The problem with EVC

whoopsEdited by docpotato, : wrong topic.

A being, FSM, is being analogized in satirical fashion with another being, God.If FSM is the Designer (the creator), then he's just another name for God.If FSM is not the Creator, then what does FSM do?When I asked this of Crashfrog, he said "Where do you think all those spaghetti and meatballs come from?"Is that the same type of question as, "Where did the universe come from?"In order for the analogy to work, there has to be the same degree of uncertainty in regard to speghetti and meatballs, if that's what FSM does, as there is in regard to the origin of the universe.If FSM is a being that arose from nature, rather than the creator, then he is logically extraneous. There's no reason for anyone to believe in him.God, however, might be the creator of the universe, so he might not be extraneous. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Well, I certainly agree with science. I don't discuss science except maybe to ask questions. I discuss philosophy.However, if somebody says that such and such is a FACT, I might like to know what he means by that and how he knows it. I'm not convinced my ideas are "addlepated." Well, the word has a couple of meanings: (1)confused and (2)eccentric. Eccentric maybe. I don't think they are confused. But I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. It was their manner of doing so that I objected to.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

---

Statement of basic position: I am a nihilist, which means, in my sense of the word, that life has no objective purpose. This entails a lack of belief in God. My beliefs are tentative.

And you misunderstand the point of the FSM, its not about god its about ID being precieved as being science and being wedged into science classes as a theory .When in reality it comes down to a creator god to work. since they try to keep the designer an unknown, why not make it a FSM? its still valid as much as people think ID is when they believe the designer is god
IOW its not remotely about god its about IDs validity over other beliefs, or at least saying ID is about as valid as FSM

it depends on the word usage if the person is talking about science, then they mean a fact is something with so much overwelming evidence that to deny it as a fact would be considered insane i agree that the manners of folks can be rough, but you need to look on thier side, you basicly have a convaluted argument that relies on factors that most people don't consider factors or are irrelevent or basic objections with no foundation
sometimes having an argument where no one sees the others point or moves the argument along, and everyone says the same things over and over again gets tiresome i think

I don't read all the threads but I don't recall seeing anyone do this. Could you link to some examples?The references to quality of degree I have seen regularly is comparison of (usually) Doctorates by people who are working in a particular field with those of some of the Creationist shysters who get them from a Diploma mill like - if I remember right - Kent Hovind.I've got a Third Class Bachelor of Science from 26 years ago which I virtually haven't used since, so no risk of snobbery from me

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh . (And that's my last word on this subject).

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

What uncertainty? His holiness in all his noodley glory IS the creator, he his nothing like those ”other gods’, Pffft. How dare you shame him ‘He is the creator, the Spaghetti and Meatballs are the proof of this. Else, why would they mimic his divine holiness? (See! He is not scared to prove his existence unlike other cowardly “gods”)What do you mean no reason to believe in his holiness? He created the universe what more do you want?

Robin, there might be a purpose in worrying about all this if the FSM were a philosophical argument against the existence of God, rather than a very specific satire on ID. But it's not, so let it go.And if your opponents are seriously basing a philosophical argument on the FSM (rather than just winding you up) then they're being foolish - and you can quote me on that .

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Looking over my previous post, I'd be surprised if you didn't find it a little cryptic! In my haste I forgot to explain the train of thought that led from your criticisms of the scientific world view to the work of Simon Baron-Cohen .So here's the train of thought I left out:1. What you seem to dislike is the over-emphasis on a rational, analytical approach to human nature and society. Much of the scientific argument here seems to completely ignore most of the stuff that makes our lives characteristically human - our emotional life, our sense of purpose, our aesthetic pleasures, and so on. And while this is understandable as long as we're just talking about elementary particles or geology, as soon as we start to apply this approach to the human domain you feel that this undermines, not so much our specialness, but rather the importance of our own experience of living, our sense of what life is like for us as living, breathing, individual human beings.2. Now part of what you're complaining about can be put down to the format of a discussion board, and the subject matter that people are discussing, but I must admit I've noticed myself a tendency in some posters to imply that the rational, analytical approach to things is something they believe can be applied to the whole of life. I've even seen a few posters suggest that they live their lives by the scientific method!(Warning: The following point is a rhetorical flourish and isn't strictly necessary for following my train of thought.3. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims to live their life by the scientific method is either deceiving themselves, or is living such an impoverished life that they should be banned from using reason for five years and forced to fall in love (badly) until they've learnt some perspective.End of rhetorical flourish)4. So how does that lead me to Simon Baron-Cohen? You've probably noticed that most of the posters here are male. Well, it's a man thing .Maybe I should give a bit more detail ... Simon Baron-Cohen is an expert on autism, and his particular approach to understanding it emphasizes two different dimensions of personality and behaviour which he terms 'empathizing' and 'systemizing'. Autistic people are very good at 'systemizing', i.e. understanding the world in terms of rules and laws, but very poor at 'empathizing'. Baron-Cohen believes that all of us exist on a spectrum with respect to these two traits, and that men are hard-wired to be better at 'systemizing' than women, and women hard-wired to be more 'empathizing' than men.So the final link in my chain of thought is this: is the world-view you are complaining about the kind of world-view you would expect from someone who was excessively 'systemizing' in Baron-Cohen's terms?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Unless what's wrong with EvC is whether FSM is a parody of God or ID, this thread is an example of inability to stay on-topic. --Percy

I think you've made what should be the important points for Robinrohan and Faith. The analytical approach (I'm actually talking about the scientific method) is not all there is to life, but it's certainly all there is to science. That's why it's emphasized here, because this is, at heart, a science site. This site was created to explore creationism's claim to being legitimate science.Creationists make a connection most scientists don't: they perceive evolution's impact on ideas of human origins as being equivalent to spirtual claims. They're not, but many creationists refuse to accept this and critisize evolution and science for failing to address the rest of the spirtual realm. They feel that science renders an opinion on our status as God's direct creation but leaves the rest of the spirtual realm unaddressed.This is, for the vast majority of scientists, as it should be. But craetionists perceive this as taking away faith and replacing it with a sterile, empty universe void of love and compassion and feeling.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor correction.

I think the idea is that the FSM is as valid as an Abramic style god AS A POSSIBLE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. There is no limit to the proposable entities that might fulfil this role, and they are all supported by a similar amount of evidence (AFAICS).You seem like a good person to me, and its making me sad that your frustration is so palpable. I hope you aren't feeling too pissed off.

Thanks. This thread has been therapeutic.

Yeah, THAT's the point Robin has been trying to get at. That there is a satire of the designer at all is a claim that God Himself can be described in such terms. It's saying any old entity is "as valid as an Abramic style God" as you put it. Nobody is going to address this implication. They're having too much "fun" ridiculing the serious, but that is what Robin was trying to point out -- the satire is making a serious claim even though everybody is denying it.