The designer?

Originally posted by Agerg
There is as much evidence for your god as there is the FSM. Indeed, the religion of pastafarianism also has a holy book, I have a copy of it right here on my desk.

I found out about your so called religion in Wikipedia.
The following small quote seems to discredit it quite well:

"In 2005, Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson wrote an open
letter about a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as a satirical protest against the
decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of
intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools. In the
letter, Henderson parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing
belief in a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and
meatballs. Henderson further called for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be
allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and
evolution."

Originally posted by RJHinds
I found out about your so called religion in Wikipedia.
The following small quote seems to discredit it quite well:

"In 2005, Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson wrote an open
letter about a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as a satirical protest against the
decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of
intelligent desi ...[text shortened]... be
allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and
evolution."

You are missing the point; what if, hypothetically, it was not a satirical protest but a religion that many people actually seriously believed in (and complete with a “spaghetti monster Bible” complete with a “Son of spaghetti monster” and old historical references etc) ?
Spaghetti monster believers could use the same kind of “logic” to justify there faith in the spaghetti monster as you use for your religion and also use that same kind of “logic” against us atheists for not believing in the monster as you use against atheists for not believing in in a god.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..."Atheist try to use science in an attempt to prove God is not needed. ….”

No, they generally don't. They simply use science and not usually to disprove 'God' is “not needed” in particular. They can simply state “God is not needed (for an explanation) ” and stick with that. When an atheist uses science, just like when a typical theist uses scie ...[text shortened]... Designer and Maker). ...”

you have yet to show us any of this “evidence”.

I have already given you some evidence but you refuse
to consider any of it. There are many books written
about the Holy Bible and about God and about biblical
archeology that give evidence. No one can force you
to read and consider it. You just keep repeating the
same old thing over and over like a parrot.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already given you some evidence but you refuse
to consider any of it. There are many books written
about the Holy Bible and about God and about biblical
archeology that give evidence. No one can force you
to read and consider it. You just keep repeating the
same old thing over and over like a parrot.

“...I have already given you some evidence but you refuse
to consider any of it. ...”

I am strangely unaware that you have shown evidence that 'God' exists.

“...There are many books written
about the Holy Bible and about God and about biblical
archaeology that give evidence. ...”

yes, but NOT evidence that a 'God' EXISTS and that 'He' is the Creator (Designer and Maker) as you claimed.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology -well, no evidence there that there is a 'God' )
Reminder of your original claim:

“....However, there is evidence that God
EXISTS and that He is the Creator (Designer and Maker). ...” (my emphasis, your quote)

and I just said: “you have yet to show us any of this “evidence”.
And that still stands because you still haven't.
To date, you haven't shown any evidence that there is a 'God'. Simply refering to biblical archaeology and words of a book (the Bible) is not evidence that there is a 'God'.

“...You just keep repeating the
same old thing over and over like a parrot. ...”

I just keep repeating the same old debunking of your claims over and over like a parrot, yes. That is because you appear to not acknowledge it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I have already given you some evidence but you refuse
to consider any of it. ...”

I am strangely unaware that you have shown evidence that 'God' exists.

“...There are many books written
about the Holy Bible and about God and about biblical
archaeology that give evidence. ...”

yes, but NOT evidence that a 'God' EXISTS and that 'He' ...[text shortened]... ver and over like a parrot, yes. That is because you appear to not acknowledge it.

For proof of God try this link for a start:

http://godevidence.com/?gclid=CNaR3KvT_6gCFRFU7Aod0DD8Vw

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I have already given you some evidence but you refuse
to consider any of it. ...”

I am strangely unaware that you have shown evidence that 'God' exists.

“...There are many books written
about the Holy Bible and about God and about biblical
archaeology that give evidence. ...”

yes, but NOT evidence that a 'God' EXISTS and that 'He' ...[text shortened]... ver and over like a parrot, yes. That is because you appear to not acknowledge it.

If God were to exist as the Bible describes, would 'Science' be able to verify it in your opinion?

Originally posted by RJHinds
When did this religion begin and when was its holy book written
and by whom. What archeological evidence is there for its
holy book. Is it named in some reference source like wikipedia
that gives unbiased information on it, so I can evaluate your
claims. Does any government recognize it as a religion.

How would any of that help to verify whether or not the spaghetti monster actually exists? Does being mentioned in Wikipedia make the supernatural claims of a religion more likely to be true? Does government recognition help?

Originally posted by Agerg
There is as much evidence for your god as there is the FSM. Indeed, the religion of pastafarianism also has a holy book, I have a copy of it right here on my desk.

Straw man. Is that the best you can do?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Straw man. Is that the best you can do?

Explain how it is a strawman.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Straw man. Is that the best you can do?

You say that presumably because you think the strength of your faith in one particular god out of many is such that it should have positive impact on the perceived credibility of your god on the part of other people.

I don't.

To me and many other atheists the existence of the FSM, the tooth fairy, your notion of God, Osama Bin Laden's notion of God, Thor, Santa Claus, and so on.. are equally implausible. All have the same amount of evidence, all are such that they are inconsistent with standard laws of nature.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How would any of that help to verify whether or not the spaghetti monster actually exists? Does being mentioned in Wikipedia make the supernatural claims of a religion more likely to be true? Does government recognition help?

All this would help evaluted the validity of the religion.
But I don't need all this info now, because I found enough
on Wikipedia that proves to me that it is pure fiction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All this would help evaluted the validity of the religion.

In what way? Is the God of Islaam more likely to exist if:
1. It is mentioned on Wikipedia.
2. At least one government recognizes the religion.
3. There is archeological evidence for its holy book.

What makes a religion 'valid'?

Originally posted by dj2becker
If God were to exist as the Bible describes, would 'Science' be able to verify it in your opinion?

I honestly don't know. It depends:
If this 'God is such that it is supposed to be possible for us to directly/indirectly scientifically observe this 'God' through observations/evidence of/from the physical world in a way that we can LOGICALLY deduce that he exists then, obviously, the answer is “yes” (and else “no&rdquo😉.
I honestly don't know which of those two categories this 'God' as stated in the Bible is supposed to be in -I suppose I would have to consult a lot of expert Christians to find out.

Originally posted by RJHinds
For proof of God try this link for a start:

http://godevidence.com/?gclid=CNaR3KvT_6gCFRFU7Aod0DD8Vw

None of that is “evidence” that there IS a 'God'. It uses all the usual flawed reasoning.
I haven't the patients nor time to tediously go through it all so just state just ONE small (small in terms of number of lines) example of this “evidence” (copy and post it into a post) which you would regard as irrefutably BEING evidence for an existence of 'God' so I can point out why it isn't evidence for that.

Insistently, what it says about Einstein on its home page is highly misleading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html
“...A letter the physicist wrote in 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which he described the Bible as “pretty childish” and scoffed at the notion that the Jews could be a “chosen people,” ...”

and:

YouTube

so what he meant by “God”is clearly completely different by what you and creationists would mean by “God” -he never believed in the existence of a supernatural 'God' or any 'gods'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way? Is the God of Islaam more likely to exist if:
1. It is mentioned on Wikipedia.
2. At least one government recognizes the religion.
3. There is archeological evidence for its holy book.

What makes a religion 'valid'?

It shows that it is recognized enough to declare it a valid
religion. It does not mean that everything about it is true,
however. My first intent was to validate the religion as
based in some facts and at least eliminate it as pure
imaginary. Even though I do not agree with Hinduism
and Buddism I must admit they are recognized religions.
The Spaggetti Monster religion needs to at least pass this
basic test, but it does not.