flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas

I should have said of course that there can be no evidence that something does not exist. I mistakenly equivocated 'absence' with 'non-existence'.

So do I. I just view evolution as the designer

But we have no way of testing by empirical means the metaphysical. As to whether it exists or not we are logically back to a philosphical/theological question. If you have no way of scientifically testing the metaphysical then either conclusion is logical. Your suggestion that a pink unicorn as a creator is as logical as the idea that there is intelligence behind the universe is silly.I've gotta run

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I take it that by "either conclusion", you mean the conclusions "the metaphysical exists" and "the metaphysical does not exist".Well, if you have no way of scientifically testing the metaphysical, then neither of those conclusions is logical. The only valid logical conclusion would be: "the existence of the metaphysical is uncertain". The pragmatical consequence would be: "there's no reason to assume the existence of the metaphysical".But that's just nitpicking on my part. But I never suggested that. The reasoning was about there being no evidence supporting the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existence. You implied that this warranted the possibility of said intelligence. I merely pointed out that if that's true, then it also warrants the possibility of the IPU. The reasoning for both is equivalent. So, the conclusion must be that if you find the reasoning for the IPU silly, then you must find the same reasoning for intelligence equally silly.This has nothing to do with the understandable urge, after seeing so much complex design in nature, to conclude an intelligent designer. It's all about a logical fallacy.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I still don't see how you know when to buy milk. How do you prove that the milk doesn't exist in your fridge?

I don't get this. Is the flying spaghetti monster just supposed to be another name for god in the sense of the creator? If not, isn't this monster a different kind of entity--an extraneous entity?That's not the same sort of entity as the concept of God, is it?

No, they're nothing alike. Your ridiculous "God" is made of "spirit" or some nonexistent nonsense; the FSM is made of pasta, which we all know actually exists.There's actually evidence for the FSM, but none for your so-called "God."

It's not my god, but anyway, what would be the purported reason for our thinking that the monster existed? What did the monster do?

If there's no such thing as the FSM, then where did all this spaghetti and meatballs come from?

I wonder if they said that in the letter.But anyway, I'm trying to figure out if, logically, that's the same type of question as, "Where did the universe come from?"Do you think it's the same? Don't you think there's a different degree of certainty as regards this question?

The problem is not about proving that there is no milk in my fridge, it is about proving that there exists no milk at all, anywhere.I can vaporize my fridge wholesale and analyse the vapor using gas chromatography. If I find no traces of the atoms that make up milk, then I conclude there was no milk in my fridge. In principle, I can prove it.I cannot logically prove that milk does not exist at all.The impracticability is also a factor: I cannot vaporise the universe. And even if I could, I'd have vaporised the gas chromatography equipment as well. Not to mention myself.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

If you can't have evidence of something not existing, how would that prove there was no milk in your fridge? What you're saying is, if you examine every space within your fridge large enough to contain some milk, and you don't find any milk in any of them, you can conclude that you don't have any milk in your fridge - even though you didn't look in the freezer, or inside each orange, or in the seal strip, or under the lid of the jar of pickles.In other words, it's sufficient to look in all the places where you would reasonably expect milk to be to prove that there is no milk in your fridge at all. Right?

I think we just need to give credit where credit is do, namely the creation of midgets pirates and beerAll Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!Ramian!

Or that the Flood of Noah never happened.