. Also, everything you think you know has a philosophical possibility of being false. Grass might not be green. It could be a trick and grass is actually all magenta. Discussing those possibilities is interesting, for philosophy.

In reality and practical every day living, philosophy doesn't matter. The infinitesimally small possibility that things with no supporting evidence might be true, or the infinitesimally small possibility that things with mountains of evidence might be false are ignored. Instead we look only at evidence. Everything claim is false by default, and things are shown to be true by supporting them with scientific evidence. If you make a claim, especially an extraordinary one, you will be required to provide evidence to support that claim. If you can not support the claim it is false by default.

Nobody has to prove things wrong. They are false by default until proven. If things were true by default, then everything would be true. Instead you have to prove things right. You will never prove something 100%, because of the philosophical doubt. But rational people ignore the philosophical doubt outside of philosophical discussions. For purposes of reality and every day life that doubt does not exist. If you were to seriously take that doubt into consideration or believe something exists in that small space, then you are as irrational as someone who believes the sky is plaid.

a1s

ahem.
I think I just did.
(probably not, but it's 4 in the morning here, so I won't be sure until I reread it in the morning. and I expect a full rebuttal by then)

Sail

Holy shit, I honestly thought this was a joke.

Rym

I think I just did.

No, you did not.