Do you know any building that did not have a builder?

Published April 11th, 2008 by Bobby Henderson

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…



171 Responses to “Do you know any building that did not have a builder?”

  1. Ex-Captain Etay says:

    Define “building,” “painter,” and, especially, “maker.”
    Thanks very much.

  2. StJason says:

    Oh, dear FSM, not this fallacy again.
    1. Do you know any tree that had a builder? Yes? No? How about a rock? A bird? Yes? No?
    2. Did you bother to read that we are on the same side, bringing religious discussion into the science classroom? Yes? No?
    3. Did you know that the “a watch implies a watchmaker” analogy was debunked over two and a half centuries ago? Couldn’t you at the very least delve into newer philosophy to misconstrue to make your weak arguments?
    4. Did you bother to think about what you were coping out of that lame little pamphlet that you ‘secretly’ leave on the back of busses and under people’s windshields? Yes? No?
    5. Are you capable of rational thought? Yes? No?

    If you answered “Yes” to any of the above statements, then you are a liar. A dirty, pitiful little liar. Have a pleasant whatever, just don’t have it around me.

  3. Tar says:

    This argument has been used many times. Your theory here is that:
    1) A caused B, thus
    2) A came before B, never at the same time, and
    3) B had to have been caused
    Your conclusion is, therefore, that the B (the birth of the universe) must have had an A (a cause of B), and you automatically conclude that that A is God.
    In my personal opinion, that’s a little too fast to make a conclusion for several reasons. Why? Because:
    1) The “A” subject could be anything, let it be God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Unicorn, Google, etc.
    2) There are physical phenomenons that are spontaneous, such as Quantum Mechanics, and
    3) Many things in nature are probabilistic, so much so, it requires equal attention as your own cause-and-effect theory.
    .
    Point is this. Don’t go off saying that everything must have a cause, a beginning, and a purpose. All of those theories came from Aristotle, and Galileo long ago proved his theories can be radically wrong.
    .
    To summarize, you’re theory is outdated, and currently being terribly abused. Do not try to convert us into the people of the past. We have already reviewed their many mistakes and terrible deeds, and all vow never to carry it out in our current generation.

  4. Cheeetar says:

    Do you know any universe that you can prove had a maker? Yes? No?
    If you answered “Yes” to this statement… please give details:______________________…

  5. Pirate Bard says:

    1. Do you know any building that can reproduce offspring with variation (or at all for that matter)? Yes? No?
    2. Do you know any painting that can reproduce offspring with variation (or at all for that matter)? Yes? No?
    3. Do you know any car that can reproduce offspring with variation (or at all for that matter)? Yes? No?
    If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…

  6. Jason the Amazing Whiteboy says:

    Once again, we have some idiot quoting kirk cameron and ray comfort on here. see previous statements, my fellow pastafarians have it covered.

  7. Apprentice Frederic says:

    @all, but particularly the Jo(h?)nathans
    .
    An interesting bit of mail my wife and I got recently was from a humanitarian group called the “Smile Train”; it was concerned with poor children around the word that were born with cleft palates. If you care, it won’t be hard to find pictures of them; in happy outcomes, “Before” and “After” pictures.
    .
    Would any intelligent design advocates (most of which seem to be buddies or even bunkies with their Cosmic Pal) like to explain what the Intelligent Designer had in mind there? I mean, the odds of such an outcome are obviously less than infinitesimal unless A Really Serious Intelligence were at work….
    .
    And would you suggest that the surgeons who worked to repair that kind of damage are interfering with the will of the Almighty????

    Of course, as a Pastafarian, I do struggle with the same kinds of questions: Did the Noodly One want us to use our loaves, or just roll over????

  8. |+|Gothic_Pink|+| says:

    I’m all FSMism but has anyone noticed that these post and most other articles are a little one sided? I mean i’m as antichristian/religion as the next Pastafarian but still, you can’t argue with a group that gives no feedback? This is all just mindless reaffirmation of each other isn’t it?

Leave a Reply