Strategyking92 said:
no. But I can prove you watch south park at least occasionally. j/k You have to admit though, even if you don't, that god is far more likely than a spagetti monster. But he might have created one. You never know, science can't disprove it. But..... a noodle can't live.... unless it wasn't a noodle.... but a worm.... a Flying worm monster.... is that what you meant? |
No, that's exactly the point. Both are equally likely (or unlikely), both contradict the laws of physics as we know them, there isn't one that's more "factible" than another. Let's use the probably very known, but always handy Russell's teapot:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
What differentiates God from the FSM? That one is a belief from ancient times and the other was thought by a guy three years ago as a medium of protest. If the FSM were the ancient one and God the three year old theory, you'd find the FSM believable and God's theory crazy
