That the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as good an explanation as any other. And can’t be dis-proven.
To the totally lost and insane, any explanation is as good as any other.
Once you give up on rationality, everything seems equally irrational.
Notice that James didn’t bother to show how the Spaghetti Monster isn’t as good an explanation as any other.
Notice that Statiktect didn’t show how the Spaghetti Monster is as good as any other.
I didn’t pipe in about how it was or wasn’t, whereas you did.
No. You piped in to make an ad hom comment.
I piped in to explain the situation.
…which in itself seems to be the normal situation on these forums.
No, I piped in to point out that you’re full of it and you weren’t really saying anything worth a damn.
…and again.
When I was in high school, a mensa student said to me, “The moon is made of green cheese. Disprove it!”
I couldn’t then but maybe can take a stab at the spaghetti monster. It would take much organic material to make such a being. Organic material in space (Oxygen, hydrogen carbon) are rather loosley scattered. Some of it is combined in comets, but it’s not ebnough to produce spaghetti. God always is. Spaghetti came from China, according to Marco Polo.
As a pantheist, I cannot see that all matter could come together as spaghetti.
In a rational world, you merely define what each of them are (“God” and “Spaghetti Monster”) along with what it means to “exist”. From there, the logic is usually pretty simple.
But you’re assuming that the universe caused the FSM, rather than vice versa. This isn’t much different than the “What caused God?” question. The general answer is that nothing caused God; he has always been. Same for FSM. God is not a person as we know people to be, and FSM isn’t spaghetti as we know it to be.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s all that helpful to get hung up on particulars as the arguments should turn out to be pretty much the same as they are for God, as the concept is usually understood.
On a side note, I’d kind of like some spaghetti now.
Stat,
I was merely trying to show that putting all organics together would produce something other than spaghetti., whereas putting them all together might be part of what God is. I agree on the FSM approach. It was just an attempt to show how scattered organic matter is in the universe. God would include all there is–organic and inorganic. Nobody want’s rocks in their spaghetti.
stat,
You have to forgive James for his snarky comments. He is among the lost and insane that thinks belief is the same as rational or irrational thought. All one has to do is define the terms to align with beliefs and the rest is simple…
V,
If I had you within arms reach, I’d slap you silly for starting another is-isn’t thread. 
A spaghetti monster is apparently an arbitrary figure. The universal constants that have resulted in the emergence of life, nervous systems and consciousness are not. So, no an arbitrary figure is not as good as one that has attributes that correspond to the order of the perceived universe.
Folks–Please limit the discussion to the arguments about the OP thesis rather than making this yet another thread about other people.
And how do you know that you haven’t just invented a figure in keeping with “order of the perceived universe”? It is still arbitrary, isn’t it? That one representation is a “better explanation” pre-supposes the existence of either figure. You’re still left grappling with is-isn’t, aren’t you?
And I would deserve it. Truth is I got so sillied out with the pagan thread that I went to the absurd with TSM. We humans sure can get so silly with our beliefs that it becomes absurd.
Did you catch in the news the guy that had the cops called on him for wanting to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head for his drivers license picture? He claimed he had a religious right because he’s Pastafarian.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/aaron-william-pastafarian-license-photo-pasta-strainer_n_2734835.html
Those typos will get you every time… 
Limbaugh will be defending the guy tomorrow…