The Passion of the Bard

A Jehovah’s Witness once said to me “God, exists, and I can prove it!”

Needless, to say, I was eager to hear this proof. After all, this is something that has been debated for thousands of years. Just think! He was about to reveal to me one of the greatest secrets of the Universe!

I decried “I am not worthy!” and prostrated myself at his feet. I then groveled, “But if you could see fit to enlighten one so lowly, I would remain forever your humble servant!”

Actually, I think I just said “Oh yeah?”

Now pay attention. Here is the exact proof of God’s existence that this JW gave me: “Just look around!”

I looked around, but there was no shimmering light, no harp music, no Gabriel’s trumpet, no sense of rapture, no one being Left Behind (except our science students in the public schools), and no burning Bush (except for the remnants of the effigy I made earlier). In short, there was no proof.

“What do you mean?” I said.

“Everything!” he said. “The entire Universe! It could only have been created by God!”

The conversation went downhill from there.

Logic

Let’s follow the argument:

A created B.
We know B exists.
Therefore, A must exist.

What kind of crappy logic is that? The entire thing rests on “A created B.” They start out with an unproven assertion, and then they use the conclusion to prove the assertion!

Try this:

Unicorns drive Studebakers.
We know Studebakers exist.
Therefore, fundies have brains.

See? When you plug different words into the same logic, the fallacy is obvious!

The Koran

The History Channel’s Decoding the Past had a recent episode on the Koran. The program stated that many Muslims believe that the language in the Koran is so perfect that it must be evidence of God’s existence. How could an illiterate man (Muhammad) in the middle of nowhere produce such a document?

Camel dung!

“Illiterate” doesn’t mean “stupid”! The guy may have been very eloquent; he just didn’t know how to write.

What is more of a stretch is believing that William Shakespeare actually wrote the plays that bear his name. He was allegedly functionally illiterate. Yet these are the greatest literary works in the English language. They contain some of the most magnificent writing of all time.

Hamlet could have only been written by God!

William Shakespeare was the messiah!

(Or maybe Shakespeare wasn’t the retard that some people claim. Or maybe the statement “Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays” is more credible than the foundation of the world’s second-largest religion.)

6 Responses to “The Passion of the Bard”

  1. ericsan Says:

    Check out the recent movie “The God Who Wasn’t There”. Good stuff.

  2. Mustafa Says:

    Stop taking things so literally. What Muslims mean when they say the language of the Koran is proof of it’s divine nature is simply that it is beautiful. You don’t speak arabic, Muslims who do can attest to the fact that the language is of the highest quality. Why does that fill you with so much disgust and anger?

  3. Ron Britton Says:

    It does not fill me with disgust or anger. I’m merely pointing out that the beauty of its language is not proof of divinity.

  4. Milko Graphy Says:

    You have tried to break your acquaintance’s argument down into logical formulas, but I don’t think he was making a statement of logic. His proof was based on faith. He’s not trying to find some impossible mathematic formula, created by replacing numbers with esoteric values, to decode the mystery of fundamental questions like “Why are we here” or “Is there a God.”

    I like watching dogs chase their tails. They amuse me – those silly little animals. Such a show of strength, agility, and speed – for no real purpose, and no possible reward. They put so much energy into an activity that isn’t going to benefit them in any way.

    (Sometimes I think they do it with such enthusiasm because they just like the activity / even if they know deep down inside that they’ll never succeed)

    I get the same amusement out of watching someone try to prove, or disprove, the existence of God with a slide-rule, or a computer, or a mathematical formula.

    It’s just silliness.

    This person was making a statement of FAITH. That’s why he looked so happy, and so confident of his facts. That’s why he’s at peace with the universe he lives in, and is a part of. He’s already solved it – and he did it without the use of logic.

    Using faith, he has discovered that the answer to what you’re looking at is in your own eyes. It’s HOW you see and interpret it, not WHAT you see. The question of God isn’t some impenetrable rock to HIM. That’s why the conversation went down-hill. He has faith, and you have logic. That’s why he gets it, and you don’t. That’s why he can’t explain it to you in terms you’d understand. You only understand (Or only WANT) a logical, empirically quantifiable formula that you can verify on a calculator to either 1) prove, or 2) disprove, the existance of God.

    You are still beating your head against what is, to you – an impenetrable rock. (And that’s what it will be to you forever, or as long as you approach God with logic)

    There’s nothing impenetrable about it if you use a slightly different way of thinking – a more “musical”, or “artistic” style.

    As a living, animate being – you already have all the data you’d ever need to solve this mystery with logic, if that could be done. You haven’t failed because you haven’t found the correct formula. Others have tried – many, down through the centuries – and they’ve all failed, too. And it’s not because they weren’t as smart as you, either.

    If I could go back through time, and show the internal working of a pocket-watch to a native American – long before they ever saw white men or their technology – they would know that it was created by some intelligence. All those small parts, working together – to produce the effect of moving three little hands to point at the correct numbers on the face of the device. The movement of each part meshing together with the movements of other parts of different size. It’s not an accident that this object exists – it was created on purpose. It exists by design. It would even be obvious to anyone who never saw one before. They would only need look at it with the right eyes, for just a few seconds.

    Now, back to the JW’s argument.

    The world, and in fact the entire universe, looks similar to me as a pocket watch would look to someone who had never seen much technology before. Everything works together, and it works well to create the outcome it does.

    That’s why we’re here.

    The universe obviously exists by design. I can’t prove this with a mathematical equation any more than he could, and we don’t need to. Just look around like he asked, but REALLY look – actually SEE it.

    How do YOU explain the nature of the universe?

    The old standard of Atheism doesn’t help explain it at all.

    If I understand the Atheist’s argument, it’s basically this…

    There was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything re-arranged itself for no reason into re-productive bits that turned into dinosaurs.

    That really isn’t of much help to either of us, is it?

    Our advanced technology has given us some wonderful tools to look at things with – but none of it helps us see anything any clearer. We have telescopes, and microscopes, and computers – but you don’t actually SEE anything using them. What you “see” using them brings no understanding of what you’re looking at – or WHY it exists. It just brings more questions. And using better tools to look deeper doesn’t do any better. That just leads to even MORE questions, and still doesn’t give us any understanding.

    I would wish you “Good luck” in your endeavor to figure out this whole “God” thing using logic, but I’m not a cruel person – so I won’t do that to you.

    Having FAITH instead of needing PROOF – and looking at the universe ARTISTICALLY instead of LOGICALLY – is how we understand the living universe we are a part of. Otherwise, you’re just waiting around to die and go into nothingness. (If you summon all of your optomism, you may have some hope of enjoying life after death without God. Perhaps, as nothing, you will eventually turn into a dinosaur – as atheists believe)

    It would have been kinder for you if you were’nt born to waste time and resources looking for answers in a way that ENSURES you won’t find them, only to argue with men of faith that you have gained some kind of insight by doing this – and that THEY’RE the ones who are wrong because they don’t use your worthless methods.

    By your love of WHATEVER it is that you value in life…

    WHY is having faith so hard for you?

    -Milkography.

  5. Ron Britton Says:

    Milkography:

    I find it fascinating that you would take the time to write a 900-word rebuttal to a 400-word article. It appears that my opinion bothers you more than the JW’s opinion bothered me.

    I had to use logic. That is exactly what the JW was trying to use on me. He failed by his own standards. He said “I can prove it”. Proof means logic, not fairy dust or magic. Logic. Pure, cold, hard logic.

    I get the same amusement out of watching someone try to prove, or disprove, the existence of God with a slide-rule, or a computer, or a mathematical formula.

    I’m doing nothing of the sort. I am neither trying to prove nor disprove the existence of God. I was merely pointing out that the JW claimed he could prove God and failed.

    If I could go back through time, and show the internal working of a pocket-watch to a native American…

    Now you’re trying to use logic. That’s the old watchmaker analogy. It has been effectively refuted. To quote Wikipedia:

    There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from “mindless” natural processes (as in the “Infinite Monkey Theorem”). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?

    Quoting you again:

    If I understand the Atheist’s argument, it’s basically this…

    There was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything re-arranged itself for no reason into re-productive bits that turned into dinosaurs.

    You don’t, because it isn’t. That’s a total straw man. The only person I know who makes the claim you’re quoting is Ray Comfort. His knowledge of evolution and atheism must come out of a clown college. It’s fine if you want to believe in God and disbelieve in evolution, but you should really be getting your arguments from some place credible.

    Our advanced technology has given us some wonderful tools to look at things with – but none of it helps us see anything any clearer.… What you “see” using them brings no understanding of what you’re looking at

    Au contraire, we understand the universe way better than ever.

    I would wish you “Good luck” in your endeavor to figure out this whole “God” thing using logic….

    I’m not on an endeavor to figure out this whole God thing. It’s an unanswerable question. Right now, there is zero evidence to support it, so I don’t bother to believe it.

    Perhaps, as nothing, you will eventually turn into a dinosaur – as atheists believe

    Again, I ask you where you are getting your information. If your certainty about atheists is so wrong, maybe you should question your certainty about God.

    WHY is having faith so hard for you?

    Because the track record of faith is dismal. It has led to homicide, suicide, and genocide. It has held back the human race. It has created untold suffering.

    Instead, I follow the evidence. And I live an enlightened life.

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Milko Graphy – tl;dr

    Seriously, if just faith is the answer, why does it take a dissertation to explain?

    I will address one point…

    I like watching dogs chase their tails. They amuse me – those silly little animals.

    There is nothing silly at all about puppy play. It’s part of a long history of evolution for the canine family, where the young learn all the important hunting and stalking skills through play with their peers. It forms strong pack bonds, establishes order and rank, and hones their skills for survival.

    That’s the difference between faith and logic. Faith sees a silly puppy pointlessly spinning around. Logic sees the beauty of an incredible species and the fun it they have learning important life skills that allowed their ancestors to survive and dominate.

    At least until Sarah Palin started shooting them all from a helicopter.