The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
octo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 44345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

I have an actual serious argument this time.
octo

Con

BelivedThese are the contrasts between Belief in God and Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Belief in the God
(1) Prevalent among all people of all times. Atheism is rare even atheists admit this.
(2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for Gods Existence
(3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation for why something exists rather then nothing why knowledge is prescriptive and universal why morality is objective and why religion is ubiquitous.
(5) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.

Belief in the flying Spaghetti Monster
(1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocate for the FSM do not rally believe it exists.
(2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM actually there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM
(3) even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don't really believe that the FSM exist nor do they think the FSM a coherent explanation for finite contingents being logic morality beauty ect.
(4) No one rally believes in the FSM but if they did it would not be rationally satisfying.

Belief in God is rational and supported by good reason plus a written historical document to go by (The Bible) and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reason.

Bobby Henderson simply begs the question( comments the logical fallacy) when he says there are no good reasons to believe in God. Despite his claim to the contrary Christianity is a rationally defensible religion and not a blind faith.

Source Got Questions.org artical How is the

(3) even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exist don't really believe that the FSM exists nor do they think FSM is a coherent
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro


(1) Prevalent among all people of all times. Atheism is rare even atheists admit this.
This is an appeal to the people fallacy; it proves nothing.

(2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for Gods Existence

Every single one of those arguments work for the flying spaghetti monster because it was created as a parody of the judeo-christian God.
(3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation for why something exists rather then nothing why knowledge is prescriptive and universal why morality is objective and why religion is ubiquitous.
So is the flying spaghetti monster.

(5) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.
There is no reason why the flying spaghetti monster is any less rationally satisfying.



(1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocate for the FSM do not rally believe it exists.

The inverse apeal to the people fallacy; it proves nothing.

There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM actually there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM

This is completely false; evey single philosophical argument for the existence of God can be used for the flying spaghetti monster.

Belief in God is rational and supported by good reason plus a written historical document to go by (The Bible) and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reason.


By saying that the spaghetti monster is not supported by any good reason you're saying the same thing about the God you're trying to defend in this debate because every argument for the Judeo-Christian God works for the flying spaghetti monster.

You say the bible proves it but there is no reason to believe that the bible is accurate because for one God miscalculated pi to being precisely 3(1 Kings 7:23) and the earliest gospel was written 30 years after Jesus died. In addition there is no evidence of miracles.
EXPECTED REBUTTAL
The bible was written over hundreds of years by many different authors.
My rebuttal: The star wars expanded universe is still being written by a lot of authors; the bible's many authors are no different.

(3) even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don't really believe that the FSM exist nor do they think the FSM a coherent explanation for finite contingents being logic morality beauty ect.

They are also all atheists who believe the exact same thing about every other God.

(4) No one rally believes in the FSM but if they did it would not be rationally satisfying.

You're claiming that the Judeo-Christian God is not satisfying too because the FSM is a parody of that God.


Belief in God is rational and supported by good reason plus a written historical document to go by (The Bible) and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reason.

You say the bible proves it but there is no reason to believe that the bible is accurate because for one God miscalculated pi to being precisely 3(1 Kings 7:23) and the earliest gospel was written 30 years after Jesus died. In addition there is no evidence of miracles.
EXPECTED REBUTTAL
The bible was written over hundreds of years by many different authors.
My rebuttal: The star wars expanded universe is still being written by a lot of authors; the bible's many authors are no different.

Also the flying spaghetti monster is just as well supported and rational as the judeo-christian God.

I will now proceed to show that the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as God

Thomas Aquinas' five proofs:
1. The unmoved mover
The flying spaghetti monster is eternal so it is the unmoved mover.
2. First Cause
The flying spaghetti monster is the creator of the universe.
3. Argument of contingency
The flying spaghetti monster is needed to make the universe as much as any other God is needed..
4. Argument from degree
The flying spaghetti monster is perfect since it is God.
5. Teleological argument.
The flying spaghetti monster guides everything towards it's end.

All five of Aquinas' proofs which are commonly used for the Judeo-Christian God apply to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Every other proof also applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Therefore the flying spaghetti monster is just as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
octo

Con

By saying FSM is just like God you are saying that spaghetti is eternal and infinite. As far as we know Spaghetti is finite we(humans) can eat it and grow it. The FSM must not be too powerful because we can eat it. FSM is a physical being it must be or else it wouldn't be made of of spaghetti something that is physical. The FSM also must not be all powerful because it is made out of something that has limits. The FSM cant be limitless or cannot be comprehended because someone saw it one time in its full glory and not only lived to tell the tale but comprehended the creature enough to know it was made out of spaghetti. For this to be true the spaghetti Monster one would have to be in the prescients of a sinner which is something a a most holy and absolutely Good God can not do( which means the FSM is not God) and second a person must of fully comprehended him to know he was made out of spaghetti God is a spirit so he is not made out of something and most likely does not have a physical body. There is no historical record of the FSM being sighted or of anyone else say that the FSM existed before Bobby Henderson first used the name Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is also no document to base any of arguments for the FSM existence. The Bible is a historically accurate and truthful document(I will explain and give proof to my statement in my next argument)
So Basically for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as likely to exist as God they have to share the same apptributes which they do not. So the FSM argument is flawed from the beginning.

Basically the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the same as God because some of the FSM abtrubuts
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

By saying FSM is just like God you are saying that spaghetti is eternal and infinite. As far as we know Spaghetti is finite we(humans) can eat it and grow it. The FSM must not be too powerful because we can eat it. FSM is a physical being it must be or else it wouldn't be made of of spaghetti something that is physical. The FSM also must not be all powerful because it is made out of something that has limits. The FSM cant be limitless or cannot be comprehended because someone saw it one time in its full glory and not only lived to tell the tale but comprehended the creature enough to know it was made out of spaghetti. For this to be true the spaghetti Monster one would have to be in the prescients of a sinner which is something a a most holy and absolutely Good God can not do( which means the FSM is not God) and second a person must of fully comprehended him to know he was made out of spaghetti God is a spirit so he is not made out of something and most likely does not have a physical body.

But the spaghetti monster is omnipotent; it can do anything including everything you wrote above. What's most likely is that the flying spaghetti monster was where people got the idea for spaghetti; it was a way to worship it but they forgot about the monster over time.

There is no historical record of the FSM being sighted or of anyone else say that the FSM existed before Bobby Henderson first used the name Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There is also no document to base any of arguments for the FSM existence.


There actually IS a document for the FSM similar to the bible:http://kosciol-spaghetti.pl... It's the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster.


So Basically for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as likely to exist as God they have to share the same apptributes which they do not.

And I have just shown they do.

octo

Con

octo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

extend all arguments.
octo

Con

octo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
theta_pinch

Pro

CONCLUSION
I have proven my case.
octo

Con

Your so called gospel of the FSM most reasent copyright was in 2006 while the Bible is over 2000 years old. The Gospel of the FSM has pictures of a cheep cartoon FSM stamped on real historical photos plus Bobby Henderson wrote the Book and if he Really is a prophet of the FSM then why is he the first and only one who knows about the FSM
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Wow. This had the potential to be interesting.

But then Con decided not to participate.

Conduct for the forfeits.
S&G because Pro had far fewer problems, and participated in more rounds to boot. I'd have probably left it neutral, but Con's last jab at the end was pretty poorly done.

As to arguments: this was interesting, While, as the instigator, Pro had the BoP, by setting the resolution as he did, he made it pretty trivial to slough that burden off onto Con, who then proceded to make no coherent arguments for his case. He didn't even list arguments, just made some assertions that Pro adequately responded to. Then he dropped out from participating, and made a poorly-written jab at the end. I think it would be interesting to see a theist with some actual argument chops and a desire to participate, participaate. As it was, a pretty easy arguments win to Pro.

As to sourcing, while Pro gave some and Con did not, I didn't think it was quite enough to justify the point.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
"Bobby Henderson wrote the Book and if he Really is a prophet of the FSM then why is he the first and only one who knows about the FSM?"

For the same reason that Moses was the first and only person who REALLY knew about God for over a hundred years.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
I just did; anyways for this debate I don't have to prove the flying spaghetti monster really does exist; I just have to show that it's at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God which I can do by showing every argument that works for God works for the flying spaghetti monster.
Posted by CaptainDaveyJones 2 years ago
CaptainDaveyJones
Octo seems to suggest an assumed acceptance of some of his points without offering evidence. It doesn't make for a strong argument. Please present rational for your claims, not just your claims.

For instance:
(1) Prevalent among all people of all times. Atheism is rare even atheists admit this.

--This debate is not theism vs. atheism. This point is unnecessary.

(2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for Gods Existence

--Oh? Present them rather than just suggest we believe this "on faith." That is how religion works,but it's not how debates work.

(3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation for why something exists rather then nothing why knowledge is prescriptive and universal why morality is objective and why religion is ubiquitous.

--Is knowledge universal? Is morality objective? Then why are moral disagreements even more ubiquitous than religion?

(5) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.

--To YOU. You must know that some people don't agree. You need to present some rational for this claim, rather than hope people will accept it at face value. For something to be "rationally satisfying," many people require verifiable proof. In fact, for many people that's the basis of rational thought.

Octo has made zero points of substance. To be fair, neither has theta_pinch. One side or the other needs to present an argument with some basis.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
theta_pinchoctoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
theta_pinchoctoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Apparently spaghetti is a plant, people "grow it." As a pasta, this shows traces of the divine. Also like Jesus, it can be ate. I found pro's claims against FSM to be out of place, however belief does not define reality thus it's a moot point. ... Anyway con decided not to refute pro's case for a couple rounds, so RFD doesn't even matter much.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
theta_pinchoctoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made valid arguments while con had many logical fallacies such as appeal to the majority and giving the bible more credibility because it's an older document. Sources and comments are even. Con did have a bunch of misspelled words.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
theta_pinchoctoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave solid proof that the FSM was at least as likely as J-C god, with no effectice counter from CON. Con's only source was the Bible, while Pro used actual educational and scientific sources, as well as philosophical sources. Pro also had better behavior than Con.