Why Christianity?

[orangebox21]

Orange, are we going to get back over to the whole god thing or are you going to continue to misrepresent science?

We have Brahma, Yaweh, and .... we need a third. I rejected Gaea because she doesn't satisfy the criteria of point #1. According to the Greeks, first matter was in existence and then she came into existence. Logically she could not have been the creator of something that existed prior to her existence.

[Shuffle]

We have Brahma, Yaweh, and .... we need a third.  I rejected Gaea because she doesn't satisfy the criteria of point #1.  According to the Greeks, first matter was in existence and then she came into existence.  Logically she could not have been the creator of something that existed prior to her existence.

Fair enough.

I still think the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a valid claim on the origins of the universe. Now that your crap on "eternal" matter was completely destroyed, I don't see anything wrong with such a claim.

[orangebox21]

We have Brahma, Yaweh, and .... we need a third.  I rejected Gaea because she doesn't satisfy the criteria of point #1.  According to the Greeks, first matter was in existence and then she came into existence.  Logically she could not have been the creator of something that existed prior to her existence.

Fair enough.

I still think the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a valid claim on the origins of the universe. Now that your crap on "eternal" matter was completely destroyed, I don't see anything wrong with such a claim.

Seems like there's evidence on both sides.
But I'm not here to argue the science.  

If matter was created then it cannot be eternal.  (self-evident; by definition if something were created it cannot have always existed)  
Matter was created.  (our assumed premise)
Therefore matter cannot be eternal.

In light of this sound and valid conclusion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (consisting of matter), cannot be the creator of the universe.  

So, Brahma, Yaweh, and ...?

[Shuffle]

In light of this sound and valid conclusion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (consisting of matter), cannot be the creator of the universe.  

So, Brahma, Yaweh, and ...?

No no no. Who said the Flying Spaghetti Monster consisted of matter. His all mighty Meatballs are made of pure goodness, not matter. His all mighty noodles are made of pure joy and happiness, not matter.

So, Brahma, Yaweh, and THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

[orangebox21]

In light of this sound and valid conclusion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (consisting of matter), cannot be the creator of the universe.  

So, Brahma, Yaweh, and ...?

No no no. Who said the Flying Spaghetti Monster consisted of matter. His all mighty Meatballs are made of pure goodness, not matter. His all mighty noodles are made of pure joy and happiness, not matter.

So, Brahma, Yaweh, and THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Please provide the church's official doctrine of the nature and essence of the FSM and of the creation account.

[Pyrrho]

No no no. Who said the Flying Spaghetti Monster consisted of matter. His all mighty Meatballs are made of pure goodness, not matter. His all mighty noodles are made of pure joy and happiness, not matter.

So, Brahma, Yaweh, and THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Please provide the church's official doctrine of the nature and essence of the FSM and of the creation account.

There is no doctrine that requires belief that the FSM is made of matter.  Here are a couple of quotes:

Pastafarianism is a real religion. 

Most of us do not believe a religion – Christianity, Islam, Pastafarianiasm – requires literal belief in order to provide spiritual enlightenment. That is, we can be part of a community without becoming indoctrinated. There are many levels of belief. 

By design, the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma. That is, there are no strict rules and regulations, there are no rote rituals and prayers and other nonsense. Every member has a say in what this church is and what it becomes.

Pastafarianism is different than most religions in that we explicitly make the point that our scripture need not be believed literally.

http://www.venganza.org/about/

So even if there were an explicit claim that the FSM were made of matter (though I do not recall ever seeing it as part of official Church doctrine), no member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is required to believe it.

Here, though, is the official creation account (that no member is required to believe literally):

Q: How do Pastafarians believe our world was created?

A: We believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists today, but for reasons unknown made it appear that the universe is billions of years old (instead of thousands) and that life evolved into its current state (rather than created in its current form). Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.

[orangebox21]

---

Please provide the church's official doctrine of the nature and essence of the FSM and of the creation account.

There is no doctrine that requires belief that the FSM is made of matter.  Here are a couple of quotes:

Pastafarianism is a real religion. 

Most of us do not believe a religion – Christianity, Islam, Pastafarianiasm – requires literal belief in order to provide spiritual enlightenment. That is, we can be part of a community without becoming indoctrinated. There are many levels of belief. 

By design, the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma. That is, there are no strict rules and regulations, there are no rote rituals and prayers and other nonsense. Every member has a say in what this church is and what it becomes.

Pastafarianism is different than most religions in that we explicitly make the point that our scripture need not be believed literally.

http://www.venganza.org/about/

So even if there were an explicit claim that the FSM were made of matter (though I do not recall ever seeing it as part of official Church doctrine), no member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is required to believe it.

Here, though, is the official creation account (that no member is required to believe literally):

Q: How do Pastafarians believe our world was created?

A: We believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists today, but for reasons unknown made it appear that the universe is billions of years old (instead of thousands) and that life evolved into its current state (rather than created in its current form). Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.

---

[Pyrrho]

---

There is no doctrine that requires belief that the FSM is made of matter.  Here are a couple of quotes:





http://www.venganza.org/about/

So even if there were an explicit claim that the FSM were made of matter (though I do not recall ever seeing it as part of official Church doctrine), no member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is required to believe it.

Here, though, is the official creation account (that no member is required to believe literally):

---

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.

[orangebox21]

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.

The doctrine that states: "there is no dogma of the FSM" is a dogma. This is not only recognized by the church but it is stated that this doctrine is "by design." Therefore, the doctrine [teaching] of the FSM is self-refuting. Therefore the FSM is nonsensical [not the concept of the FSM but if the FSM were to exist, he/she/it would be nonsensical].

We cannot be logical from a foundation of illogic.

[robvalue]

There is nothing the FSM can't do. It can have dogma and no dogma. It can contradict itself. It made all other gods.

Pretty simple stuff, we learnt it on day 1 of wearing-a-colander-on-your head school.

Of course he made your gods. Everything needs a creator. Except the FSM.