The Flying Spaghetti Monster

I've been meaning to write up a little something on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for some time now. Finally getting around to it.

You can see some background here at the FSM's official website. Knock yourself out. The FSM is basically a sort of spoof (sprinkled with a lame attempt at wit) on the Intelligent Design's "unknown Designer" to the tune of "You believe God is the designer, but I think that this Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in 4 slightly-hungover days, and I believe it because he touched me with his noodly appendage".  However, it also has applicability to the sort of presuppositional argument (ie, the TAG) I usually use in arguing for the justification of presupposing God's existence.
An interaction in which the FSM is mentioned usually includes "Why can't I presuppose the existence of the FSM?" or "I believe the FSM is the designer!" Here's a recent example, even:

PChem said: At some point you have to explain why the universe is here. This is a basic philosophical question that a valid world view should be able to handle.

Dr Funkenstein said: well the invisible pink unicorn would 'explain' it as well as the Christian God, but all that shows is that simply putting forward a content free explanation (and one in itself that would also require an explanation) for the sake of having one is not always better than admitting ignorance.

So here are some principal rebuttals to the existence of the FSM. If you've been linked to this page, you need to answer ALL of these challenges in order for your claim to believe in the FSM to be taken seriously. If you can't or are unwilling, I have nothing more to say to you until you own up to what you actually believe (everyone knows you don't really believe in the FSM), since I'm not interested in discussing stupid fairy tales. Also, you should know that Dick Dawk cites this argument all the time, and it's more than amusing. The guy is completely in over his head when he tries to make philosophical statements. He likes to say "there's as much evidence for a designer as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster". Little does he realise (since he's not a particularly deep thinker) that there's as much evidence for evidence, or other minds, or the reliability of one's senses, as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster - none.

Challenges for the Pastafarian to answer:

How does the FSM account for the origin of the universe?
The FSM is supposedly made of...spaghetti and meatballs. Did it precede the creation of space in which to exist? How does matter, specifically a delicious Italian meal, exist without space to occupy?


Since the FSM's nature is not timeless, how does it solve the problem of entropy or infinite regress?
If the FSM is supposed to be eternal and since it is composed of matter, how does it escape the problem of entropy? Whence does it derive its energy? How is it that all its energy was not used up an infinite amount of time ago? If it has infinite energy, how do you know that and how does limited matter contain it? If you answer that "it has infinite energy", why does that sound suspiciously like the God of the Bible?
How does it solve the problem of past infinite regress, where if matter and time have always existed (meaning that an infinite number of seconds have already transpired), continuing to exist into the future means that we are continually adding to infinity? (This is, of course, the exact same argument one uses in arguing against the past eternality of the universe itself. It's the Pastafarians' fault for positing a 'god' composed of matter.)


How is the FSM sufficient as a foundation for all reason and intelligibility?
What is the FSM's relationship to the laws of logic and of mathematics?
Does the impossibility of the contrary exist for Pastafarianism? If so, what is your defeater for Christianity?
Speaking of which...

Why is it that enough questioning of Pastafarians or approximations thereof always leads you back to a clear imitation of the God of the Bible?
See a post I did on this a while back.
The idea here is that the FSM is supposed to be an obviously false satire of the God of the Bible, and in showing that one can muster the same kind of argumentation for the FSM as one can for tGotB, show that tGotB is irrational. But what one finds is, if one asks enough questions, the Pastafarian always ends up stealing ideas and theology from the Christian God. Alternatively, when one presses enough, one finds the Pastafarian positing internally inconsistent dogma about the FSM, leading to incoherency. Multiple examples exist in the just-cited post.


There is no serious self-revelation of the FSM. Thus, how can anyone know anything about the FSM?
This is a question I'm always asking of non-Christians - how do you know? The God of the Bible has revealed Himself, in the Bible. If He had not revealed some things about Himself, there would be no way for any human to have access to knowledge about God. He is not composed of matter and is therefore beyond the reach of science. He is not composed of energy per se and is transcendent, so cannot be measured or manipulated and His repeatable effects reliably studied. He is generally invisible, does not generally speak audibly, etc. Any philosophical exercise or thought experiment has no basis with which to begin, and so would have no guarantee of reaching any detailed result or confidence in the accuracy thereof.
The way we know about Him is that He has spoken through prophets and through the God-man, Jesus and His apostles, and this God-man predicted He would be killed and rise from the dead, and then did it. He predicted that worship of Him would arise from within a fiercely nationalistic and fiercely opposed religious context and have success all over the world, and here today is the church.
What is the comparable revelation from the FSM? How can we know it is actually revelation from the FSM? What verification, such as miracles or fulfilled prophecy, has been advanced from the Pastafarian side?


Does the FSM provide any foundation for any objective morality?
Should I believe that the FSM exists? Why?
Should I hunt down and kill all Pastafarians and their children? Why not?
How do we know unless the FSM provides some overarching prescriptive standard in comparison with which we can determine good/bad and right/wrong value judgments?
(Yep, same argument as the commonly used one against atheism.)


What precisely has the FSM done?
Why is it that the FSM blog is full of man-made drawings and representations of the FSM with nothing else? When this supposed higher being supposedly exists, why is the only "evidence" things that humans have done? What sets the FSM apart from other imaginary deities like Vishnu or the sprite in yonder large oak tree?
The answer is obvious - this is a made-up spoof, a satire. Satire, when done well, can stay with someone for a while. When done poorly, it's worth a smirk; then one moves on. This is the latter kind.
And no, I don't want to hear some throwaway "the God of the Bible hasn't done anything either!" Bring a decent rebuttal to the resurrection of Jesus, a rebuttal to the growth and existence of the Christian church, an explanation of the masses of people who preferred painful, messy deaths to denying something they were in a position to know for sure was wrong, an explanation of the origin of time, space, energy, and the universe, an explanation for the origin of life, an account for the diversity of life that doesn't beg the question in terms of the fossil record and by trying to demonstrate unguided processes by means of intelligently-guided experimentation, and that would be a good start.


Why are the claims made by the FSM "religion" so incoherent?
For example:

It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel.

It's times like this when I wonder why I'm wasting my time. I thought you SAW the FSM, and felt it "touch you" with its "noodly/noodley (depends on which Pastafarian is writing, I suppose) appendage". Did the FSM create itself? How does that work, exactly?

But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

This is obviously meant to be a swipe at creationism, but it's very poorly done. Satire has to be precise, else it's a strawman, and this is a strawman. Further, this raises serious questions about the reliability of ANY observation in the FSM-verse. And how does the Pastafarian know this about the FSM? Further, given how much of a strawman this is, why can't the FSM correctly represent or bring its followers to correctly represent competing worldviews, such as Christianity?


Why is the founder of the FSM "religion" so incoherent?
Have a look at Venganza's FAQs:

There are plenty of good Christians (and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus), and plenty of bad ones.

No explanation how he knows good from bad. It's a pretty important question!

Dogma is bad for everyone.

1) That's a dogmatic statement. I guess he didn't really mean it, then. Or he's a sociopath. Or none too bright.
2) This is nothing short of an open admission that the FSM is not to be taken seriously. If the founder doesn't take it seriously, why should anyone else?
3) On what basis, then, does he presume to tell anyone else what the FSM is and isn't? I mean, he NAMED it the FSM! What right does he have to tell me what to call that thing, or to draw it? Don't I have freedom of expression too? Can't I show you a blank piece of paper and say to him, "That thing you call the FSM I have reproduced on this sheet of blank paper, and this is just as valid as yours, since dogma is bad for everyone. Further, it's not actually the FSM; I believe this is my pet Sterrance, who is either visible or invisible, as you like."? Of course, since dogma is bad.

Which leads me to:

Why so much Jon Stewart-like disingenuousness and inconsistency with respect to whether Pastafarianism is satire or not?
Whenever it suits the FSM people, the FSM is real. Whenever you get too close to inflicting a fatal wound on the FSM position, alluvasudden "it's just a spoof on you stupid ID people!"
Why do so many Pastafarians pretend to play "FSM is my god" when convenient and go back to professing atheism or agnosticism on their days off?


What is the FSM's answer to the problem of evil?
It's funny to me that skeptics like to bring up the problem of evil pretty often, but then on the other hand cite things like FSM or paganism or something that have no chance of bringing forth any decent theodicy. Does the FSM define evil? Is there a law to which humans must conform? If so, what is the remedy for the lawbreaking? If not, isn't it the case that it's completely unimportant and inconsequential if I don't believe in the FSM? Or the truth?
Is there any resolution to the suffering we see in the world? How did it all begin? Is human life meaningful at all? If so, on what basis? If not, why believe in the FSM at all, and along those lines, why "evangelise" about it?


Why do so few people believe in the FSM?


Does the FSM ensure the continual consistency of observed physical laws, thus ensuring the utility of scientific inquiry and experimentation? The God of the Bible is explicitly said, in the Bible, to hold the universe together, and to have promised that the world will continue as is until the Eschaton. Atheism labors under the problem of induction, specifically that the patterns observed in the recorded past are in no way certain to continue into the future, even one more second. How does the FSM solve this problem, and how does the Pastafarian know?


If Pastafarianism is true, what explanation does it give for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And why are the arguments against the resurrection of Jesus so poor?


All that to say, those who cite the FSM as some kind of decent argument have not done nearly enough heavy lifting in terms of establishing the boundaries and content of the concept they're proposing. They seem not even to realise the necessity thereof, and that willful ineptitude reveals how seriously they take the FSM as a viable concept - they don't. These questions have been dealt with for centuries by Christian thinkers, both clergy and laypeople, and even intellectual dwarves like myself. Where has similar treatment been given to these vital issues from the Pasta side?


See also Mariano's (of True FreeThinker) treatment of this issue. The FSM (like its idiot cousins the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, and all other variants) was funny the first time I heard it, but how funny is a bad joke the 50th time around? Dick Dawk and his friends could also stand to learn that it's in bad taste to laugh at one's own joke all the time.

Last Tuesday-ism

Last Tuesday-ism is occasionally used as an argument against Christianity (like here), especially Young Earth Creationism, especially the kind that I generally argue, where my answer to why geological structures appear to be really old is b/c God created them, like Adam, with a certain appearance of age to the natural eye. Adam was formed and created as a fully-grown man, not a zygote. Similarly, I figure it's a good explanation to say that God created the world to look old when studied from the standpoint of unbelieving naturalistic "science", using limited methodology, knowledge, breadth of vision (ie, we can't look back very far; indeed we've recorded even less), and instrumentation, and when attempting to, as it were, prove God wrong.
But since God actually did create it more recently than many billions of yrs ago, we'd expect to see inconsistencies in any worldview that expresses the billions of yrs belief. And indeed we do. Exhibit A - evolutionary naturalism.

Anyway, the skeptic asks how this position is distinguishable from last Tuesday-ism, and the answers are manifold. Remember, we take the question from the Christian worldview, and in that worldview, God doesn't lie, and He does communicate truth. That's the fundamental axiom; w/o that, we argue (and quite successfully) that there's no way to know anything about anything. So, as I said in the ERV thread above, if God is lying to us, then we have no way to discover truth. About anything.
Basically, this is an alternative worldview, much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so it needs its own structure and framework to be constructed by the questioner. Who is God and how do you know? How do you know God created the world last Tuesday? How can you trust the passage of time? Are all of your remembered (but completely fabricated) relationships and experiences worth anything? If so, how do you assign value to them and how do you justify that assignment?
Can you really trust airplanes, boats, drinking water out of the tap, flu shots and vaccines, ibuprofen, food, sex, your parents, given that nothing you remember about them is real? I mean, you have a whole life of work ahead of you here.
By the way, if you want to go on the fascinating but flawed "prankster/evil god" argument from there, first demonstrate how you can reliably know anything about that god.


I'd like to turn the question back around to the skeptic now. How do YOU know last Tuesday-ism isn't true? Maybe the universe exploded (out of nothing, caused by nothing, of course) into existence last Tuesday and everything we observe now in the world, galaxy, and universe coalesced in that time, and by some improbably bizarre set of circumstances (sound familiar?), the Earth and life have come together since then. And yes, evolution has taken place in that short time. Natural pressures and natural selection have determined that human beings would exist, believing by and large that the world is many billions of yrs old, b/c if they didn't believe that, then they'd commit suicide out of despair (well, that's the scientific community's best guess, though we haven't -yet- figured out a way to study that part of our past, but we're working on it. And until then, it's a fact, not a theory). So up to this present time, the human population has been shaped by these pressures and selection to express the "Earth is billions of yrs old"-belief gene in most cases.
You may scoff and say, "That's improbable! Astronomically improbable!" Wait a second. Isn't that precisely what you say about the way you already think the Earth and all life on it came into existence - thru astronomically improbable events? Further, when challengers to Old Earth or at least to evolution challenge you and contend that the odds against life appearing on Earth are simply too vast to comprehend and to attribute to mere chance, don't you respond with "well, improbable it may be, but that's the way it is"?
So that's my answer to you - improbable it may be, but that's the way it is. After all, what's the difference in probability between astronomically improbable and astronomically improbable?
Now, prove me wrong.

Flying Catfish, continued

The discussion with the Jolly Nihilist continues.

First off, I'd like to point out that he hasn't answered the questions raised here.
As he said here:

My First Principle—that being, evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth—is materially different from the mathematics example because evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting.

That was a while ago, and he's had several chances, but all he's done is to raise questions about my own position. That's fine with me, but it certainly doesn't get him anywhere. No one who reads his blog or his comments would think that he is unsure or agnostic about whether he's right, about whether he is pretty sure that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth, but if he doesn't defend his own position and if he destroys mine, then he's left drifting in a morass of agnosticism.
Unfortunately and interestingly, by way of reminder to everyone, he won't have any way to get there b/c he won't have any argument showing that his argument is valid. This is all about how he proves anything.

And notice how he's vacillating. One moment he's crying "axiom!" to get out of the infinite regress of asking for evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the idea that evidence is a good way to discover truth.
The very next minute he's saying "evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility", thereby utterly begging the question.
The next minute he's differentiating between a "Cosmic" 1st Principle (CFP) and a "Philosophical" 1st Principle (PFP) and claiming that his PFP is useful for observing and living in this universe. This... "cosmos", if you will. Hmm. Seems a little arbitrary.

Of course, we could just take the JN's word for it, in which case we grant, apparently with his full assent, that his PFP is totally abstract, and therefore we must question its worth as regards the real world. I brought this up before as well and the JN has not responded.

He goes on:

I do not have to deal with the “brain in a vat” question because the location of my brain—inside my skull—is manifest.

This deals with the concept in point 4 here. He's begging the question again.
"Well, obviously I'm not a brain in a vat. My brain's right here!"
For one thing, he's never directly observed his brain. He's observed his SCALP, not his brain. I don't encourage him to try it, but to stop begging this question, a bone saw would need to be involved.
Also, if you're a brain in a vat, you are simply being deceived by the electrical stimuli being fed into your brain by the evil alien/demon in charge of creating your illusions. Go ahead and marshal evidence that this is not the case.
Note that this brain-in-a-vat question directly follows without obstacle from his evidentialist principle, but is proscribed by a Christian worldview. The fact that the brain-in-a-vat worldview is self-refuting and is yet easily incorporated into the JN's atheistic worldview simply serves further notice of the invalidity of both.

that the bare facts of reality cannot be the bare facts of reality, but, instead, require “grounding.” The cosmos exists—this is manifest.

1) Prove the cosmos exists, and that you are not being deceived by a grand illusion.
2) I love it - the JN wants me to bring forth evidence all the time for the existence of TGOTB, but when it comes to other things that make him uncomfy, all of a sudden, things are just "manifest". Arbitrary, again.
3) Very well then - TGOTB's existence is just a bare fact of reality. It doesn't require grounding. See, wasn't that easy when we just invoke the ipse dixit? Perhaps the JN thinks he's the infallible Pope of Reason. He's already shown he's willing to put on and take off the Pope of Morality hat when it suits him; now his authority apparently extends to even more areas of life than I originally realised.

Abstract concepts such as principles can be dealt with by the human species—this, per the pattern, is also manifest.

Humans may be able to "deal with" these concepts, but this speaks not at all to the question of whether they're true or not. The JN may have lost track of just what we're arguing here.

As to my "CFP": First, I share Russell’s concern that such musings exist solely in the land of metaphysics, having no real relationship with the world of experience.

Your PFP is also 100% metaphysical, as we've seen and as you've admitted, sometimes (when it suits you). You can't prove evidence is a good way to discover truth by bringing forth evidence. What is your evidence for that?
See how he's forcing us to regress in our conversation? Suddenly we're where we were 3 months ago!

Ultimately, in terms of voluntary actions, one always follows one’s desire.

I had asked him a question about morality - what one SHOULD do. He responds with a long paragraph about what humans DO. Apparently what IS is what OUGHT, but he doesn't always believe that. If he did, he would never, ever criticise any action, ever, b/c it IS. He does criticise certain actions, however, on moral grounds, so he doesn't really believe this. It's hard to talk to someone who's so inconsistent.


The ever-helpful Anonymous steps in with an aside:
Does the evidence that is considered to validate these truths fulfill your preconditions for evidence or not ?

Hmm, let's see. Should I accept evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth?
Since the question of whether evidence is a good way to discover truth is not yet decided (on atheism), that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? Welcome to the wonderful world of begging the question, Anonymous. Say hi to the JN; he's been here a while.


Moving to the JN's comments on my rebuttal of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

The JN said:
I believe the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish (hereafter “ECC”) escaped entirely unscathed

It's only a matter of time. All of these so-called alternatives fail upon varying degrees of examination. But the FSM and the ECC are the exact same thing - ad hoc rhetorical gimmicks to try to beat up one specific argument. No one respects these made-up-on-the-fly devices in real life anywhere else, really.
Dr Funkenstein didn't accept something that is very similar from Plantinga just 2 days ago. One wishes that Dr Funk were consistent enough to call the JN out for doing the same thing he dislikes in Plantinga, but you can't have everything, I guess.
I'd argue that the Plantinga thing is plausible, actually - you don't know what Nick Caveman was thinking when the tiger approached him. You can't go back in time and attach electrodes to his brain or perform a Vulcan mind-meld with him when the tiger approached him. You assume he thinks "tiger - danger - escape = run away", but you don't know that. You're projecting your thoughts onto Nick Caveman without justification.
But, as was pointed out in the ECC/FSM post (and the JN apparently didn't feel the need to interact with this point):

But in this case, we know that no man has ever been between Earth and Mars (except perhaps fleetingly while in orbit around the Earth—a situation that would not be the case for the "ancient books" used in the analogy), and that no one has ever lost their teapot there. The existence of the teapot becomes irrational because the origin of teapots is Earth-bound and likewise bound to humans.

You also referenced self-revelation through the Bible, but I do not see how that is a core essentiality.

It is not an essential attribute for God, but objective revelation is essential for our epistemology. If we don't know anything about God, then... we don't know anything about God. This will be a very important point as these discussions advance.

mixing and matching variables with the core list of essentialities, I could confect 1000 gods…all of them functional Cosmic First Principles.

Go for it, but I only have patience for, say, 3 or 4. Make sure they're your best. Once you will have failed on those 3 or 4, why would anyone have faith in you to get it right eventually?
Such would be rivalled only by evolutionists' faith in natural selection blindly acting on random mutations.


The Green God

1) Maybe TGOTB *does* see everythg tinted green.
2) How is the Green God omnipresent if he has physical eyes with which he sees "green", like we do?
3) How do you know this god exists, and more to the point, how do you know he sees everythg tinted green?

Next!


The Melodic God

1) TGOTB *does* have endless background music.
Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY {is} THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME."
Rev 4:9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever,
Rev 4:10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11 "Whorthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."
2) You even admitted: "It does not dominate the consciousness". Precisely.
This god is no different from TGOTB.
2 down, 2 to go (or, none to go, but again, you can't have everything). Not a good initial showing from the JN.

Finally, Anonymous added another tidbit:
The YHWH won't fit unless he is identical to FSM, in which case he IS FSM and is a little irritated that you've been acting like such a clown and taking His name in vain.

1) How do you know the FSM is the true God?
2) If he's exactly the same as TGOTB, why should anyone believe that the name "FSM", which was made up a few years ago, should take precedence over the extremely early names of God?

ECC/FSM/fad of the month

The Jolly Nihilist said:

if you believe Yahweh works as a C(osmic) F(irst) P(rinciple), he must possess certain character traits (which Zeus lacks) that make him suitable as one. And, because you have never proved that every dot and iota of Yahweh's nature is critical for this job, one must assume it comes down to a set of core essentialities. This being the case, I could define the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish (hereafter “ECC”) so as to possess all those core essentialities, and then sprinkle in sundry variables, to taste. [This step ensures ECC is materially different from Yahweh and other deities.] Through this exercise, ECC would transform into a CFP—the singular source of a comprehensive, complete, consistent worldview. And, yet, I would remain pitifully ignorant of the cosmos’ actual natural reality.

Yeah, I knew I'd have to write a post on the Flying Spaghetti Monster at some point, but it's difficult to get emotionally jacked-up enough for longish posts sometimes. Today is one of those hard days, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

For the uninitiated, the FSM is a gimmick thought experiment construct that, in its origin, was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek counter to the claims of Intelligent Design. "You think Goddidit, eh? Well, I posit the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. He created the universe in 3 slightly-hungover days. I know this b/c he touched me with his noodly appendage. Ramen and ramen!"

In fact, I even met some "Pastafarians" about a year ago. In keeping with the 100% ad hoc nature of their gimmick, they were obviously playing games, but it was interesting to engage them. Additionally, and informatively, they kept straying from pure FSM-ism into atheistic and ridiculous comments such as "There is no absolute truth" and "We can't know history". Well, maybe they were young and naïve. Goes to show you that shallow argumentation and poor thinking skills are not limited to the Christians coming to college. It could be anyone!

Anyway, here's the FSM's website. I recommend anyone read thru the "Evidence" section, to see why I put "evidence" in quotes.

Now, in the vein of "Why do it worse if someone's already done it better?" I present selections from a longish thread that took place a year ago (and is linked-to in my sidebar as "With Touchstone about the Celestial Teapot". The ECC/FSM/teapot/whatever argument gets its comeuppance as the thread progresses. Also, as a side amusement, Touchstone (who was masquerading as a Christian, but has now revealed himself to be an atheist, to no one's surprise) regresses into near incoherency, to the point that he asks "Who made God?", earning himself a great deal of contempt in the process.


================
From the original post:

First is the fact that the analogy is impossible to take seriously. What I mean by this is that the only reason the analogy works as an attack against faith is because nobody (granted the exception of a few kooks) would affirm the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars on the basis of it being in "ancient books." Such a hypothesis would not be taught "as the sacred truth every Sunday" because reasonable people would never submit to such a stupid idea. Russell’s analogy works because what no one accepts as reasonable (a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars) is supposedly linked to what the vast majority of people accept as reasonable (the existence of some form of deity). Dawkins uses the analogy to show that simply because we are agnostic about something (after all, we cannot disprove the existence of the teapot without having omniscience), that does not mean we have to give equal odds to both sides of the question of existence of the teapot (i.e. there’s a 50/50 shot it actually exists). Says Dawkins:

The point of all these way-out examples is that they are undisprovable, yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence. Russell’s point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers. Mine is the related pointed that the odds in favor of the teapot…are not equal to the odds against.
(quoted in Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 53)

But this brings up an immediate question. Why are these "way-out examples" to be taken seriously in the first place? If "nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence" then in what way do these examples cohere to the concept of the existence of God?

Such counter questions are far from trivial. Consider for a moment why no one believes in the teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. First, a teapot is a man-made object. Very few men have ever been to space, and the odds are that exactly none of them brought a teapot up when they made the trip. Further, even if we stipulated that someone now threw a teapot into orbit, Russell’s analogy requires that it be an ancient belief.

If you do not think the man-made feature of the teapot matters, consider what would happen if I changed the hypothesis slightly. What if instead I said: "There is a rock the size of a teapot that orbits between the Earth and Mars." Suddenly, the analogy (as used by Dawkins) breaks down. The odds that there is a teapot-sized rock in solar system are so high as to be certain. The odds that this rock could be between the Earth and Mars are only slightly diminished—after all, we know of many asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, and it would not be illogical to assume that some of these asteroids meander and could get trapped in orbit between the Earth and Mars.

Thus, if we simply switch from viewing a man-made object to viewing a natural object, the analogy immediately breaks down. While we still cannot prove the existence of said rock, it very well may be "intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it." This is why the analogy must rely on the use of a man-made object. But in this case, we know that no man has ever been between Earth and Mars (except perhaps fleetingly while in orbit around the Earth—a situation that would not be the case for the "ancient books" used in the analogy), and that no one has ever lost their teapot there. The existence of the teapot becomes irrational because the origin of teapots is Earth-bound and likewise bound to humans.

But while this deals with Dawkins’ use of the analogy, there is another point we need to address regarding the original use of it by Russell. Russell claims that the burden of proof is on the believer of the teapot, which is true so far as that goes. After all, there is simply no phenomenon that needs to be explained by the existence of a teapot between Earth and Mars. The teapot’s existence is completely gratuitous; it serves no purpose other than for the analogy. This is why stipulating the existence of a teapot would be so ridiculous—there is no reason for us to believe in the existence of a teapot because there is nothing that needs to be explained by the existence of a teapot.

So we see that we are justified in ridiculing the existence of a teapot between Earth and Mars. The problem is that Russell and Dawkins then want to transfer the ridicule on the teapot analogy toward belief in the existence of God. This immediately fails, however.

God is not a man-made object (note for the atheists: this is not saying that God is not a man-made belief, for indeed all false beliefs of God would be man-made beliefs of God). If God exists, His existence is not due to the existence of man; He exists apart from man. Thus, Dawkins’ use of the analogy immediately shows discontinuity between the teapot and God. We are not speaking of the existence of an object that we know would not normally appear between the Earth and Mars. We are speaking of the existence of an object that would transcend the universe. This is hardly analogous.

Further, there are phenomena that are explained by the existence of God. Most obviously, He fits as the answer to the question: Why is there something instead of nothing? The very existence of the universe screams out for a reason for being. Why does the universe exist at all? While a teapot floating between Earth and Mars answers no questions, the belief in a God does answer questions.

This is why the analogy does not work at all. The (admittedly) bogus analogies are not even in the same ballpark as the question about the existence or non-existence of God. While it is certainly the case that atheists will dispute the necessity of God as an answer to the question of why existence exists, the odds question that Dawkins brings up with his use of the teapot analogy is immediately thrown into disrepute. As for Russell, if God does answer the question of why we exist (as the vast majority of people believe He does) then we have a reason for stipulating the existence of God. This does not even touch the subjective experiences that many people claim to have, which would provide personal reasons for those people to believe. Further, it ignores other evidences (such as classical Christian evidences, like the missing body from Jesus’ tomb, etc.). None of these extra evidences are much relevant to the point that Russell’s analogy and Dawkins’ rehashing of it are in no way coherent to the question of the existence of God.


From the comments:

From Peter Pike:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not have the attributes of God, which is why you cannot replace the word "God" with Flying Spaghetti Monster. If God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have exactly the same attributes, then they are the same being and you do not need to replace the label. In such an instance, it would be akin to calling God by the name Jehovah or Elohim. Both are synonymous because they refer to the same being.
(in answer to Touchstone's comment): He must replace the attributes of God. But, pray tell, T-Stone, how is it that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually an answer to anything?


From Paul Manata:
(Touchstone said) - "Well, let's just suppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has two attributes: a) a "universe creation capability" and b) a desire to create universes. Keep things minimal."

Non-sequitur. That he can "create a universe" does not mean he can create *this* universe. You believe that *this universe* is rational and understandable - after all, you're a "scientist."

So, that a deaf, dumb, and blind kid has the capability to "create" a "banana split" that does not imply that *this* beautiful banana split, with all its order and fine tuning, was created by the deaf, dumb, and blind kid.

Thus by saying that the FSM *only* has those *two* attributes, your argument flops. Indeed, it stretches the limits of credulity to say that this kind of universe which seems understandable to humans, displays order and fine tuning, etc., was created by something that can simply "create a universe" and "wants to do it." I mean, what is the probability that *that kind* of being created *this kind* of universe? Low; or inscrutable at best.


From me:
If we were to replace "The God of the Bible" w/ "The FSM" in the original (ie, not minimalist, but where He is the answer to everythg) way T-stone proposed, then we have no problem at all.
We have a being who goes by FSM, but who is actually omni-present, -potent, -scient, self-reveals thru the Bible, created the universe, and is the grounds for all logic, rationality, induction, and morality.
Sounds suspiciously like The God of the Bible, w/ a name borrowed from blasphemous skeptics.
Only God doesn't like to go by the name FSM; He prefers YHWH or Jesus.


From Peter Pike:
Creative power is not the only attribute the FSM would need to have. He would have to have the ability to create ex nihilo. A being that could create ex nihilo must also transcend that creation, so the FSM must be transcendent as well as creative. Further, since the creation is based on the power of the FSM, the FSM must be more powerful than what he has created (there is no inherent power in the creation; all the power in creation is merely derived from the power of the creator, no matter what you wish to call him).

Thus, the FSM logically must be far more than merely a being able to create something, and such is blindingly obvious to any theist who has bothered to actually think about these issues.

Your FSM is an empty label; as soon as you provide attributes, suddenly you have to assume the FSM is an awful lot like the God of the Bible.


Philip M chimed in with a pithy comment:
Thus, in equating him to the FSM all a theist need respond is, "Yes, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, except that he is neither flying, nor spaghetti, nor a monster."


From me:
FSM hasn't made any claims to being revealed through the Bible.

1) how do you know?
2) does FSM, as omni-3things deity, like to reveal himself to mankind? If not, you can't say much about him. If so, what did he say and how do you know it? how do you know he DIDN'T reveal himself thru the Bible? And if he did, well then, of course, he's YHWH.

All we know, here, is that he is a) capable of universe (like this) creation, and b) interested in creating universes (like this).

Again, he sounds exactly like the God of the Bible.

Maybe our third would-be, reified-by-Peter's-argument deity has a) and b) characteristics of FSM, but also c) denies the Bible and the existence of the God it reveals

Except that this would lead to internal inconsistency. To use Douglas Adams' words: He'd "disappear in a puff of logic."

Finally, even if FSM did exist w/ these characteristics, as PP has already said, it invalidates atheism. And you can't seem to figure out whether that disturbs you or not...


I continued:
(The FSM) claims whatever I want him to claim.

Ah, there's the rub.
Then his claims are subject to internal critique. If the differ in any substantive way from the God of the Bible, then FSM stands disproven, and a dumb example.

We can just understand that his creation of the universe is a de facto revelation of himself to man, if you'd like.

That's biblical though - Romans 1.
You haven't strayed substantively from YHWH, but you must so we can examine whether your claim holds water.

He's just imaginary,

Ooops, OK, so FSM is imaginary.
YHWH is not.
The analogy fails.



Paul Manata said:

So, can the FSM create a universe where the FSM doesn't exist since he can create "any kind" of universe? No? Okay, add "necessarily existing" to your list. :-) (As we whittle away, the statue will come out looking an aweful lot like Jehovah :-)

And, since he created *this* universe, then let's ask some questions: why does man do bad things? How does man get out of his problem? Is there any hope for man? How should we live? What happens when we die? Why think our minds "hook up" to the real world? What is the probability that the FSM is not systematically deceiving everyone in almost all of their beliefs, but is guiding man and the world in such a way that all the false and possibly fatal beliefs and decisions do not result in death, for the most part?

I dare say that if these aren't answered then it would appear that just on explanatory power alone, Christianity would be preferred over FSM religion. Indeed, without knowing the answer to some of those questions, it appears that the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low or inscrutable. Thus if FSM is true, we should reject it...You told Rhology that there was no FSM revelation. Thus your ability to resolve the problems is epistemically useless. Thus positing FSM is no kind of serious counter to a Christian who posits God in Christ reconciling himself to the world.


Paul Manata continued:
When you moved it into *this* universe, that when your big problems started. All you've done is simply *posit* that he created *this* universe. But when I try to be the good scientist and test your claims according to the observable data, which would seem to undermine your claim, you say the questions are "irrelevant."


Rhology said:
So I say he's got four divine sisters who rule other galaxies, far from here.

But you had agreed he was omnipotent.
Once again we see your assertion fail when pressed for a few more details. The moment you stray from the God of the Bible's attributes, you end up in internal inconsistency, and this is a perfect example.
You are trying to posit an imaginary god for THIS universe, as Paul Manata said. Only the God of the Bible, we'll find, is the peg that fits the hole. The FSM won't fit unless he is identical to YHWH, in which case he IS YHWH and is a little irritated that you've been acting like such a clown and taking His name in vain.


Peter Pike continued on the same vein:
The fact is, as soon as you have more than one "god" you are stuck with tremendous difficulties. Is there a hierarchy amongst the gods? If so, in what sense can the "minor gods" be considered actual "gods"? If there are really coequal gods, then in what sense are they coequal? Would they ever disagree with each other? If so, what would happen? If they always agreed with each other, then what would be the difference between two identical gods doing the same thing and one identical god doing the same thing (other than parsimony, which is your favorite concept anyway)?