How is belief in God any different from belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Someone asked  

"How is belief in God any different from belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

How is belief in God any different from belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Once you go through the proofs for the existence of a Creator, it becomes extremely easy to refute the idea or concept of a flying spaghetti monster.
The proofs for God’s existence are based on rational and deductive reasoning. There are plenty of them.
His necessary existence entails the removal of the absurdities highlighted below. And His non-existence entails entertaining the absurdities listed below:

1. Nothing could come into existence from nothing without a cause.
   Any body who claims otherwise commits an absurdity known as preponderance without a preferrer.
2. The universe began to exist. Anybody who believes that universe is Eternal (necessary existent) yet it changes all the time violates law of contradiction because how can something that is necessary in existence be subject to changes. It is a rational absurdity.
3. If someone claims that something could be partly contingent and eternal at the same time referring to the universe. This is yet another absurdity.
4. possibility of contradictions is a rational absurdity.
5. If someone claims Matter has been changing (undergoing transformation) since eternity past and this leads to the absurdity termed “contingents without a first.”
6. possibility of infinite regress is a rational absurdity.

In case you are wondering, why can’t there be more than one “necessary existent Beings”? Then we say this is a rational necessity that HE MUST BE ONE. It is again based on rational and deductive arguments.
Let’s go back to the idea of “flying Spaghetti Monster”.
Is it deistic?
Then it is by definition contingent, since it is incapable of terminating the absurdity termed infinite regress. What is required is “necessary existence”.
Is it Theistic (intervening)?
If you say “Yes” then it is “anthropomorphic” by definition.
Any “anthropomorphic” depiction of a being is by defintion “Not God”.
How is “Flying spaghetti Monster” anthropomorphic?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), which is said to be invisible, is depicted as a floating mass of spaghetti noodles with a large meatball on either side of its body and two centrally located eyestalks.

1. It has a mass. “ What ever has a mass is by defintion contingent. Because this requires specification in terms of “how much mass” it would have. Whatever is in need of specification is by defintion contingent and not God.
2. It has a body. All bodies by definition are created or brought into existence. Since every body occupies space, has a certain size and shape. Claiming it is intangible or invisible doesnot remove the absurdity highlighted. Whatever is a body is by definition contingent because it requires specification in terms of size, shape and containment (space). What is in need of specification is itself contingent and therefore Not God.
3. It is composed. Read “meatball” and “two centrally located eyestalks” and “noodles” Whatever is composed of body parts is by definition contingent because this requires specification in terms of its parts, size and shape. What is in need of specification cannot be claimed to be God by definiton.
4. God by definiton doesnot “resemble” what He creates in the absolute sense. Claiming that “He does resemble what He creates” leads to the problem of infinite regress. Had His existence been similar to what he creates, then by definition He too would be requiring a cause ad infinitum and what this entails is that He would not be God by definition and therefore He will be unable to create in the first place.

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (2006), posit that the world was created to appear older than it is and that whenever a scientist performs a measurement, such as carbon dating, to show the age of an artifact, the FSM changes the results with His Noodly Appendage.

1. There is a terminology in arabic termed “Hulool” (Mixing with the creation) and itehad (Union). Both of these are intrinsically impossible for a necessary existent Being. “FSM changes the results with His Noodly Appendage.” Since this implies “change” in FSM. (Hulool> indwelling). What is subject to changes cannot be said to be necessary existent. And God is a necessary existent Being. More over since FSM is subject to changes and occupies a space (a creation) it is by definition contingent. Hulool implies occupying space (which is a creation) and this is intrinsically impossible for a necessary existent Being.
2. God by definition is free from “needs”. The underlying premise of FSM that it “changes the results” or “makes the world “appear”older than it is” implies “need”. A “need” to lie or decieve. The deception lies in FSM changing the truth to falsehood.
   And this intrinsically impossible that a God resorts to lying since He is free from needs and is not dependent upon anything. Moreover, it is intrinsically impossible that His speech contains a lie because His speech is not “created” by definition. There are thousands of ways to tell a lie about a matter. There is only one truth pertaining to the matter.
   Since lies require specification, any speech that contains a lie is by definition created. Our speech even if it contains the truth is created by defintion because it is composed of sounds and letters.
   Claiming that He lies means that His speech is created/contingent by definiton and this is rationally absurd. Because God and His attributes are not contingent by definition.

Even if the strong supporter of FSM rejects the above mentioned points and equates the necessary existent Being (presented in the proofs) with FSM. The burden of proof rests on him i.e. He needs to prove why the "necessary existent being" is called FSM in the first place. Clearly this is self-contradictory because depiction of FSM fails to meet the criteria of a necessary existent being in the first place. It is akin to proving that "A circle which is a square" exists.
Thank you.