ee163cz (02/11/83)
I would like to offer rebuttals to some assertions I have seen
lately in this newsgroup:
Assertion #1: God exists, by definition.
The argument seems to be that God is by definition perfect in all
respects, including being perfectly real. However, by the same
argument God must also be perfectly imaginary. Thus, God, by definition,
has both real and imaginary parts, and therefore is a complex entity,
which, by Occam's Razor, should be removed from consideration.
Assertion #2: It is safer to believe in God and maybe be wrong than
to disbelieve and maybe be wrong.
Well, yes, BUT... What makes *your* God any more plausible than
the Great Green Arkleseizure, or Murray, the God of Veterinary Medicine,
who wreaks terrible vengeance (in the afterlife) on those who neglected
to sacrifice small furry animals to Him, or Squamish, the God of Small
Furry Animals, who hates all Murrayites? Assuming that a potentially
vengeful God exists, He will probably be terribly offended if you
worship some imposter -- probably more so than if you simply and
honestly don't believe. Maybe we should all just worship Bruce the
Sun God, who is currently making a personal (godal?) appearance
here at SCUD.
Assertion #3: North Dakota does not exist.
My grandparents live there. That is to say, if I exist, then my
grandparents also exist, and therefore N.D. exists. However, many
of those who know me seem to doubt my existence. Does this mean
I may be God?
-- Eric J. Wilner
(on bad days F. J. Gumby)