Greg Koukl: The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason responds to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
but I do believe in a flying spaghetti monster
People are tempted to think of religion as a kind of spiritual fantasy club—true for you, but not necessarily true for me. Christianity can’t possibly give you the kind of information about the world that, say, science does. This is a completely misguided approach to religion. Christianity is the story of reality.
Here are some relevant resources:
Christianity: Fantasy or Reality?
https://rsn.pub/3wgmwxD
Religion Is Not a Fantasy
https://rsn.pub/42GMFlm
Is the Bible Immoral Fantasy?
https://rsn.pub/3I56gBT
The lesson of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the the issue of proving a negative, which is the logical response to Christians who presume to shift the burden of proof. But nice strawman attempt.
Belief in Yahweh, the God of the Bible, whatever you want to call it is absolutely analogous to the belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. One has simply taken a piece of mythology and elevated it to truth, without evidence. It's simply that the former has a longer historical legacy and carries more cultural weight. But "cultural weight" is all that it is. But you say, well, what about the Cosmological Argument? Even if I were to concede that that's a good argument for a created universe, it's going to take a hell of a lot of leaps of logic to get to the conclusion that this creating entity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Yahweh. And the "sophisticated theology" argument is just so much nonsense – highly intelligent people who put faith in a body of mythology are clearly not getting there by logically extrapolating from first causes, but by creating a more sophisticated rationalization for the mythology that they deeply want to believe in. In one cultural context, that might take the form of a deep faith in the God of the Bible. In another context, that faith might be in Allah, or Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The most common atheistic flaw that I see is the inability to realize that life comes only from Life. Everyone, deep down to the core, knows he's a child of God. The atheist protests in vain.
Here's my rebuttal to your video that you can't possibly refute. Ready for it? Show me one thing, just one piece of scientific proof of god. Impossible, you say? Exactly.
What does he mean, "evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (bless his noodliness)…? By pasta, what about the whole Pirates thing?!! Integrity, my saucy butt.
I greatly appreciate the argument (and agree because the analogy is not the same). But Gumby in the bookcase is precious.
Hmmm, I would contend that much of the supporting evidence he alludes to (or close analogs to it) exists for and supports the FSM. In short that he is dismissing a whole pile of evidence for the FSM, evidence that as he says may not go through, but that is another argument, but which exists, is tabled and he dismisses with one fell swoop labelling it all as non existent or silly. In short not being intellectually fair as he is asking.
David wood made an interesting video similar to this I also have a Playlist "all about defending Jesus and the bibles truth" it has interesting arguments
I only hear arguments for the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Nice. Did you know we have written documents? Proof right there for those who want to believe it. R'amen
Great work as usual, Greg. The thing that surprises me most about these internet atheist comments is the shallowness of their "thinking." They have no shame in displaying their absolute ignorance.
All you have to do is redefine "evidence" to mean "argument", then provide some vague arguments, and BAM! Evidence.
The problems with all the arguments Greg has made in support of God is that if you substituted the word God for the Flying Spaghetti Monster you would have the exact same argument. Even if all the arguments Greg mentioned were true that does not mean the world was created by the Christian God or even a singular god.
Unfortunately Greg is not in a place mentally where he can criticize other beliefs if he feels that to give them any credit would do a disservice to his deity.
this guy is an utter moron.
This is blasphemy! The Flying Spaghetti Monster controls all through the workings of his noodley appendages. Repent!
no you idiot, it isn't saying that believing in god is like believing in a spaghetti monster, it's saying that when you theists say that you cant prove there isnt a god, atheists say that you can't prove there isnt a spaghetti monster, which is to say that it is stupid for someone making a positive statement to tell their opponent to prove it wrong, you have the burden of proof, and cannot meet it. Your arguments are not proof, or evidence. There is no evidence of god whatsoever, you are using semantics to say there is evidence, but anyone with a brain and an education can see though your bullshit.
Has he not experienced his noodly appendage? There lots of evidence for FSM – cosmological argument, ontological argument, moral argument, argument from desire, teleological argument, there are all kinds of arguments…
good luck with that warm stale beer prostitutes with stds and a fuck load of penguins. rAmen
Do I need to remind you that he boiled for your sins.
Not really. It's a deliberate absurdity usually used when the theist says, "You can't prove that God doesn't exist." True but you can't prove that the FSM doesn't either. It's attempting to demonstrate falsifiability. Something that is non falsifiable is meaningless as a claim.
All of those arguments are just plain bad. With a possible exception of the teleological, you, the theist, should be able to figure that out. I remember coming across Thomas Aquinas' 5 "proofs" of God, when I was a Christian, and thinking, those aren't very good at all. Think about it honestly. What I mean when I say that is, when you can come out of your comfort zone and say something like "I hate to admit it but he has a point." When you can do that, that's when you know you're on to something. Be honest with yourself. If you really think about it and you're honest, truly,… soul searchingly honest, you will see it. I promise you, you will. One more thing, a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Mr. Koukl's entire point is that God is not like the Flying Spaghetti Monster because there is evidence of God in the form of arguments for God. He says they may not be adequate to prove a point, but it's an intellectual misstep to say they aren't evidence.
Does he seriously believe one can't generate arguments for the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Inadequate to prove a point, but they'd be evidence, by his reckoning. Would he dismiss the evidence? He says of atheists: "whenever you offer evidence for God, they're going to dismiss it". Just like he would with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And he's trying to argue that the F.S.M. is NOT a good analogy?
So, what's the evidence?
So give your many, many, many, many, many reasons you believe in a sky daddy but not the FSM
I have as much proof for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you do for Jesus. I have a book that says he's real and I know the book is true because it says so in the book.
To the naysayers, arguments can be evidence if they are logically sound. God is not a scientific hypothesis; He is a philosophical hypothesis. Therefore, if the philosophical arguments are logically sound then they do, in fact, meet the standard of evidence. This is the reason why theists constantly apply the basic laws of logic..ie Law of causality, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle & the law of identity to their philosophical arguments since all logic and science for that matter are based them.
Koukl is terrified of the truth.
Very true, Great video!
The amount of backwards thinking in this video makes my brain hurt.
You can stack up "arguments" for a thing all you want but that doesn't mean there's evidence for it. You might as well say "tons of people believe (x) so therefore it's true", logical fallacy. It's a damned crime to hijack the term "evidence" and widen it's meaning to "an argument", HOW CONVENIENT! If I ever need to argue my case in court I'll just make up infinite "arguments" so therefore I can have infinite "evidence" to support myself. By that logic whoever talks the most, wins – well I guess that's why some theologians and philosophers have this one down pat!
Arguments don't count as evidence, especially not if each argument fails upon closer inspection. If you have no physical evidence and all your arguments are fallacious, it is safe to say that you have no evidence.
Wow, all those arguments could potentially support the FSM. None are contrary to the concept.
(1) the cosmological argument
(2) the ontological argument
(3) the moral argument
(4) the argument from desire
(5) the teleological argument
It should be noted that these arguments are not arguments for a specific religion's god. They are arguments for a god. However, since yourself and your viewers subscribe to a Christian god, a assume that you think these arguments lead to a Christian god. They don't. Furthermore, they don't lead to a FSM either.
At best, you've made a case for deism. These are not evidence though. There is a difference. You must test, repeat and verify (with others) such assertions. Please note to your viewers that these arguments are for deism, not Christianity, etc.
19th century philosophy concepts =/= Evidence for the existence of god.
Wow, Greg Koukl is missing the point! The FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) isn't a mockery of religion it's a statement about how we need freedom FROM religion, not just the freedom OF religion.
Respect our (Pastafarian) point of view and we'll respect yours. That's all this is about.
Cute
This has already been said before but i will just say it again… in my own way. The cosmological argument, ontological argument, argument from desire, and teleological arguments are proofs for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. It all makes sense if you consider that FSM is God.
Without belief in a higher power, we cannot claim moral superiority over anyone. Even someone like Hitler. We are no more moral than he is because there is no standard with which to measure morality. It is all contrived and constantly in flux. I've come to terms that, but it seems clear that you have not. Perhaps you do believe in an underlying, inherent morality. Do you believe that something like a blood sacrifice is and will always be morally wrong? In that case religion holds merit for you.
I'm an agnostic and I still find your comments idiotic. As people who are not religious, there is no "moral high-ground" we can take. In the absence of some higher entity, morality is purely relative. Who is to say your "morals" are any more "right" than mine? You can't. Without religion, what is "right" is simply what the majority in your society deems "right". You want your desires to be satisfied by "morality". Murder is only "wrong" because you don't want to be murdered. It is NOT inherent.
(Part 2) You're devoid of personality, you parrot back insults that have been leveled at the religious as if they apply to those whom are not (which group calls its members the flock spastic).
You're demonstrable clueless on the history surrounding Israel and too stupid to recognize logical fallacies when you use them even after having them painstakingly pointed out in great detail.
There is one purpose you serve well though, making theists look stupid.
What drugs are you on you blithering spastic? Atheists have only a single thing in common, the disbelief in god or gods…THAT'S IT.
I could be an Atheist and think its perfectly fine to drown puppies, kick disabled people in the face while another Atheist finds that kind of behavior abhorrent.
There is no dogma with Atheism.
You're projection is off the charts, you have no sense of humility or embarrassment. You can be owned on any topic and 30 seconds later completely forgot about it.
People can read back. I asked you if killing an innocent person for the wrongs of another was moral. You said no.
No matter how much you want to dribble this is the core of Christianity and what it boils down to.
Its an illogical, immoral mess.
Having somebody innocent killed IS NOT a good way for ANYBODY to forgive, let alone a god.
Everything else you say is white noise. Only a sick and twisted fuck would try to justify blood sacrifice as a solution to any problem.
I have morals you dont
Like I said people can research it for themselves. Just saying any literal reading that does not agree with you is "hostile" does not make me look like a moron.
The text is completely unambiguous in intent.
Next you will be trying to say Jesus was not really crucified and any reading of such things in the text is hostile.
Although technically if you said he was not sacrificed id have to agree since he was brought back like nothing happened 3 days later. Hardly a sacrifice but there you go.
I can tell right from wrong. I know having an innocent person killed does not make up for the wrongs of another. I don't give a flying fuck who says what and as far as your god is concerned he can spin it like a plate on the end of his dick.
I will not worship something that's sick and twisted regardless of the carrot or stick, I have strong moral principals unlike yourself.
Might does not make right and blood sacrifice is completely immoral, yet the only way your god can forgive
Its not really possible to take anything you say as offensive given in that its mostly incoherent gibberish.
You mostly just attempt to parrot back things I say, except in a rather nonsensical spastic way.
This has gone far enough anyways. You have admitted the core of your belief system is immoral and thats good enough for me.
Having an innocent person killed does not make anything better ever. Only a sick mind would think it does.
Blood sacrifice is immoral, barbaric and pointless.
Lot? You mean the guy who the lord said was a righteous man? The guy who fucked his own daughters in a cave then blamed them for it?
Yet another sick and immoral example of how twisted your god is.
Ask yourself is it possible that you could get so drunk that you could fuck your own daughters, yet not so drunk as you be able to maintain an erection…all the while knowing its not possible anybody else was in that cave?
He knew dam well who he was fucking and god was beating off watching.
(Part 2) Anybody can freely read their copy of the bible and decide if it means child sacrifice or not.
Denying it after the very VERY clear textual support only serves to make you look far more irrational and insane which at this point is a tall order given previous comments you have made.
Judges 11:29-40
The most important part being 38 and 39
38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
What had he vowed?
31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
The irony being the very people who got the closet look at Jesus, the Jews themselves, rejected him.
Remember its their book, their religion, their prophecy and they took one look at this guy and said nope not even close.
If you knew your bible well enough you should be familiar with the straddling of 2 donkeys and all sorts of other hilarious fuck ups that took place trying to retrofit Jesus into prophecy with poor translations.
I bet you have no idea what I am even talking about.
No human sacrifice, what about Jephthah? Oh thats right typical christian, you have no clue whats in the bible.
Israel spend the vast majority of the last 2000 years having its ass handed to it. Do you dispute this fact?
Israel is a basket case that would not survive without the charity of the US and its been handed around like a jizz rag at a gay orgy for the last thousand years.
I hardly think its a ringing endorsement for blood sacrifices.