12845 Views
53 Comments

An interesting question

Published October 17th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson

I understand that this monster can change scientific discoveries, but how do you know that there is not a more superior being that is fooling you into believing that there is in fact a monster, just like the “monster” is fooling scientists?
-banjok



53 Responses to “An interesting question”

  1. PYRETTE says:

    we know that the FSM exists and is all powerfull because the FSM says so in his gospel, and he would know because he is omnipotent.

  2. The Donkey From The Moon says:

    …PYRETTE. i was just going to say that.

  3. ☠DutchPastaGuy☠ says:

    Of course the FSM is real. We have hundreds of proofs (+ the graph!!), just like the ones those easily-fooled christians hold up. For us it’s true of course. Some examples:
    .
    ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
    (1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
    (2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
    (3) Therefore, the FSM exists.
    .
    COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
    (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
    (2) I say the universe must have a cause.
    (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
    (4) Therefore, the FSM exists.
    .
    ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY (aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT II)
    (1) Isn’t that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
    (2) Only the FSM could have made them so beautiful.
    (3) Therefore, the FSM exists.
    Small problem with that last one: objective observers (i. e. everyone but the biological parents) will agree that babies are usually hideous to look at, smell, or listen to.

  4. Wench Nikkiee says:

    Well I think babies are cute. However I’d agree that, to my eyes, newborns, are not the more aesthetically pleasing visions on the planet :p)

  5. ☠DutchPastaGuy☠ says:

    @Nikiee
    “Well I think babies are cute.”
    .
    I may just have lost a tiny bit of my warm affections for you there :(

  6. Jean Bart says:

    @Wench Nikkiee Oct 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm “Well I think babies are cute. However I’d agree that, to my eyes, newborns, are not the more aesthetically pleasing visions on the planet :p)”
    .
    Aren’t Wenches the only human beings ready to recognise certain persons in a newborn? Pirates mostly don’t see those things, and only mumble “Yeah, that’s him/her” or just nod.

  7. Wench Nikkiee says:

    ☠DutchPastaGuy☠ Oct 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
    “I may just have lost a tiny bit of my warm affections for you there :(”
    .
    Hehehehe…..my *babies* are four legged and guard trained. Well my youngest is still on her way in that resapect. She’s only just deciding she might enjoy listening and learning. She is also deciding she likes the extra and grateful attention she gets for that. I usually wait for that decision if I can. (one of the reasons I’ve always been a big fan of Rhottweilers….exquisite trust, loyalty,willingness and intelligence…. with the right owner of course!
    .
    But honestly this one IS a hypo little terrorist…think it’s in all the breeds she is made up of. Mind you her brothers and sisters (A neighbour has one that he named Pirate…true…I’ll ask him why next I see him :) could only be described as positively dopey and laid back compared to her. Not my fault either…she was a bit that way when I met her….though she did make a big deal of choosing me :))
    .
    Jean Bart Oct 19th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
    “Aren’t Wenches the only human beings ready to recognise certain persons in a newborn?”
    .
    Nah not certain persons JB…just bits of them. Oooh…. look it has such and such’s eyes….oh and X’s ears….definately got that nose from Y….

  8. Thumper ™ says:

    @Wenchy
    Hello…

Leave a Reply