Skip to main content

A Reasonable Argument For the Existence of God, Eh? Not Really…


I, at one time, believed in God, as I was raised by two Christian parents and taken to church on Sundays fairly regularly. Over the years, I've developed more doubt in the existence of a higher power and in organized religion, in general. I now classify myself as an agnostic, because I have a difficult time believing there will ever be 100% proof provided in either direction, toward the existence of a higher power or toward there not being one present.

I recently read an article via The Huffington Post and the title of the piece was very misleading, as it said there's now evidence that belief in God is a reasonable argument.[1] What was this evidence?

The writer spent 90% of his time talking about scientists and atheists being unable to fully prove God doesn't exist. He then concluded because of this, the belief in God is a reasonable argument.

How does that work? Just because person A can't fully prove X, that means it's reasonable for person B to believe Y? Can he spell the word f-a-l-l-a-c-y?

Going by that logic, we could go in a number of different directions on what is a "reasonable" argument. Since scientists have not been able to fully prove in the absence of God, it is now "reasonable" to believe that Elmer Fudd is the lord and savior. It's now "reasonable" to believe Gumby will be waiting for us at the gates of heaven when we all pass to determine if we are worthy of entry. It's now "reasonable" to believe that after we die, we will be probed by aliens for scientific purposes, dropped from a spaceship into a cornfield in central Iowa and then uplifted via a beam by a higher power with the name of Vernon Endowed.

I'm sorry, but just because one can't fully prove something, doesn't make one (of an almost infinite number of) possible option a reasonable one. The author of this article has to realize that his "rationale" could be utilized by the opposing side of the debate. Scientists and atheists alike could say, "Well, theists have been unable to prove the existence of God, which makes our position that much more reasonable." That can go both ways and in both cases, the "argument" would be a very weak one. I have to go. I'm watching a show pertaining to college basketball, where anchor B is telling anchor A, "Look, we can't prove that Kansas, Duke or Ohio State will win the title. So, Iowa State winning the Big XII Championship en route to a national championship after starting the season 3-13 in conference play is a perfectly reasonable argument to have." Indeed, it is. Indeed it is...


[1] How is any theory regarding the unknowable reasonable? Although, I guess it is reasonable to believe that once we die, we transform into a newly-revived, extinct animal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...