Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 353. (Read 845654 times)
You keep using the word "religion", whose existence you have refused. I think "refuse" may be a more acceptable word than "deny", certainly less harsh, but the underlying logic still stands.
If, in your mind, you can not grasp the absence of belief and religion: Can you then define the existence of both? If atheism can not exist, then it follows god can not exist.
Atheism is a religion because nobody knows that it is true, yet many people believe in it.
What does denial of anything have to do with it?
There are a certain amount of evidences that Atheism is the true religion.
There are countless more evidences that God is the true religion.
If, in your mind, you can not grasp the absence of belief and religion: Can you then define the existence of both? If atheism can not exist, then it follows god can not exist.
Atheism is a religion because nobody knows that it is true, yet many people believe in it.
You just claimed Atheism is a lie, now your claiming nobody knows if it's true or not.
My claim of Atheism as a lie was simply a sneering agreement with the previous post to it.
Obviously Atheism is a true religion.
If, in your mind, you can not grasp the absence of belief and religion: Can you then define the existence of both? If atheism can not exist, then it follows god can not exist.
Atheism is a religion because nobody knows that it is true, yet many people believe in it.
You just claimed Atheism is a lie, now your claiming nobody knows if it's true or not.
If, in your mind, you can not grasp the absence of belief and religion: Can you then define the existence of both? If atheism can not exist, then it follows god can not exist.
Atheism is a religion because nobody knows that it is true, yet many people believe in it.
Apparently, it seems that 190 pages of this thread is not enough to solve your dispute about existence of god. I've got to say that you would not find a common ground even after 1000 pages... It amuses me that people are willing to put that effort to discuss that matter over and over again.
You are completely mistaken. We have common ground, even though we are stubborn enough not to admit it. Our common ground is two-fold. It is: 1) we don't have any common ground; 2) we are stubborn enough not to admit it (most of the time).
Apparently, it seems that 190 pages of this thread is not enough to solve your dispute about existence of god. I've got to say that you would not find a common ground even after 1000 pages... It amuses me that people are willing to put that effort to discuss that matter over and over again.
If, in your mind, you can not grasp the absence of belief and religion: Can you then define the existence of both? If atheism can not exist, then it follows god can not exist.
Atheism is a religion because nobody knows that it is true, yet many people believe in it.
It is self evident that nobody knows for a fact about anything even a micro-second into the future. If they did, they would know about everything. Accidents wouldn't happen.
Everybody trusts, which is a form of belief, that things will work out somewhat like they have in the previous micro-second. But they don't really know. Consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody knows anything. Everything operates by belief, because there are too many variables as to what could happen.
Everybody trusts, which is a form of belief, that things will work out somewhat like they have in the previous micro-second. But they don't really know. Consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody knows anything. Everything operates by belief, because there are too many variables as to what could happen.
If, in your mind, you can not grasp the absence of belief and religion: Can you then define the existence of both? If atheism can not exist, then it follows god can not exist.
Just to be clear - Atheism doesn't state 'no god exists' but that an atheist has no belief that a God exists.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Quote
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
Looks like Atheism is a religion according to #3, sometimes #5, and #6.
No, look at it again, " the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs". Atheism is the lack of belief, so it is not a religion.
There isn't such a thing as lack of belief in some form, at least not among people. People always believe in something. That is, they hold something as true even though they do not know it is true.
This makes Atheism to be what it really is, a lie, as well as a belief.
That's not true. No idea where you got, "There isn't such a thing as lack of belief in some form, at least not among people." from.
In other words, if you believe that you don't believe, you are lying to yourself.
Just to be clear - Atheism doesn't state 'no god exists' but that an atheist has no belief that a God exists.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Quote
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
Looks like Atheism is a religion according to #3, sometimes #5, and #6.
No, look at it again, " the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs". Atheism is the lack of belief, so it is not a religion.
There isn't such a thing as lack of belief in some form, at least not among people. People always believe in something. That is, they hold something as true even though they do not know it is true.
This makes Atheism to be what it really is, a lie, as well as a belief.
That's not true. No idea where you got, "There isn't such a thing as lack of belief in some form, at least not among people." from.
Just to be clear - Atheism doesn't state 'no god exists' but that an atheist has no belief that a God exists.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Quote
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
Looks like Atheism is a religion according to #3, sometimes #5, and #6.
No, look at it again, " the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs". Atheism is the lack of belief, so it is not a religion.
There isn't such a thing as lack of belief in some form, at least not among people. People always believe in something. That is, they hold something as true even though they do not know it is true.
This makes Atheism to be what it really is, a lie, as well as a belief.
Just to be clear - Atheism doesn't state 'no god exists' but that an atheist has no belief that a God exists.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Quote
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
Looks like Atheism is a religion according to #3, sometimes #5, and #6.
No, look at it again, " the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs". Atheism is the lack of belief, so it is not a religion.
Just to be clear - Atheism doesn't state 'no god exists' but that an atheist has no belief that a God exists.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Quote
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
Looks like Atheism is a religion according to #3, sometimes #5, and #6.
Just to be clear - Atheism doesn't state 'no god exists' but that an atheist has no belief that a God exists.
It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, if your definition of that thing keeps shifting to exclude any evidence. This is known as Russel's teapot and a quick google will find some explanation.
(Red colorization mine.)Quote from: Bradley Dowden. “Fallacies.” _Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy_. 16 Feb. 235. link=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NoTrueScotsman
No True Scotsman
This error is a kind of ad hoc rescue of one's generalization in which the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.
Example:
This error is a kind of ad hoc rescue of one's generalization in which the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.
Example:
Code:
Smith: All Scotsmen are loyal and brave.
Jones: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested by his commanding officer for running from the enemy.
Smith: Well, if that's right, it just shows that McDougal wasn't a TRUE Scotsman.
It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, if your definition of that thing keeps shifting to exclude any evidence. This is known as Russel's teapot and a quick google will find some explanation.
Oh dear, the joint, I thought you knew better what the teapot really is, never mind the fsm. I'm no longer certain you studied either in detail. You wouldn't be repeating the same faulty arguments (many of which I just had to ignore in order to continue our debates) if you studied them better.
Re: Russell's Teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
1) It does not orbit Venus as you have stated. It is in an elliptical obit between Earth and Mars.
2) You will never be able to spot it, even with the Hubble telescope, because it is extremely small.
3) It has no special abilities. It is just a teapot. If you replaced it with a miniature version of your very own coffee pot it would serve the same purpose.
4) It is not even remotely comparable to the FSM, except for the fact there is no empirical evidence of its existence.
Re: The Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
1) It is in fact a monotheistic god for two reasons:
a) It created everything in existence.
b) It is the only true god in existence, thereby making it monotheistic by default. (I really wish we could get by this. I honestly can't understand why you don't realize this.)
2) There can never be any empirical evidence for the existence of the FSM for two reasons:
a) It is invisible and can pass through solid matter, thereby making it unobservable.
b) It is omnipotent and will falsify any 'evidence' you attempt to attain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constraints or the lack thereof is NOT what defines one as a monotheistic god. As evidenced by all your posts, it is you who misunderstands what a monotheistic god is and not 'everyone else'. Please take the time to research something before you decide to support or refute it. Only then will you be able to realize that the fsm analogy is infallible. (Provided you learn or is it just accept, once and for all, what a monotheistic god truly is. lol.)
The persisting problem here is *you* clearly refuse to understand what exactly monotheistic means. It simply means, One God. That's it. Nothing else. Your bogus claims to any other definition thereof are truly tiresome. It is again YOU who is doing all the huffing and puffing where there truly is no room for interpretation.
So here's the challenge I present to you.
Cite me ANY source that supports your claims, PLEASE. (I have tried unsuccessfully to find any supporting your claims.)
If you'll notice I already cited two Wikipedia sources in this post and will cite one more for my next claim.
"Monotheism = One God". Nothing more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
In the future, since you often like to bring up the FSM, the teapot and monotheism, may I suggest you research in detail what they truly are, since you continuously misrepresent them both to varying degrees, but for now let's just leave the fsm out of this and just concentrate on the SIMPLE definition of a monotheistic god, since this is most essential before we can go any further and you clearly have yet to grasp or accept that.
Re: Russell's Teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
1) It does not orbit Venus as you have stated. It is in an elliptical obit between Earth and Mars.
2) You will never be able to spot it, even with the Hubble telescope, because it is extremely small.
3) It has no special abilities. It is just a teapot. If you replaced it with a miniature version of your very own coffee pot it would serve the same purpose.
4) It is not even remotely comparable to the FSM, except for the fact there is no empirical evidence of its existence.
Re: The Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
1) It is in fact a monotheistic god for two reasons:
a) It created everything in existence.
b) It is the only true god in existence, thereby making it monotheistic by default. (I really wish we could get by this. I honestly can't understand why you don't realize this.)
2) There can never be any empirical evidence for the existence of the FSM for two reasons:
a) It is invisible and can pass through solid matter, thereby making it unobservable.
b) It is omnipotent and will falsify any 'evidence' you attempt to attain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is you clearly *don't* understand the FSM argument and its implications, and neither does anyone else who believes it is valid, and the fact that you try to justify it by essentially calling the FSM a monotheistic god illustrates this point . Again, you can huff and puff all you want. There's no room for interpretation.
Constraints or the lack thereof is NOT what defines one as a monotheistic god. As evidenced by all your posts, it is you who misunderstands what a monotheistic god is and not 'everyone else'. Please take the time to research something before you decide to support or refute it. Only then will you be able to realize that the fsm analogy is infallible. (Provided you learn or is it just accept, once and for all, what a monotheistic god truly is. lol.)
The persisting problem here is *you* clearly refuse to understand what exactly monotheistic means. It simply means, One God. That's it. Nothing else. Your bogus claims to any other definition thereof are truly tiresome. It is again YOU who is doing all the huffing and puffing where there truly is no room for interpretation.
So here's the challenge I present to you.
Cite me ANY source that supports your claims, PLEASE. (I have tried unsuccessfully to find any supporting your claims.)
If you'll notice I already cited two Wikipedia sources in this post and will cite one more for my next claim.
"Monotheism = One God". Nothing more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
In the future, since you often like to bring up the FSM, the teapot and monotheism, may I suggest you research in detail what they truly are, since you continuously misrepresent them both to varying degrees, but for now let's just leave the fsm out of this and just concentrate on the SIMPLE definition of a monotheistic god, since this is most essential before we can go any further and you clearly have yet to grasp or accept that.
Thank you for your thought-out reply.
1) The explanation for saying 'Venus' is that I believe I read someone else use it, and also because it makes absolutely no difference as far as the argument is concerned. I didn't read about Russell's teapot yesterday. It's been years. I don't keep going back to keep checking what it is.
2) The four points you mentioned also do not change anything. First, as previously stated, whether it's orbiting Venus or in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars doesn't matter; it can theoretically be empirically verified. Second, whether the Hubble can see it or not is irrelevant; it can theoretically be empirically verified. Third, it doesn't matter if the teapot can sing and dance or if it's just a teapot; it can theoretically be empirically verified. Fourth, these previous statements are directly comparable to the FSM because both can theoretically be empirically verified.
I believe I have sufficiently countered your assumption that I don't understand the teapot argument.
3) With so many people believing in the validity of the FSM analogy, wouldn't you expect me to also take issue with the Wiki? In this context, referring to the Wiki is beside the point because I've claimed many times that people who use the FSM argument don't understand it.
That being said, it's just nonsense. Look at this statement:
Quote
2) There can never be any empirical evidence for the existence of the FSM for...
And already, this is nonsense. "Monster" is characterized by physical constraints. "Spaghetti" is a physical characteristic that places additional physical constraints on top of 'monster.' And then you claim there can never be any empirical evidence of the FSM? Are you kidding me?
Sorry, if that's what Wiki said, Wiki is wrong and needs to be changed. This is definitive and clear.
4) If a lack of constraint is a theoretical trait that differentiates between a monotheistic god and any number of constrained forms it could possibly take, then it is obvious that a lack of constraint is a defining characteristic of a monotheistic god.
5) It seems it is you who keeps misunderstanding the point. I've mentioned this over and over, but I *never* start out by assuming God exists or arbitrarily ascribe characteristics to it and then try to prove them.
Again, here are the steps I take:
- First, start with a presumption that God exists, and then what it might be.
- Second (and this is what you keep missing), forget all about that presumption!!!
- Third, identify the boundaries of logic and utilize them to gain insight into fundamental truths of reality.
- Fourth, retrieve the original presumption of God and hold it beside the truths to compare them. If the truths imply or necessitate the original presumption, then I can practically conclude God/I.D. exists.
Really, only the third step is necessary. Steps one, two, and four are just for fun. But going through step three implicates omnipotent, intelligent design. These are the defining characteristics that I consider, which admittedly goes beyond the Wiki definition that a monotheistic god is simply "one god."
So, to recap this last point, the issue you are taking with me is inapplicable, but to some extent I do understand why you believe its valid. You simply aren't taking into account the method by which I arrived at my conclusions. You believe that I started out with some presumption of whether a monotheistic god exists and what it might be, and then tried to directly prove it. That simply isn't the case.
Regarding your challenge, can you provide me with some specific ideas that would like me to provide reference for?
Oh dear, the joint, I thought you knew better what the teapot really is, never mind the fsm. I'm no longer certain you studied either in detail. You wouldn't be repeating the same faulty arguments (many of which I just had to ignore in order to continue our debates) if you studied them better.
Re: Russell's Teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
1) It does not orbit Venus as you have stated. It is in an elliptical obit between Earth and Mars.
2) You will never be able to spot it, even with the Hubble telescope, because it is extremely small.
3) It has no special abilities. It is just a teapot. If you replaced it with a miniature version of your very own coffee pot it would serve the same purpose.
4) It is not even remotely comparable to the FSM, except for the fact there is no empirical evidence of its existence.
Re: The Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
1) It is in fact a monotheistic god for two reasons:
a) It created everything in existence.
b) It is the only true god in existence, thereby making it monotheistic by default. (I really wish we could get by this. I honestly can't understand why you don't realize this.)
2) There can never be any empirical evidence for the existence of the FSM for two reasons:
a) It is invisible and can pass through solid matter, thereby making it unobservable.
b) It is omnipotent and will falsify any 'evidence' you attempt to attain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constraints or the lack thereof is NOT what defines one as a monotheistic god. As evidenced by all your posts, it is you who misunderstands what a monotheistic god is and not 'everyone else'. Please take the time to research something before you decide to support or refute it. Only then will you be able to realize that the fsm analogy is infallible. (Provided you learn or is it just accept, once and for all, what a monotheistic god truly is. lol.)
The persisting problem here is *you* clearly refuse to understand what exactly monotheistic means. It simply means, One God. That's it. Nothing else. Your bogus claims to any other definition thereof are truly tiresome. It is again YOU who is doing all the huffing and puffing where there truly is no room for interpretation.
So here's the challenge I present to you.
Cite me ANY source that supports your claims, PLEASE. (I have tried unsuccessfully to find any supporting your claims.)
If you'll notice I already cited two Wikipedia sources in this post and will cite one more for my next claim.
"Monotheism = One God". Nothing more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
In the future, since you often like to bring up the FSM, the teapot and monotheism, may I suggest you research in detail what they truly are, since you continuously misrepresent them both to varying degrees, but for now let's just leave the fsm out of this and just concentrate on the SIMPLE definition of a monotheistic god, since this is most essential before we can go any further and you clearly have yet to grasp or accept that.
Re: Russell's Teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
1) It does not orbit Venus as you have stated. It is in an elliptical obit between Earth and Mars.
2) You will never be able to spot it, even with the Hubble telescope, because it is extremely small.
3) It has no special abilities. It is just a teapot. If you replaced it with a miniature version of your very own coffee pot it would serve the same purpose.
4) It is not even remotely comparable to the FSM, except for the fact there is no empirical evidence of its existence.
Re: The Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
1) It is in fact a monotheistic god for two reasons:
a) It created everything in existence.
b) It is the only true god in existence, thereby making it monotheistic by default. (I really wish we could get by this. I honestly can't understand why you don't realize this.)
2) There can never be any empirical evidence for the existence of the FSM for two reasons:
a) It is invisible and can pass through solid matter, thereby making it unobservable.
b) It is omnipotent and will falsify any 'evidence' you attempt to attain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is you clearly *don't* understand the FSM argument and its implications, and neither does anyone else who believes it is valid, and the fact that you try to justify it by essentially calling the FSM a monotheistic god illustrates this point . Again, you can huff and puff all you want. There's no room for interpretation.
Constraints or the lack thereof is NOT what defines one as a monotheistic god. As evidenced by all your posts, it is you who misunderstands what a monotheistic god is and not 'everyone else'. Please take the time to research something before you decide to support or refute it. Only then will you be able to realize that the fsm analogy is infallible. (Provided you learn or is it just accept, once and for all, what a monotheistic god truly is. lol.)
The persisting problem here is *you* clearly refuse to understand what exactly monotheistic means. It simply means, One God. That's it. Nothing else. Your bogus claims to any other definition thereof are truly tiresome. It is again YOU who is doing all the huffing and puffing where there truly is no room for interpretation.
So here's the challenge I present to you.
Cite me ANY source that supports your claims, PLEASE. (I have tried unsuccessfully to find any supporting your claims.)
If you'll notice I already cited two Wikipedia sources in this post and will cite one more for my next claim.
"Monotheism = One God". Nothing more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
In the future, since you often like to bring up the FSM, the teapot and monotheism, may I suggest you research in detail what they truly are, since you continuously misrepresent them both to varying degrees, but for now let's just leave the fsm out of this and just concentrate on the SIMPLE definition of a monotheistic god, since this is most essential before we can go any further and you clearly have yet to grasp or accept that.
Jump to: