as i post this i realize it stinks of a mysterious answer along the lines of lord kelvin. To clarify, i do not glory in this, i don’t even like it. But if I am to stay dedicated to rationalism, I must look for ways to disprove my postition and it so far has informed me that to do battle with an almighty creator or the delusions of him, we must first find solid ground to work from, and we have yet to find it. I also recognize that the flying spaghetti monster argument is used to make the exact opposite statement of what i used it for, but thats what makes it good. Its not just a satire, its an observation of what things would look like in the presences of an all powerful god.
You don’t need to “do battle with an almighty creator”, because you don’t have enough evidence to even privilege the hypothesis of an almighty creator.
The rational thing isn’t to try to disprove every damn thing that might cross your mind, but to rather say “I don’t have enough evidence to justify wasting my time on such an idea”.
as i post this i realize it stinks of a mysterious answer along the lines of lord kelvin. To clarify, i do not glory in this, i don’t even like it. But if I am to stay dedicated to rationalism, I must look for ways to disprove my postition and it so far has informed me that to do battle with an almighty creator or the delusions of him, we must first find solid ground to work from, and we have yet to find it. I also recognize that the flying spaghetti monster argument is used to make the exact opposite statement of what i used it for, but thats what makes it good. Its not just a satire, its an observation of what things would look like in the presences of an all powerful god.
You don’t need to “do battle with an almighty creator”, because you don’t have enough evidence to even privilege the hypothesis of an almighty creator.
The rational thing isn’t to try to disprove every damn thing that might cross your mind, but to rather say “I don’t have enough evidence to justify wasting my time on such an idea”.