[Viennacon]

It’s very easy to refute the argument. The designer of the universe has a strict set of attributes it has to adhere to, one being the property of being immaterial. Since spaghetti is material, and what’s more, occupies both time and space, it cannot fit this definition.

The common response is to say that it’s ‘immaterial spaghetti’, and of course the response to that is, then it’s not really spaghetti. Eventually, so many of the attributes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have been rendered incoherent, the person is actually just applying the name ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ to God... which isn’t very powerful.

It’s a meme argument. Not one taken seriously by scholars. Indeed if one attempted to use it in a philosophy debate, they would be immediately regarded as a fool.

[dmz]

Eventually, so many of the attributes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have been rendered incoherent, the person is actually just applying the name ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ to God... which isn’t very powerful.

<><><<><

From where I sit, that was the FSM’s entire point, at least back in the days when it first appeared. The IDers did everything they could to remove God from the equation. But as you say, so many of the attributes of the Designer (in this case) were rendered incoherent, the person is actually just applying the name ‘Designer’ to God.

I don’t believe the FSM argument was ever intended to be the subject of scholarly debates. But that method of debate, using your opponent’s own logic against them, is quite powerful.

For the record: I am not a pastafarian.

[chajin]

The designer of the universe has a strict set of attributes it has to adhere to, one being the property of being immaterial. Since spaghetti is material, and what’s more, occupies both time and space, it cannot fit this definition.

Now that's using your noodle...