no u

(oYo) linked this one back on September, 12, 2014.

Yep, it has reverted back to kickass.to


http://torrentfreak.com/kickasstorrents-taken-domain-name-seizure-150209/

Yes, and I completely understand where you're coming from, but if that's the case, then it simply shouldn't be called an FSM, and so I do not agree with your previous point that the FSM is merely described -- but not defined -- as such.  Accordingly, I maintain that a FSM that is able to alter its constraints to become a CPM results in two notable conclusions: 1) It is omnipotent, and, more importantly, 2) it is no longer an FSM.  An FSM can only be an FSM if it is a flying monster made of spaghetti.

What you're describing is a monotheistic god who places constraints upon himself which allows for any number of possible descriptions based upon the constraints.

Again, I get where you're coming from, but the problem is that the FSM and similar arguments like the Space Teapot orbiting Venus are used specifically by atheists to demonstrate a specific point, which is that it is absurd to believe in something just because we can imagine it to exist.  For example, we can imagine that a teapot is orbiting Venus and therefore we would have a way to verify its existence through empirical observation.  Just because we can imagine that the space teapot exists doesn't mean that we should spend billions or trillions of dollars on telescopes and otherwise to try to find it.  What we can't do is imagine something with a total lack of constraint and, therefore, definition.

So, atheists are left with two options. Either they can take a position like you have done, claiming that an omnipotent god could take the form of the FSM or a teapot, and therefore the analogy maintains its validity, but it loses its ability to serve as a counterargument to a monotheistic god because it would remove all theoretical possibility of empirical falsification.  You could have full access to all data that ever has, is, and will be available, and you still wouldn't be able to distinguish between the FSM and a monotheistic god.  The other choice is to maintain that it is a counterargument to a monotheistic god, but relinquish its validity.

Imagine it this way:  If a flying monster made of spaghetti came into your room, you would be able to verify that the FSM exists, regardless of whether the FSM is just an FSM, or if it's a monotheistic god stratifying itself into an FSM.  But if a monotheistic god took the form of an FSM and came into your room, you would still be able to verify the existence of the FSM, but you would not be able to verify the existence of a monotheistic god.

In summation, it seems as though you assume a more tenable position than other atheists because you understand how the omnipotence paradox is self-resolving.  But unfortunately, the rest of your cohort does not make this distinction, and the FSM or space teapot or any other similar argument is invoked with the specific intent of showing that it is silly to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence of any kind.  But monotheistic gods by definition are beyond the scope of empiricism.  That's why the FSM ultimately fails as a proper analogy.

No problems, where is that box located? Did a fast search-through but didn't find anything.

That is exactly the case. Married people and people in long term relationship are convinced that this state is given to them and nothing will change. That is the main reason for divorce. You need to be alive, need to catch fire with your arms, celebrate Valentines every year as it was your first valentine's day!

Doesnt the money go from police dept. funds?
It would be insane to just pay idiot things like that from state funds, since it wont stop them from repeating things like that whenever they feel like it.

Maybe rephrasing will emphasize my point a bit:

If a monotheistic god is defined in terms of a lack of constraint, then it could omnipotently turn into an FSM and still be a monotheistic god.

If an FSM is defined in terms of constraint as I'm suggesting, then if the FSM turned into a Crawling Potato Monster (the CPM...duh!) it would no longer be an FSM (because a CPM does not fly and is not made of spaghetti).

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

come on guys.... no one does any good here?

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).