Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

[Monobaz]

This Doctorate thing all seems a bit too involved. Why don't you just focus on becoming a Saint or Prophet or Messiah or something?

[StayThirstyMyAguila]

This Doctorate thing all seems a bit too involved. Why don't you just focus on becoming a Saint or Prophet or Messiah or something?

That sock looks great on your hand! What color is that, Republican blue?
I'll focus on my thesis, but thank you for the generous offer.
Oh, and you'd do well to remember that I'm a natural predator and breakfast wasn't too filling *snaps beak shut pointedly*.

['Murican Bald Eagle]

.................. I'm a natural predator and breakfast wasn't too filling *snaps beak shut pointedly*.

So the majestic baldy takes his opportunity, swoops down from on high and wires the adolescent aguila's beak shut, much to the relief of the entire forum.

[StayThirstyMyAguila]

.................. I'm a natural predator and breakfast wasn't too filling *snaps beak shut pointedly*.

So the majestic baldy takes his opportunity, swoops down from on high and wires the adolescent aguila's beak shut, much to the relief of the entire forum.

^Can't cause his wall prevents him from crossing the border to Mexico, the Aguila's natural habitat.
Also, muzzling a bird is generally considered cruel.
Hablas INGLAIS?!?!?!

EDIT: Revised thesis is en route, ETA Monday morning, it's on my school laptop.

[Cardinal Fang]

EDIT: Revised thesis is en route, ETA Monday morning, it's on my school laptop.

School laptop?!?!?

In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk.

Laptop? Luxury

CF

['Murican Bald Eagle]

..............In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk................CF

Slate and chalk, sheer luxury! We had to draw in the sand with a stick.

[daftbeaker]

..............In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk................CF

Slate and chalk, sheer luxury! We had to draw in the sand with a stick.

A stick and sand? Luxury!

We had to answer by hitting our heads against the wall before we were asked the questions.

Edit - although there are some kids I think might try this Also, while Python references are great, this is getting a tad off-topic for a good thread.

[StayThirstyMyAguila]

EDIT: Revised thesis is en route, ETA Monday morning, it's on my school laptop.

School laptop?!?!?

In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk.

Laptop? Luxury

CF

Apparently we can't afford normal, white paper, but we can afford to give every high/middle school student a (shat though it is) laptop of their own, about 5 less than a teacher per subject per grade, a projector in every classroom, and laptops for both elementary schools.
"Why is the school so underfunded?", they ask. "How come we can't afford regular paper?", they ask.

We had to answer by hitting our heads against the wall before we were asked the questions.

What, did you need to learn Morse code or summat?
Also, that explains a lot . . . *coughTrumpcough*.

If you want a doctorate, you'll need to make your own.

Challenge accepted. *whips out stick and bucket of sand*

[StayThirstyMyAguila]

You know what they say:

If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0.

The Creation Implication                                                                             Version 2.0

 We all know the argument against a creator, intelligent or otherwise: The creator must have had a creator, and that creator a creator, et cetera. This even applies to the Big Bang, because where did the Big Bang come from?
 If you have yet to read The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, then I strongly suggest you do so, or at least that you read the passage on pages 164-169 if you need clarification on the 'infinite creators' idea. If you do not have access to a copy of The Gospel, or are simply too lazy to check the passage, it reads, in part, "The basic argument is that the complexity of the known universe implies the existence of a creator. The union of the creator and creation is a set that is more complex than just the universe and thus implies a creator of the larger set. An induction hypothesis follows readily from this approach." (Henderson, page 164).

 The source of our apparent problem, at least, as mine eyes see it, is that any creator implies a mightier creator from whence they came. The answer to this conundrum, my dear boys, girls, and others, is the Greeks.
 As usual, the Greeks (and through them, the thieving warlords we call, "Romans") were right. The evidence and its inherent logic, at least, suggests they were correct in their assumption that everything in existence started as Chaos.

 Consider the nature of Chaos: chaos, by definition, follows no patterns and no laws, not those of physics, morality, federal government, states, provinces, religion, nor even those of time itself. Therefore, chaos would follow no timeline¹, and would also assume every form and no form all at once.
 Of course, some may question the validity of this statement and demand proof for it, but remember that this is a theory only, and thus does not need to be proven. Demanding evidence is much more reasonable. Nevertheless, I will assume myself correct until someone conducts a proper, scientific study on the nature of chaos and finds evidence that disproves my hypothesis.²

 Where were we? Oh yes: logically, one of these 'forms' must be one that has the characteristic of rules, and would be subject to those rules (there would be other forms as well, but these are irrelevant). This form would take no time at all (since time cannot exist in pure chaos) to become dominant, because it would immediately denature itself, a.k.a. the chaos and take on that shape until some external influence forced it to do otherwise.³

 Some may argue that this theory does not mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is not necessarily so. I direct your attention to The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, specifically pages 199-202. This passage, in case you don't have access to it or are simply too lazy to check, uses Kolmogorov complexity to provide proof and a greater understanding of His noodly goodness. It also illustrates how a creator complex enough to create life could have come from something as simple as a box of straight lines (or a box of, "simple carbohydrates", as some would say).
 See what I did there?

 I now propose my theorem: I propose that the origin-chaos-of-many-forms-all-at-once became a single form that followed certain rules, forcing itself to degenerate to a state of a rule-driven reality, and immediately created a box of spaghetti, along with some way to quickly increase the complexity of that spaghetti, giving us the FSM and, in turn, the world as we taste it now.

 Unfortunately, if you count the rules of logical conjecture as rules, then chaos does not necessarily have to conform to this logic, and the entire theorem is null and void.
 Of course, if chaos is unbound by the rules of logic, and we consider the previous sentence [the last sentence of the theory] to be based on logical conjecture (which, of course, involves the use of logic), then chaos would be unbound by the last sentence. This train of thought creates an infinite spiral of logical statements proving the previous statement false by way of said previous statement, and so on and so forth, and the only way to get out of this infinite loop is to follow a more illogical path, which I present to you presently.
 Ahem:
"Once upon a non-time, Chaos decided that it dɑmn well felt like following the rules of logic."
 If we assume that the chaos in question did NOT have feelings, the statement previous to this was illogical (a.k.a. not logical). We can therefore NOT apply the rule of, "chaos doesn't follow the rules of logic, so any logical statement about it is false" to it as we did with the other statements.



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 ¹The immediately obvious counterargument is that Chaos counts as a creator, too. While this point is valid, chaos does not, as we have already concluded, follow a timeline. Since a 'before' phase is part of a timeline and necessary for there to have been a creator for the chaos, then we can conclude that if there IS no 'before' phase, then chaos cannot have had a creator. We already concluded that chaos follows no timeline, so there cannot have been a 'before' phase, as that would imply the existence of a timeline within the chaos. As such, chaos must have been point (0, 0, 0, 0) in the universe (that's x, y, z, and T coords for anyone who got confuzzled).
 ²This has become perfectly acceptable 'scientific' practice in Kansas schools.
 ³In response to an apparent confusion of ideas, this theory, while a theory involving chaos, has absolutely nothing to do with chaos theory.

[DaveL]

Say what? Can you translate that for the pirates in here. They don't speak land lubber too well.

[StayThirstyMyAguila]

Say what? Can you translate that for the pirates in here. They don't speak land lubber too well.

Last time I spoke in pirate, you couldn't tell what I said (remember?). MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

[DaveL]

There's a difference between Piratespeak and Nefyoospeak - it's quite profound really. I think you may have attempted the latter.

[StayThirstyMyAguila]

There's a difference between Piratespeak and Nefyoospeak - it's quite profound really. I think you may have attempted the latter.

No, NefYook (see also Gobbledygook, which is actually a word according to atomcarrot) is much easier to do. It was supposed to be drunken Piratese.

[daftbeaker]

Apparently I can't delete my own posts. Never mind, your recent posts were just re-posting drivel in an increasingly irritating fashion. Please stop it.