Thursday, September 8, 2011

Proving God Exists (or doesn't exist) in 2 Easy Steps!

How to prove to any individual that God exists, in 3 easy steps.

Step 1: Find out something the individual believes exists.
Step 2: Define God as that same thing.

Voila! You're done.

Ah, but wait. You're an atheist? Then here's how you prove God doesn't exist!

Step 1: Find out something the individual doesn't believe exists.
Step 2: Define God as that same thing.

So easy and simple!

And best of all, it works for more than God! Try it on free will! (Are you a materialist who wants to believe in free will? Free will is just deterministic outcomes! Do you want to NOT believe in free will? Free will is a ghost!)

Philosophy is just so easy.

11 comments:

Ilíon said...

Sadly, that seems to be how many persons "reason".

Crude said...

It's popular, and it's tiring. But at least, on a certain level, it's funny.

The Deuce said...

Indeed. The most dishonest variation I ever saw on this was from a creep who you may both know named Pim van Meurs (or PvM), who had a thing going for a while where he claimed to be a Christian and to believe in God. The catch was, he defined Darwinian evolution as "God".

The Deuce said...

Btw, the materialist atheist penchant for patently dishonest equivocation and other forms of sophistry actually constitutes pretty strong evidence for the falsehood of materialist atheism, imo. It's not just that they're wrong about one particular truth (the existence of God). It's that in rejecting that truth, they seem to turn against the very concepts of truth, reason, and clarity altogether, and to willfully embrace confusion, and self-deception.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Interestingly, I think I did try to mount the theist version in a less vulgar way: http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2010/08/circular-circles.html

Begin scalping me!

I also had a post a few years ago about a definitional argument for the existence of God, but I can't find it right now. Interestingly, my latest post, about the papacy, ties into the rationally endless mutability of Christian dogma (i.e. if we could "redefine" the faith to persuade everybody, we wouldn't have the Faith left!).

Crude said...

Deuce,

That was really Pim's routine? Wow. I always thought there was something rotten going on with his claims to being Christian, but I never pursued it. Hearing that puts a lot of things in perspective.

Codg,

I actually think there's a difference between your post (which seems to be more about intellectual exploration) and what I'm talking about here (which amounts to stupid internet debating tricks.) But I'll have to reread it. Interesting stuff either way.

The Deuce said...

His whole deal was to try to "win" arguments by equivocating on definitions and conflating opposite concepts (in particular, to conflate the intentional and personal with the blind and mechanistic) so as to make coherent discussion impossible.

He dropped some hints of his line of reasoning on Telic Thoughts and other places when he would claim to believe in "design" on the grounds that "Darwinian evolution is the designer", and even had a brief stint where he'd say things like "If we think of evolution as God..." and so forth.

Where he really went crazy with it though was on Steve Jones' old message board, where he got kicked off for his rampant dishonesty. You can see some of the insanity here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/10050

Crude said...

I see that "I believe in design - it's just that Darwinism is the designer" move a lot among a certain class of atheists. Anyone presenting that as a serious insight generally throws up a red flag to me which means "Don't pay too much attention to me, I'm largely here to be cute." But thanks for verifying that PvM really was the turd I always suspected him of being.

The big lesson I learned from Telic Thoughts (well, one of the big lessons) was that the average person who argues against ID, including some biologists, will crap their pants if an ID proponents posts a link to a scientific paper and expresses interest in it without explaining what they find interesting. I remember seeing that happen at TT, and suddenly the regular critics melted down, DEMANDING to know what the ID proponent opinions were before they gave any commentary on the paper.

And the reason was clear: Because lacking that, they had no idea who or what to criticize. And they were afraid they'd endorse a part of the paper they'd have to reject later if they didn't like the implications.

Ilíon said...

How *dare* you say that PvM is dishonest! ;)

Ilíon said...

"And the reason was clear: Because lacking that, they had no idea who or what to criticize. And they were afraid they'd endorse a part of the paper they'd have to reject later if they didn't like the implications."

Yeppers.

And, sadly, the non-Darwinists almost always fell for it, didn't they?

Crude said...

And, sadly, the non-Darwinists almost always fell for it, didn't they?

Not on TT. TT always was a smaller place, and generally the pro-ID guys were more off the main line of thought than others. This incident in particular provoked a lot of laughing from the pro-ID regulars, if I recall right. Because it was so obvious.