Still, “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.” – Delos B. McKown

I am a little bit concerned and actually even slightly angry about this recent surge in popularity of FSM and the idea that it is some sort of joke. I was a believer in FSM long before it was made famous by the venganza.org site. We were a small peaceful group who worshipped privately and spoke little about our religion except to encourage a few trusted friends and family to join us in our worship of the mighty noodled one (pasta be upon him). But for some reason this guy “Bobby Henderson” took our beloved creator and decided to turn it into some sort of joke that he claimed he invented. Now the actual believers in FSM are not taken seriously and just laughed at.

I personally find it a little insulting that a valid religion has been turned into this huge joke. He should have invented his own ‘creator’ instead of mocking an existing religion.

I don’t mind a good joke, but please do try to show some respect. Thanks.

Mark Byers.

So, a bit like when religious people claim that God ‘definitely’ exists then? ;)

It assumes numerous false premises.

1) It missapplies the term “Faith” in the Christian belief — the term “Faith” is not applied to “does God exist?”, but is applied to the “salvation offered to us through the blood of Christ, not of ourselves”.

2) It assumes that logic and reason cannot be a usable statement for Christianity.

3) It does not make the distinction between the term Faith and Fideism. “Faith” is something which is held to by a certainty, and warranted, justified belief whereas “Fideism” is something held to without evidence and proof, without certainty and without warrant.

By these three false premises the Babel Fish Argument thus attempts a flawed argument to attempt to disproved God, and also provides more danger to Atheism that it attempts to support it.

It missappropriates the term Faith and attempts to apply the miss-defined (the Atheist miss-defined the term) term to say that we cannot hold to the belief in God if he cannot be proven by logic. Thus the argument is using a false premises to prove an argument, while twisting statements to try to jam a piece into a puzzle when the piece just won’t fit.

Finally, it’s an even more damaging to the Atheist than the Christian. In it’s attempt to disprove Christianity, it actually disproves Atheism more than anything. If the Babel Fish Argument is applied to the Atheist, here’s how it’d break down.

1) Atheists claim “there is no God”.

2) Atheists lack absolute, infinite knowledge and attempt to make an absolute, infinite statement.

3) The Atheists hold to the belief of there being no God by Fideism (I’m using the correct definition now, which the Atheist missused) — the Atheistic belief that there is no God is a Fideistic one, thus being one with no ground.

4) There have been attempts to use logic and reason to prove Atheism (even though logic and reason cannot prove Atheism, they try to).

5) Therefore, in the attempt to use logic and reason to prove an Atheistic belief which is of itself ungrounded, the Babel Fish Argument thus defeats the Atheists.

As you can see, the Babel Fish Argument is a statement which 1) cannot damage Christianity under it’s 3 major false premises, and 2) provides damage to the Atheistic belief.

The Babel Fish Argument is a horribly flawed argument, and is best left to die on the shore for fear of misuse against it’s own creators.