Statesboro, GA, USA
... A few months later a picture of you as you showed up in the mirror is published as the "flying spaghetti monster"! but you don't come across that picture for five years, so when you do you don't remember that is scientifically altered reflection of yourself, nor remember going to the carnival. Still say the "flying spaghetti monster" doesn't reflect a true personage?
As a matter of fact, I do. Let me explain.
With your scenario, it is the degree that the image doesn't reflect me, that it is the Italian ghoul. Remember that you said it was a "scientifically designed" mirror. That means that the characteristics of the reflection are artificial, to the extreme point of losing my identity entirely. The monster still doesn't exist beyond someone's fancy.
Or if you want to say that the FSM exists only in the sense that all of its separate components exist ... like pasta, and tomatoes, and monstrous animals or people, then I'll agree with you. But again that is a different kind of "reality" than what I have been speaking of.
didn't say that. I said I'm totally open to the possibility.
In the same way as you are open to an airborne Pasta dish with eyes? You did seem to say that, in not so many words.
What I really mean is not that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist -- but that you haven't made your case -- or that your case is currently at least as provable (or not) as that in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Don't play coy. I know an attempt at reductio ad absurdum when I see it. Of course you are implying that this chimera doesn't exist. Tacking on a concession about the impossibility of proving an impossibility doesn't change that.
Your premise Stephen, is an appeal to antiquity
As is, I suppose, any appeal to history, experience, testimony, or reportage of any kind.
If I accept what you say is true then I will believe it is true -- is not a syllogism at all -- but merely circular reasoning -- and -- tatamount to saying 'because I say so (because they said so)'.
Reb, you gotta trust something, someone, sometime. I'm certainly not suggesting that you take something totally on someone else's authoriity. But I didn't present only the testimony of others as a clue, but other clues as well. You have merely taken one statement out of the whole. I've never been one to blindly accept authority without a thought process.
But everyone, including you, has presuppositions. And anyone may point out the circular nature inherent in them. Some circles are better than others. Chesterton once said that a bullet is quite round as the world, but it isn't the world.