English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I haven't been able to find one. The only conclusion I can come to is that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Can somebody point me to a verse that says that God and the FSM are different?

If not, can you at least prove that God isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

2007-12-26 09:07:03 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Grown: Peanuts don't defecate. I'd expect someone with the word "intelligent" to know that.

2007-12-26 09:12:43 · update #1

The last additional details should say "I'd expect someone with the word "intelligent" in their name to know that."

2007-12-26 09:13:38 · update #2

18 answers

Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is not a Flying Spaghetti Monster so by default the only other logical explanation is that he is.

:)

2007-12-26 09:41:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

No, this does not prove that God is the FSM. Since there is no proof one way or other, we should assume the odds of God being the FSM is 50:50. The Pastafarians only ask for equal time in biology class - non-FSM Intelligent Design and FSM ID. Teach the controversy!

2007-12-26 10:54:41 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. R 7 · 0 0

W.L. Craig explains it best.

Any ultimate explanation must involve a personal being which is incorporeal. For any being composed of material stuff will exhibit precisely that specified complexity that we are trying to explain. The old “Who designed the Designer?” objection thus presses hard against any construal of the Designer as a physical object. That immediately rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a final explanation.

The contingency argument proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless, spaceless, nor immaterial.

2007-12-26 09:14:50 · answer #3 · answered by D2T 3 · 1 0

The only thing that I can come up with is the bit about making us in his Image, However this all depends on the meaning of the word image.

I'll will have to give this some more thought, but now I must fly off and terrorise the clientèle of the local Italian restaurant.

2007-12-26 17:43:59 · answer #4 · answered by Sly Fox [King of Fools] 6 · 1 0

FSM is a corrupt religion of the past. You should consider coverting to the Flying Linguini Monster of Barrislam. Because there is no god but the FLM and Barilla is his Prophet. Pasta be upon you.

2007-12-26 09:14:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Actually, I do not remember a definitive list of all the things God is not. In fact, there are plenty of passages that seem to suggest there is nothing that is not part of God. So why should FSM be excluded?

RAmen

2007-12-26 11:49:26 · answer #6 · answered by auntb93 7 · 2 0

It was my understanding from the parallel visions of Isaiah, and John on the Isle of Patmos, that his appearance is that of liquid crystal.

So, a translucent plastic noodle monster? Doesn't work... (Plastic in the scientific sense, that which is not solid but morphous)
We know from Moses' experience that his back shines radiance, and causes faces to shine.

Shiny translucent plastic noodle monster?

He spoke to Moses out of a burning bush.
Dude, I think then that your spaghetti is burned.

Scorched shiny translucent plastic noodle monster?

Um... no. That does not work.

Your theology sucks, I have to say.

Scorched shiny translucent plastic noodle monster with meatballs?

2007-12-26 09:29:00 · answer #7 · answered by 1Up 7 · 0 1

How do you keep spaghetti from falling through the metal grating on God's Holy Altar?

2007-12-26 09:18:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because God created us in His image, therefore, unless you are a Flying Spaghetti Monster...

2007-12-26 09:16:51 · answer #9 · answered by haircutter 2 · 2 2

The absence of proof means that logically, one is unable to come to a conclusion.

The absence of a negative does not mean an affirmative.

Please, people, study logic! It will do you a world of good! They go over this stuff, for real!

2007-12-26 09:10:57 · answer #10 · answered by SlowClap 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers