MacDaddy01:

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of an invisible old man or spirit is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

Please see my comments to Plaetton above. Secondly can you kindly note the ontological attributes I mentioned in that post - those are that which should be debated. Finally, please ask yourself what the meaning of the word "spirit" is.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously. Pasta and meatballs are processed food and do not appear in nature save by human processing. How you expect that a question which asks why a monster consisting of such is not the cause of the universe, should not be seen for the idle and unintelligent joke that it is, is beyond me.

But then, you are of course, both idle and unintelligent.

MacDaddy01:



[1] - - - An eternal uncaused element. The spaghetti monster caused the big bang and is an eternal creator.

[2] - - - Trancendental. The spaghetti monster is beyond humans and then universe.

[3] - - - Being. The spaghetti monster is a noodley supernatural being.

[4] - - - Purpose. The spaghetti monster brings love and kindness to humanity. He is the pasta of life.



See how a belief in God works in any religion?

If you really expect a response to this, you are far more unintelligent than I ever imagined. And I imagined you really daf.t already.

What next, a cookie monster?

You are a nit wit.

Enjoy the Pasta and meatballs. Should make a nice meal.

Deep Sight:

If you really expect a response to this, you are far more unintelligent than I ever imagined. And I imagined you really daf.t already.

What next, a cookie monster?

You are a nit wit.

Enjoy the Pasta and meatballs. Should make a nice meal.

Lol you mad? You angered because your god theory is nothing but fallacious characteristics to make god disprovable?


The spaghetti minster forgives you. Let yourself be touched by his noodley appendage. He is the pasta of life!

[img]http://2.bp..com/_82sJkwGOIt8/SeMeJQo7y5I/AAAAAAAAAAg/nYBwwL0ZxWo/s400/blessed+be+his+noodly+goodness.jpg[/img]

Purist:

LOL! Bros Deep Sight, calm down abeg.

I've come to observe that you seem to get worked up when certain religious concepts are challenged. I have seen a similar reaction to the prayer concept in the past.

I get worked up at the celebration of congenital id.iocy.

The FSM and IPU arguments are perfectly reasonable arguments that simply seek to expose the absurdity of favouring one wild claim over another equally wild claim.

As I have shown in my reverts to wiegraf and pletton above, these arguments should rather address first causality in material phenomena and then proceed to show why the core ontological attributes of God as advanced by Religions is unreasonable.

Nothing to do with cosmology or infinite regress.

Doubtless, congenital id.iots such as those who created such arguments could never possibly see the lamentably obvious connection, could they?

Perhaps, somehow, you sometimes see these kinds of arguments as an affront to your deist beliefs

No: they are an affront to the existence of the human brain.

(I fail to see the connection though), but one thing you should realise is that the deist god remains irrelevant and insignificant to most people here. Thankfully, it is non-interventionist, so most people can't really be bothered. You really should take a chill pill bro.

My issue is not deism here: it is the necessity of a cause that makes me wonder how a discussion about such a huge cosmological issue could become about processed food monsters? In the face of such village-clowning congenital id.iocy, it is fair to presume that no serious discussion is intended, is it not?

Questions that should guide the mind of discussants in making a serious discourse of the matter of the existence/ non-existence of GOD -

1. Did the universe have a beginning?

2. Was the universe caused?

3. If caused, what caused the universe?

4. Is it possible to derive something from nothing?

5. Why something instead of nothing?

6. Does the structure of the universe disclose any order?

7. Does the development of life within the universe disclose any order?

8. What is the possibility and then the probability of te development of life and particularly intelligent life within the universe?

9. If the universe is caused, what sort of cause can be envisaged?

These are the sort of issues I would expect arguments to be advanced for and against, and not silly questions as why it wasn't done by pasta and meatballs.

Deep Sight:

No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

Fsm is still relevant when discussing a deist god, it illustrates how much weight should be given to unfalsifiable or unfounded claims, which I believe is its primary aim. If you're going to accept claims arbitrarily, you might as well accept our processed god. If god showed up ready made, why couldn't the fsm show up processed? Both notions are equally ridiculous.

Deep Sight:

No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

Fsm is still relevant when discussing a deist god, it illustrates how much weight should be given to unfalsifiable or unfounded claims, which I believe is its primary aim. If you're going to accept claims arbitrarily, you might as well accept our processed god. If god showed up ready made, why couldn't the fsm show up processed? Both notions are equally ridiculous.

As a deist, once you make the claim that the creator of the universe had a purpose, you have to attempt to show what purpose is or should be. If you do not, then the religious theologians will fill in the blanks for you.
So far, they have done a good job of filing in the blanks for you.
They have not only agreed with you that a creator designed and caused the universe, but that he loves the tribe of isrealites, and wants us all to worship him or face eternal torment in hell.

The story is so ridiculous that others have said, wait, if that can believed, then why not also believe that a spaghetti monster created the universe with purpose of spreading love and meatballs to his creation.
It is just a case of absurdity matching absurdity.

The FSM theology does not pretend to address cosmology in any detail, rather, it addresses itself to the issue of religious belief.

wiegraf:

Fsm is still relevant when discussing a deist god, it illustrates how much weight should be given to unfalsifiable or unfounded claims, which I believe is its primary aim. If you're going to accept claims arbitrarily, you might as well accept our processed god. If god showed up ready made, why couldn't the fsm show up processed? Both notions are equally ridiculous.

It appears you do not read.

I have already told you that the question is that of causality for material phenomena. Addittionaly i went so far as to point out the attributes at issue in light of that fact. In case it missed you, those attribute concern such issues as time and space, issues of eternity and causality.

It is eveident from your comment that these issues, their relevance, and well as their philosophical implications are as completely lost on you as light is from day.

For if that was not the case, there is no way you would see relevance in asking why these necessary attributes are not the function of spagetti and meat balls.

Go figure.

Deep Sight:
Questions that should guide the mind of discussants in making a serious discourse of the matter of the existence/ non-existence of GOD -

1. Did the universe have a beginning?

2. Was the universe caused?

3. If caused, what caused the universe?

4. Is it possible to derive something from nothing?

5. Why something instead of nothing?

6. Does the structure of the universe disclose any order?

7. Does the development of life within the universe disclose any order?

8. What is the possibility and then the probability of te development of life and particularly intelligent life within the universe?

9. If the universe is caused, what sort of cause can be envisaged?

These are the sort of issues I would expect arguments to be advanced for and against, and not silly questions as why it wasn't done by pasta and meatballs.

First and foremost, the FSM (spag monster) is not about the origins of the universe, it is about the qualities given to god. Same with the invisble pink unicorn.

You are quite daft and for you to shift the argument shows a dishonesty common to theists and certain deists.


1) Yes, probably the universe had a beginning

2) Who knows? "Caused" implies a deliberate action. Our knowledge is limited to the big bang and not a cause behind it. Anyone who claims that he or she knows is a liar.

3) Ditto number 2. Our knowledge is limited to the big bang. To claim to know beyond that is a statement backed with no evidence


4) Unfortunately, "nothing" is not definable within a cosmological sense


5) Unfortunately, "nothing" is not definable within a cosmological sense


6) Yes there is both some order and some randomness

7) yes and no. ditto 6

Jamb question. Rephrase

9) See number 2

MacDaddy01:
Wrong. Delafruitas miracle was never a miracle in the first place. Sinusitis is curable. Liquids alone can cure sinusitis. The special water that her father drank could have cured it. In short, Sinusitis, depending on the type has many cures.

You dishonestly went ahead to push forward Delafruitas claims of miracles when you thought that I couldnt debunkn his claims. There was no need to argue it out. Simple- sinusitis is already curable.

lol, typical. Your argument is insufficient. It is similar to when asking the question "What killed John?" you give answer "People die all the time".
That doesn't lead us anywhere.

Biology can not tell you that zombies do not exist? lol. Do humans come back from the grave to eat corpses?
As for your claims, Biology tells you that there are no known breeds or species of horses that have horns. Where would I get an horse with a horn from? London? Nigeria?

The correct way to put it is: "At our level of biology, we do not yet know of....."

Google maps, satelites etc. They cover the whole world using lattitudes and longitudes. We are talking land animals and not what is at the bottom of the sea.

There would be no need for me to touch the horse dressed as a unicorn. Why? A rational skeptic already knows that there are no known breeds of horses with a horn.
All I would ask is where the person got such an animal from. Any answer would be a lie because, he would either be dead or the place has no such horses because they have been explored

Lol, you are still bringing up an irrelevant criteria. The person presenting the unicorn does not need to tell you where he found it as even if he told you he found it in the arabian desert, you have no way of falsifying it.

.......and yeah google maps is terribly insufficient for any serious mapping.

Really? A unicorn has no standard definition since it is imaginary in the first place. I will debunk you below

A unicorn could be a horse, a goat or a bull. Heck, even rhinoceroses have been called unicorns. o and do your reasearch before speaking nonsense here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Single-horned_goat
A unicorn is a wild animal since no one in recordable history has claimed to have raised a unicorn. Seeing a tame one should raise some suspicions. Asking when and where it was found will put the hoax to shame.

A leopard has always been described as a cat with spots. A unicorn has been described as a goat or a horse. Asking why it is a horse and not a goat is very valid. Your ignorance has been exposed.

lol, I hope you do realize that at this point you are making a strawman argument since we have moved away from what the analogy of your pink unicorn is out to illustrate to arguing about "species of unicorn"

Nonsense. A rational skeptic can not be a christian.

Do you wonder why atheists and non-believers are called skeptics?

More unfounded statements powered by bias.
Have you ever wondered why black men were called niggers?

You know before i met you in person, I really thought that you were truly incapable of understanding logic so I would take my time and try to spell things out for you.

Now I know that you are intelligent enough to recognize logic however, your ability to actually use logic to compose your arguments when giving a rebuttal is severely lacking......so when your poor logic fails you - as it always does - you resort to mockery and shoot off in various directions.

Frankly, it is wearying to actually try and get you to understand stuff because you truly lack the ability to see an argument to it's logical conclusion.
I won't bother myself anymore with trying to make you understand stuff. If you don't get it, that's just too bad.

Deep Sight:
Questions that should guide the mind of discussants in making a serious discourse of the matter of the existence/ non-existence of GOD -

1. Did the universe have a beginning?

2. Was the universe caused?

3. If caused, what caused the universe?

4. Is it possible to derive something from nothing?

5. Why something instead of nothing?

6. Does the structure of the universe disclose any order?

7. Does the development of life within the universe disclose any order?

8. What is the possibility and then the probability of te development of life and particularly intelligent life within the universe?

9. If the universe is caused, what sort of cause can be envisaged?

These are the sort of issues I would expect arguments to be advanced for and against, and not silly questions as why it wasn't done by pasta and meatballs.

The FSM theology is not concerned with these abstract issues.
Hindus believe in Animal faced gods and goddesses fro example. Christians believe in human-like who is sometimes spirit and sometimes flesh, some cultures worshipped dragons, most cultures worshipped the sun, some the sea or see creatures, etc.

Fsm theology should be seen as perhaps as an adjunct to already prevailing myths about the creator of the universe and his purpose.

Mr_Anony:
lol, typical. Your argument is insufficient. It is similar to when asking the question "What killed John?" you give answer "People die all the time".
That doesn't lead us anywhere.

Nonsense. If i asked you who killed Tom? Can you answer the question without clues?

Delafruita said her dad was cured of a curable disease. She said the medicine didnt help. Her story is problematic.

However, the fact remains that sinusitis is curable. A miracle can not be claimed since he had taken medication. End of story.

Sinusitis can be cured without medicine in the first place.

Mr_Anony:
The correct way to put it is: "At our level of biology, we do not yet know of....."

How re.tarded. It would be like saying that at current level of our biology, we do not yet know of zombies that can rise from the dead.


We know and our biology tells us that there is no species of horse with horns. Gbam. Am I bringing the horse from another universe? Where on earth do you think such a horse exists?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you are still bringing up an irrelevant criteria. The person presenting the unicorn does not need to tell you where he found it as even if he told you he found it in the arabian desert, you have no way of falsifying it.

.......and yeah google maps is terribly insufficient for any serious mapping.

Irrelevant criteria? If he told me that he brought it from the Arabian desert, he would be clearly lying. How would a unicorn or a horse survive in the desert as a wild animal? Are there unicorns in the deserts? No!

And yeah, they can bomb you anywhere on earth using the same satelite technology as google maps. Dunce

Mr_Anony:
lol, I hope you do realize that at this point you are making a strawman argument since we have moved away from what the analogy of your pink unicorn is out to illustrate to arguing about "species of unicorn"

Strawmman argument? It debunks you and exposes your ignorance on unicorns and now it is a strawman?

You were the one foolishly denying that unicorns were only described as horses and i corrected you.

If someone brings a horse and tells me it is a unicorn, I would laugh because a unicorn has both horse and goat descriptions- even as far as those features being fused. That is why a unicorn is imaginary in the first place. I would ask where the goat like features are.

Mr_Anony:
More unfounded statements powered by bias.
Have you ever wondered why black men were called niggers?

You know before i met you in person, I really thought that you were truly incapable of understanding logic so I would take my time and try to spell things out for you.

Now I know that you are intelligent enough to recognize logic however, your ability to actually use logic to compose your arguments when giving a rebuttal is severely lacking......so when your poor logic fails you - as it always does - you resort to mockery and shoot off in various directions.

Frankly, it is wearying to actually try and get you to understand stuff because you truly lack the ability to see an argument to it's logical conclusion.
I won't bother myself anymore with trying to make you understand stuff. If you don't get it, that's just too bad.

My arguments are valid and with logic.

You must be arrogantly mad to call to even call me irrational or without logic, you being a christian when our discussion borders on religion.


How can you even start to talk about logic when you are talking about miracles? Miracles by definition breaks logic. Isnt that the crux of the discussion?


As a christian, does an invisible omnipotent god follow logic? Hmm? Why is it called "faith"?

Is omnipotence not a logical paradox?

Can anyone logically defend a spirit or spiritual world? No! When there is no evidence neither a tangible premise or standard definition of ~"spiritual" to start from.]



You sir, are an arrogant and dishonest human being. Please, do yourself some good and refrain from mentioning logic and defending unicrons or miracles in the same comment.

plaetton: As a deist, once you make the claim that the creator of the universe had a purpose, you have to attempt to show what purpose is or should be. If you do not, then the religious theologians will fill in the blanks for you.
So far, they have done a good job of filing in the blanks for you.
They have not only agreed with you that a creator designed and caused the universe, but that he loves the tribe of isrealites, and wants us all to worship him or face eternal torment in hell.

The story is so ridiculous that others have said, wait, if that can believed, then why not also believe that a spaghetti monster created the universe with purpose of spreading love and meatballs to his creation.
It is just a case of absurdity matching absurdity.

The FSM theology does not pretend to address cosmology in any detail, rather, it addresses itself to the issue of religious belief.

It is not a logical or tenable propositionon on causality re: the universe. Simple.

Even animal heads appear in nature. Processed pasta and meatballs do not.

Let's stop being ludicruos please.

The question is: what are the tenable propositions re causation of the universe?

Is FSM one of any tenable propositions you can think of?

Finally, the ludicruousness of FSM does not negate the tenability of the pure idea of an apt and necessary creator - any more than the ludicruousness of any religious notion can negate the tenability of an apt and necessary creator.

You still don't get it.

Last year an Austrian court agreed that a man had the right to wear processed dough on his head as religious garb in his driver's licence photograph, where exceptions for religious garbs are allowed.

I do not think that the court ever considered the merits of FSM's propositions on cosmological causality before reaching that decision.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014553/Pastafarian-wins-right-wear-sieve-head-driving-licence-photo-does-belong-Church-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html

MacDaddy01:

Nonsense. If i asked you who killed Tom? Can you answer the question without clues?

Delafruita said her dad was cured of a curable disease. She said the medicine didnt help. Her story is problematic.

However, the fact remains that sinusitis is curable. A miracle can not be claimed since he had taken medication. End of story.

Sinusitis can be cured without medicine in the first place.



How re.tarded. It would be like saying that at current level of our biology, we do not yet know of zombies that can rise from the dead.


We know and our biology tells us that there is no species of horse with horns. Gbam. Am I bringing the horse from another universe? Where on earth do you think such a horse exists?

Irrelevant criteria? If he told me that he brought it from the Arabian desert, he would be clearly lying. How would a unicorn or a horse survive in the desert as a wild animal? Are there unicorns in the deserts? No!

And yeah, they can bomb you anywhere on earth using the same satelite technology as google maps. Dunce

Strawmman argument? It debunks you and exposes your ignorance on unicorns and now it is a strawman?

You were the one foolishly denying that unicorns were only described as horses and i corrected you.

If someone brings a horse and tells me it is a unicorn, I would laugh because a unicorn has both horse and goat descriptions- even as far as those features being fused. That is why a unicorn is imaginary in the first place. I would ask where the goat like features are.

My arguments are valid and with logic.

You must be arrogantly mad to call to even call me irrational or without logic, you being a christian when our discussion borders on religion.


How can you even start to talk about logic when you are talking about miracles? Miracles by definition breaks logic. Isnt that the crux of the discussion?

As a christian, does an invisible omnipotent god follow logic? Hmm? Why is it called "faith"?

Is omnipotence not a logical paradox?

Can anyone logically defend a spirit or spiritual world? No! When there is no evidence neither a tangible premise or standard definition of ~"spiritual" to start from.]

You sir, are an arrogant and dishonest human being. Please, do yourself some good and refrain from mentioning logic and defending unicrons or miracles in the same comment.

lol, too bad.
Let me ask, just to know we are on the same page.......Could you please be so kind as to describe for us what you know logic to be.

plaetton: You still don't get it.

Last year an Austrian court agreed that a man had the right to wear processed dough on his head as religious garb in his driver's licence photograph, where exceptions for religious garbs are allowed.

I do not think that the court ever considered the merits of FSM's propositions on cosmological causality before reaching that decision.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014553/Pastafarian-wins-right-wear-sieve-head-driving-licence-photo-does-belong-Church-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html

No sir -- YOU still don't get it.

We are not speaking religious freedom here, sir. Because religious freedom is not in question. As such, a court permitting any person to wear anything as part of religious freedom is not a problem.

IN FACT IT BEATS ME THAT YOU DO NOT SEE THAT THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT YOU CAN HAVE NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST RIDICULOUS RELIGIOUS NOTIONS OR PRACTICES.

That is what your court decision discloses, sir!

This has nothing to do with the question that seeks to debunk the existence of God with reference to asking if a creator-processed-food-monster-exists.

Simple.

Deep Sight:

No sir -- YOU still don't get it.

We are not speaking religious freedom here, sir. Because religious freedom is not in question. As such, a court permitting any person to wear anything as part of religious freedom is not a problem.

IN FACT IT BEATS ME THAT YOU DO NOT SEE THAT THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT YOU CAN HAVE NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST RIDICULOUS RELIGIOUS NOTIONS OR PRACTICES.

That is what your court decision discloses, sir!

This has nothing to do with the question that seeks to debunk the existence of God with reference to asking if a creator-processed-food-monster-exists.

Simple.

FSM does not as far as I know seek to debunk the existence of god or causality. No, my understanding is that it mocks the prevailing ideas(religious) of god by presenting its own for consideration and thought.

Deep Sight:
You cannot expect to be taken seriously. Pasta and meatballs are processed food and do not appear in nature save by human processing. How you expect that a question which asks why a monster consisting of such is not the cause of the universe, should not be seen for the idle and unintelligent joke that it is, is beyond me.

The Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster is not said to consist of pasta and meatballs. I think that's where you're getting it wrong. The Holy FSM, instead, IS a supernatural creator that closely resembles pasta and meatballs. And the evidence for this is about the same evidence for all religious Gods out there.

Deep Sight:
As I have shown in my reverts to wiegraf and pletton above, these arguments should rather address first causality in material phenomena and then proceed to show why the core ontological attributes of God as advanced by Religions is unreasonable.

It does actually. The argument indeed recognizes a first cause, but only goes a step further to describe what this first cause looks like, its properties and its purpose. Furthermore, the FSM has all four core ontological attributes of a creator that you listed earlier. This Holy Monster is the very eternal uncaused transcendental being that is equally imbued with purpose.

Deep Sight:
My issue is not deism here: it is the necessity of a cause that makes me wonder how a discussion about such a huge cosmological issue could become about processed food monsters? In the face of such village-clowning congenital id.iocy, it is fair to presume that no serious discussion is intended, is it not?

There is a serious discussion intended. The argument actually agrees with your position by recognizing the first causality. It tells us that the universe was created by a supernatural being (albeit one with a noodly appendage) -- that the universe was caused and that this cause is eternal. Isn't that your position? Where it disagrees with yours, however, is in the description of the attributes of this cause.

If you find the above ridiculous, that's exactly the point.

Basically, the FSM argument in a nutshell is this: What makes Yahweh or Allah or [insert your choice God here] more credible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

plaetton:

FSM does not as far as I know seek to debunk the existence of god or causality. No, my understanding is that it mocks the prevailing ideas(religious) of god by presenting its own for consideration and thought.

That does not work because whereas FSM is inherently absurd and illogical, and presents no tenability for discussion, the concept of a pre existeing element is a feasible logical construct to the extent that it addresses the question of time, space, eternity and causality, by referring to the cause of the universe as pre existing [as no event precedes itself] and as immaterial [as matter if caused cannot be the self same cause].

This is consistent because the precept of intelligent design is not limited to religious thought: and more importantly, even religious thinking delivers feasible attributes for a necessary pre existent - such as eternity, trancendence, self-existence, immutability AND intangibility.

These are profound and well articulated attributes that address themselves to teh cosmological question of the cause of the universe. For this reason such notions can only be contested with reference to their cosmological consistency and not by imaginative mockery such as FSM.

Deep Sight:

That does not work because whereas FSM is inherently absurd and illogical, and presents no tenability for discussion, the concept of a pre existeing element is a feasible logical construct to the extent that it addresses the question of time, space, eternity and causality, by referring to the cause of the universe as pre existing [as no event precedes itself] and as immaterial [as matter if caused cannot be the self same cause].

This is consistent because the precept of intelligent design is not limited to religious thought: and more importantly, even religious thinking delivers feasible attributes for a necessary pre existent - such as eternity, trancendence, self-existence, immutability AND intangibility.

These are profound and well articulated attributes that address themselves to teh cosmological question of the cause of the universe. For this reason such notions can only be contested with reference to their cosmological consistency and not by imaginative mockery such as FSM.

I believe Purist has addressed these concerns much more elegantly that I would have.

@Purist et al, would you be so nice as to hold up FSM for scrutiny?

plaetton:

I believe Purist has addressed these concerns much more elegantly that I would have.

Absolutely he did not: for his response did not compare apples for apples. The central issue that warrants the discourse is the cause of the universe. He has not shown how FSM is apt or relevant to that, or how it breaks the necessity of a pre existent. He has mis conceived the issue as being against the ridiculous aspects of religious notions of that pre existent - and not what it should be - namely the existence of the pre existent: and in this i have articulated the necessary attributes to be considered which dervive from the cosmological question of the cause of the universe. It seems the critical relevance of this connection is lost on you both.

Mr_Anony: @Purist et al, would you be so nice as to hold up FSM for scrutiny?

Sure, why not?
But Only if you can hold Yahweh, the seven days of creation, man from clay mold, the talking snake, etc for scrutiny.

Deep Sight:

Absolutely he did not: for his response did not compare apples for apples. The central issue that warrants the discourse is the cause of the universe. He has not shown how FSM is apt or relevant to that, or how it breaks the necessity of a pre existent. He has mis conceived the issue as being against the ridiculous aspects of religious notions of that pre existent - and not what it should be - namely the existence of the pre existent: and in this i have articulated the necessary attributes to be considered which dervive from the cosmological question of the cause of the universe. It seems the critical relevance of this connection is lost on you both.

FSM is the pre-existent, the primordial cause. Why is it so hard to accept that?
Is it all in the name?

Deep Sight:

Absolutely he did not: for his response did not compare apples for apples. The central issue that warrants the discourse is the cause of the universe. He has not shown how FSM is apt or relevant to that, or how it breaks the necessity of a pre existent. He has mis conceived the issue as being against the ridiculous aspects of religious notions of that pre existent - and not what it should be - namely the existence of the pre existent: and in this i have articulated the necessary attributes to be considered which dervive from the cosmological question of the cause of the universe. It seems the critical relevance of this connection is lost on you both.

Ignorance. Please read up before you expose yourself-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster



Spag monster is not about big bang or first cause.

plaetton:

FSM is the pre-existent, the primordial cause. Why is it so hard to accept that?
Is it all in the name?

No, it is not about the name: for the umpteenth time: it about the attribiutes which I listed, which are derived from the question of causality.

That is the connection you fail to make.

MacDaddy01:



Ignorance. Please read up before you expose yourself-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster



Spag monster is not about big bang or first cause.

Of course twoddles like you will fail to make the very obvious connection.

FSM is about intelligent design

MacDaddy01: FSM is about intelligent design

Lol, keep contradicting yourself. You say its not about first cause but its about intelligent design. The first step in the intelligent design argument starts from first cause. Stop being such a nit wit.

Deep Sight:

Of course twoddles like you will fail to make the very obvious connection.

lol.....is that all you can say?


Your ignorance has been exposed!


#Deep Sight debunked

MacDaddy01:


lol.....is that all you can say?


Your ignorance has been exposed!


#Deep Sight debunked

Enjoy. I have no aptitude for the poverty of your intellect.