gnidrologs (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gnidrologs) rakstīja,@ 2020-05-31 12:38:00 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
The spaghetti monster is satirizing a strawman version of belief in God.
See, the Fedoras believe everything is contingency. Not explicitly perhaps but that's one of the main tenets of the modern point of view, that everything is relative, that there is no being, only becoming, that everything is motion etc. So when they look at the question of God, they automatically assume that the "God" religious people believe in is just another continent entity among others, the so called "bearded dude or wizard in the sky", hence, the spaghetti monster satire. The problem with that however is that religious people do not believe that God is a continent entity, and that the non-contingent nature of God is the entire point of the idea of God to begin with.
You mention about the "improbability" of God, but i ask you, what is more improbable, that contingency is absolute or that the contingent has some non-contingent original or first cause? What is more "logical"?
If contingent phenomena must have a non-contingent cause, our relative consciousness must also derive form an absolute consciousness. The metaphysical principle we are operating under is the notion that the smaller cannot beget the greater. The genius of a Bach cannot have been the result of a bunch of proverbial monkeys randomly banging on a typewriter until that level of intelligence came out of lesser forms of cognition. From our perspective, the genius of Bach descended from an even greater intelligence, from something that is intelligence as such in fact, intelligence in and of itself.
See, the Fedoras believe everything is contingency. Not explicitly perhaps but that's one of the main tenets of the modern point of view, that everything is relative, that there is no being, only becoming, that everything is motion etc. So when they look at the question of God, they automatically assume that the "God" religious people believe in is just another continent entity among others, the so called "bearded dude or wizard in the sky", hence, the spaghetti monster satire. The problem with that however is that religious people do not believe that God is a continent entity, and that the non-contingent nature of God is the entire point of the idea of God to begin with.
You mention about the "improbability" of God, but i ask you, what is more improbable, that contingency is absolute or that the contingent has some non-contingent original or first cause? What is more "logical"?
If contingent phenomena must have a non-contingent cause, our relative consciousness must also derive form an absolute consciousness. The metaphysical principle we are operating under is the notion that the smaller cannot beget the greater. The genius of a Bach cannot have been the result of a bunch of proverbial monkeys randomly banging on a typewriter until that level of intelligence came out of lesser forms of cognition. From our perspective, the genius of Bach descended from an even greater intelligence, from something that is intelligence as such in fact, intelligence in and of itself.
Nopūsties:
