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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more