Look man, you just don’t seem to get it! There is so much around us that is obvious and proves god’s existence. Everything from the finely tuned universe, to my mother’s testimony, to the bible. You just don’t like god and are unwilling to accept his word. You hate him and clearly need to accept your faults and bow down to him.
– Guest on AtheistNation.net
Let’s be clear. God is not obvious. If he were, there would only be one religion, and for that matter, it wouldn’t be a religion because god would be entirely undeniable. The ontological argument defines god as the most perfect being, posits that existence is a necessary part of perfection… thus god must exist. I am willing to go a step further. The most perfect being must be undeniable as well, because a deniable god is certainly less than perfect. Why was this not part of the ontological argument?
In a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens, a discussion was had to the tune of – the universe itself is evidence for god’s existence. This is utter absurdity, and its clearly not obvious. It is obvious that gay bashers are latent homosexuals, that soulja boy is a closet retard and that swimming in a pool of pitch forks is not a good idea. But god’s existence is clearly and surely (obviously?) not obvious. Anyone and everyone who claims it to be the case is either lying or doesn’t understand the definition of “god”, “obvious”, or “the”.
Even if I do grant that there is a god, it is impossible to make the leap from this obvious god to one that you connect to on a personal level. I have seen a number of “logical” theists lately, discussing the logical imperative of the Christian God’s existence, sharing their belief. This confuses me to no end. How can you use logic, and have a tautology, showing that god is necessarily true. What are your premises? What is the form of your argument? How can you be so silly as to assert that god must exist?
Logic is a really funny thing. It has the ability to be toyed with to create a torrential downpour of craziness, leading to some very confusing arguments. Self referring statements and definition type premises are examples of when logic serves only to confuse. This is exceptionally clear with this argument.
- I will define god as the greatest possible conscious being.
- I will define my computer as being greater than god, and clearly not conscious.
This creates a logical loop; if god is the greatest thing, and my computer is greater, then it follows that god is my computer. But god is conscious, and thus not my computer. Tough road to be on… that is for sure. There is nothing stopping me from being more absurd than I was previously, and one thing that seems to be missing is the acceptance that stating something does not make it a fact. You are not wearing burning slippers, although I can say you are.
It should be clear by now, that converting scientific atheists is not a simple process. We are not interested in slanderous statements, or emotional pleas. If you wish to really reach out and touch us you have to step outside of your comfort zone. You don’t expect someone who is drowning to bring their own rope and floatation device, and you are clearly not giving us anything of substance to hang on to that would help us get saved. I see a lot of this to be equivalent to tying a long rope to a cinderblock and tossing it out to me, promising to pull me in, but I have to deal with drowning in my own self loathing first.