The significant difference between the belief in GOD and the belief in the flying spaghetti monster is that atheists attack the religious for believing in something without any evidence just because it cannot be proved that it does not exist. After all, it is also impossible to prove that a spaghetti monster does not exist, but is it clear that it is not rational to believe that it does exist just because of that? Alas, this only applies to a “straw man,” since religious people believe in GOD for many reasons, usually related to the evidence presented above or in part. One can argue with this evidence, but one cannot present the religious as believing only because “it has not been proven otherwise” (even those who define belief in GOD as a basic belief, do not believe in it only “because it has not been proven otherwise”, but because they find within themselves the same belief to justify its acceptance). In any case, the spaghetti monster argument does not work at all. There is no evidence to believe in the existence of the monster: no evidence, no tradition, no logical proof, it is not necessary to explain anything. And no one believes in her. Consequently, what argument can this spaghetti monster lead against religious belief?
What can be justified is a claim that even proof of the existence of a planner to the world will not “clothe” that planner with religious qualities, without additional evidence. If leaping from the argument of the planner to the conclusion that the planner is identical to one of the GOD’s “clothe” arguments, there is no evidence that that quality is true to the designer, and this is perhaps GOD’s will. Incidentally, this point has been argued as associated with the characteristics of GOD, not of GOD’s existence.