Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a 'distinct possibility' that the spaghetti monster and Santa exist.
There is a 'distinct possibility' that the spaghetti monster and Santa exist. We should never the less be sensible enough not to let that possibility cause us to refuse to discuss anything relating to a possible universe where they do not exist. In this particular case however, as I pointed out, the arguments are still valid and important whether or not J ...[text shortened]... ristianity does not in any way explain why Indians 3000 years ago were attracted to Hinduism.
Really? Prove it.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI will, just as soon as you 'prove' that there is a distinct possibility that Jesus is who he said he was.
[b]There is a 'distinct possibility' that the spaghetti monster and Santa exist.
Really? Prove it.[/b]
What do you mean by 'prove' anyway? Mathematical? Logical? Scientific?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't mean to be juvenile, but I asked you first. If you prove to me, by whatever means, that there is a distinct possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then I will prove to you that there is a distinct possibility that Jesus Christ is Who He said He was.
I will, just as soon as you 'prove' that there is a distinct possibility that Jesus is who he said he was.
What do you mean by 'prove' anyway? Mathematical? Logical? Scientific?
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut his assertion of the possibility of the existance of Santa and the FSM was in response to your ealier assertion: "It is a distinct possibility that Christ is Who He claimed to be".
I don't mean to be juvenile, but I asked you first. If you prove to me, by whatever means, that there is a distinct possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then I will prove to you that there is a distinct possibility that Jesus Christ is Who He said He was.
It was you who made the first unprovable assertion and therefore it is quite valid that you should be the first to attempt a proof.
--- Penguin.
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are being juvenile as the implication of your post was that my assertion required proof. As you made your assertion about Jesus before I made mine about Santa, and as it is you making the assertion that such assertions require proof, it stands to reason that you should provide the first proof.
I don't mean to be juvenile, but I asked you first. If you prove to me, by whatever means, that there is a distinct possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then I will prove to you that there is a distinct possibility that Jesus Christ is Who He said He was.
But before we begin, please define what you mean by 'distinct possibility'.
[edit]
Let me proceed with my proof anyway:
Since it is impossible to prove the non existence of any entity without first defining the entity in enough detail as to be able to reasonably rule out its nonexistence and since the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a rather vague and flexible concept (pun intended), it is impossible to conclusively prove its non-existence. Hence a distinct possibility remains that it does in actual fact exist.
Of course the same proof can quite easily be applied to Jesus as we do not know for sure what Jesus claimed about himself, but the use of the present tense in your claim makes it rather harder as Jesus would have to at a minimum still exist but then a gain the definition of the entity referred to as Jesus is almost as flexible as that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe FSM is the deity of a parody religion. Obviously, then, there is not a distinct possibility that the FSM exists.
You are being juvenile as the implication of your post was that my assertion required proof. As you made your assertion about Jesus before I made mine about Santa, and as it is you making the assertion that such assertions require proof, it stands to reason that you should provide the first proof.
But before we begin, please define what you mean by 'dist ...[text shortened]... the entity referred to as Jesus is almost as flexible as that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Jesus Christ is the central figure of a reliably preserved historical eye-witness account, i.e., the NT. Therefore, there is a distinct possibility that Christ is Who He says He is.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me proceed with my proof anyway:
You are being juvenile as the implication of your post was that my assertion required proof. As you made your assertion about Jesus before I made mine about Santa, and as it is you making the assertion that such assertions require proof, it stands to reason that you should provide the first proof.
But before we begin, please define what you mean by 'dist ...[text shortened]... the entity referred to as Jesus is almost as flexible as that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Since it is impossible to prove the non existence of any entity without first defining the entity in enough detail as to be able to reasonably rule out its nonexistence and since the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a rather vague and flexible concept (pun intended), it is impossible to conclusively prove its non-existence. Hence a distinct possibility remains that it does in actual fact exist.
Did not lucifershammer present an argument very like this some time back, in support the existence of a supernatural being? (When I constructed an unfortunately cumbersome inference based on notions of identity, and you and he got into the “man in a box” argument?)