Your entire post was barely longer than that ... > That isn't how science works. "Science" is a lot of human activities mushed together and there's not "one t

Your entire post was barely longer than that ... > That isn't how science works. "Science" is a lot of human activities mushed together and there's not "one true way" that it works, except that it is universally done by humans (so far), with all the good and bad that come with that. > We have an astounding lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space True. > it doesn't indicate anything but the fact that there's a lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space False. > It may not indicate with absolute certainty whether there is or isn't one Nobody has ever cared about "absolute certainty" and science never seriously claims this. > you cannot say its existence is more likely based on lack of evidence for it Yes you can! (I charitably assume you meant less likely here, otherwise the entire comment makes no sense, is arguing against a trivial falsehood nobody has ever claimed (certainly not OP), and you had no reason to post it) > that is superstition No, it's Bayesian logic; it's the only way humans have ever acquired knowledge. There, I covered your entire post.