(August 11, 2015 at 12:52 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:(August 11, 2015 at 10:34 am)Pyrrho Wrote:
If I'm not required to believe that the FSM is not made of matter, then I can assert and believe that he/she/it is made of matter. And vice versa, another person can believe that the FSM is not made of matter. Both truth claims are equally valid within the church doctrine.
This is equally true of the creation account. I am not required to believe the above quoted creation account. I could therefore assert a creation account in complete contradiction and it would be equally valid within the church doctrine.
This logical problem is due to their only binding doctrinal statement. Namely that, "By design, the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma." In other words, "by design" we are self-refuting. The church has purposefully designed an illogical and nonsensical system.
Given that claims of the FSM are ultimately self-refuting, the necessary logical conclusion is that if the FSM is true then he/she/it is false, and if the FSM is false then he/she/it is true.
I therefore do not accept the FSM as a potential creator of the universe on the grounds that he/she/it is nonsensical.
Your analysis is completely wrong. The doctrine allows for people to have nonsensical views of the FSM. That does not mean that their views are correct, nor does it mean that their views accurately reflect the true nature of the FSM. It is that the FSM does not require that His followers have specific beliefs about Him. A being that does not require others to have specific beliefs about it, is not a self-contradictory concept, and does not prove the nonexistence of that being.
If you make up irrelevant bullshit about that being, your irrelevant bullshit proves nothing whatsoever about the being's existence.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
