Say someone is debating between believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Christianity, and s/he will believe in the one that is more likely to be true. What arguments would you give this person to show Christianity is more likely to be true than FSM.

I could never argue logically in favor of Christianity, but I would argue that there are a lot of people who are successful/happy because of the fact that they believe in a higher power that watches over them assuring favorable outcomes, which in turn significantly reduces debilitating distress in times of adversity.

Perhaps it's all in the mind, and that fighting on until one has succeeded has only to do with the chemical process known as "confidence", but it's certainly a lot easier to believe in a well-established cartoon sky-god than an unestablished one.

Although if you were fortunate enough to have loving, concerned parents that forced you through temptation and cushioned your failures, that would probably work just as well, and simply believing in yourself would likely suffice.

1. The 1500+ year chain of writing of the bible. That chain is coherent and the Dead Sea Scrolls verify the text came down intact to a degree unmatched by any other document of antiquity.

2. The deaths of the Apostles. The Apostles are not suicide bombers they were actual eyewitnesses to Jesus.

3. Simon Greenleaf's (a Harvard Law professor and Legal evidence expert) assessment of the Gospels as testimony.

4. The actions of the Jews in observing the Levitical Laws.

5. The actions of their building of a temple.

6. The prophecies and the probability argument as present by Louis Lapides.

7. The medical corroboration presented in the Case for Christ showing that the weeping of tears is an actual medical condition though unlikely to have been known by the Gospel writers.

8. Mark 3:8 passage which correlates with what modern opthamology knows about recovering from blindness.

9. Modern archaeology which corresponds to biblical accounts.

10. The Babylonian Captivity recounted in the bible which coincides with history.

11. The bible account of Nebuchadnezzar's poryphyria which is corroborated in stone at the British Museum in London.

12. The account in the book of Kings where Jonathan scaled a cliff to defeat a group of Philistines. A modern British Army unit by using the book of Kings account was able to use the same cliff pass to defeat the Turks in a skirmisch in first part of the 20th Century.

13. Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud mentioning Jesus. None of these were his followers so there is no bias in favor of Jesus to overcome.

14. That of all the claimaints to Messiahship Jesus' claim is the only one extent today with an active following.

15. Many more too numerous to list.

even though you overly exaggerated many items on this list, almost all of them have anything to do with the question (albeit a stupid one) posed in the OP.

Basically your whole post boils down to "some stuff happened in the bible that has some weak historical evidence to suggest that it actually happened, but even if it did, it has no bearing on whether God actually exists".

And i can't believe you are still harping on #8 ... do we really have to bump that disaster of a thread?

Let me ask you an honest question ... why is that you believe everything you read if the author claims to be Christian (whether they be fantastical claims, or something about your friend Dawkins)? And then outright reject anything that either is written by a non-Christian, or goes against something you read by a Christian? Do you ever do your own due diligence? Or do you just accept things as fact, and then reject all evidence (even evidence from Christians) that suggests you are probably wrong?

Your pretty dense, did you know that?

I would give them a link to a webpage that tells them that the FSM was made up by a man.......

You really are not as intelligent as some of the others on here think they are......

How do you respond when someone shows you a webpage that tells you Christianity was made up by man?

Here's the difference........

Christianity was not made up by man and the only person who would say that it was made up by men is either someone who does not believe in God or the bible?

FSM is clearly a stab at Christianity and God from an unbeliever..... So to try and use something that clearly is made up and admittedly made up is really kinda a stupid move......

Christianity was made up by man, which is documented.
According to Christianity, we must believe based on the very weak evidence provided by the Christian God that is our test.
Perhaps the FSM has a reason, for giving us the message through people who think they are joking?
Perhaps the test is, to see that the message is actually true, despite its professed believer not taking it seriously?

This would be more impressive if they actually lined up with the Gospels. But they don't. So...

That's not a difference, it's a similarity.

"The only people who would say Christianity was made up by man are people who do not believe in Christianity."

"The only people who would say the FSM was created by man are people who do not believe in the FSM."

So I think the argument you are making here goes something like this:


This is a list that shows the Bible is accurate when it makes "real world" claims.
The Bible says god exists.
So you should believe that the god of the bible is more likely than the FSM.

Is this correct? I really cant tell how your post answers my OP in any other way.

edit: I might as well say it now. If someone reprints a college level history book and adds, on the last page, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists!" the fact that the first 489 pages were historically accurate lends no credibility to to the statement made on page 490. Would you agree to this? The claim is so un-related and extreme that it has standards of proof much higher than "the last 489 pages were true."

Just postulate some ways for determining likelihood and you're done. You can take # of followers, age of religion, etc. Whatever rocks your boat. As long as you don't bring in the other religions and don't discuss the postulates, you'll be fine.

Eddi I'm actually quite serious about this op. I am honestly curious as to how one would argue this without using fallacious reasoning (like yours, appealing to age or populous etc, and i know you were joking) because I can not think of anything. Have you come across anything? You are on here much more than I am.

Wrong, thats retarted. The guy who made up FSM makes it clear that it is not true......

The Flying Speghetti Monster was created to be something ridiculous so that it could be compared to Christianity and thus imply that Christianity was ridiculous. Given this fact, only a complete idiot would try to argue that the FSM is more likely than Christianity. It is simply not a belief in a diety but rather a tool to ridicule.

All true, but there is no reason FSM could not still be real and testing us this way.
Perhaps it is true, and whoever invented it only thinks it is a joke.
As a Christian you accept that God works in mysterious ways, so what is the argument for discounting this, other than that it sounds ridiculous.
What exactly stops a god from planting his message in a person who will not believe it, and only spread it to spite the earnestly religious?
The argument that this is ridiculous may be true, but so are most earnest religious beliefs to those who do not share them.

You're talking about what's more likely. You're not asking for proof. So appealing to metrics like the populous is not fallacious. If 2.1 billion believe one claim and virtually 0 believe another, then the former claim is more likely, everything else being equal.

Also, as Stu and Pletho pointed out, the fact that we have proof that the FSM was made up, and we don't have proof that Christianity was made up, also tips the scale in Christianity's favor.

I would say so you have read richard Dawkins, do you have any orginal thoughts on the matter or are you just going to steal from him?

Witness accounts

I think those arguments work just fine as long as you don't question Christianity itself, which seems to be the premise of OP.

If you want smth that also puts a comparison with the real world, I think it'll be very very hard to come up with smth that doesn't make both so unlikely as to prevent us from distinguishing the two from each other because of the estimation errors.

utility != truth

Isn't it obvious?

There are no real claims made for the FSM.

On the other hand there are 2 billion+ followers of Jesus Christ. Go interview each and every one of them then I'll go check out every religion on the planet. You first, please.

Bear in mind the biggest claim made by Christians is they possess the holy spirit. How can you test them for that? How can you tell between the ones that have him and the ones who don't if you won't evaluate personal testimony?

[QUOTE=skalf;17525476]All true, but there is no reason FSM could not still be real and testing us this way.
Perhaps it is true, and whoever invented it only thinks it is a joke.
As a Christian you accept that God works in mysterious ways, so what is the argument for discounting this, other than that it sounds ridiculous.
What exactly stops a god from planting his message in a person who will not believe it, and only spread it to spite the earnestly religious?
The argument that this is ridiculous may be true, but so are most earnest religious beliefs to those who do not share them.[/QUOT]

Wrong, you are assuming that you know what I believe, God does not work in mysterious ways, he works according to the ways he has made obvious and clear in his written word. You are going by your wrong doctrines that you have heard and believe about Chrisitainity. Then you are making decisions and assumptions based on bad info.....

FREEWILL!

You really are talking out your butt........did you know that?

I disagree. If you look at Kansas instead of the world, and were looking at evolution vs creationism. The fact that the majority of the people agree with creationism is irrelevant. If 99% of the people on this planet agreed that 1+1=3 this does not make it more likely to be true than if no one did. Its irrelevant.

But I guess I found what I wanted to know, there is nothing that can be said to make the argument that the christian god is more likely to exist than the FSM.

That's a really horrible example.