?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Rant in response, or RIR, as they say . . . - Hurtling Butt-First Through Time [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Phrembah (a potato-like mystery)

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Rant in response, or RIR, as they say . . . [Sep. 17th, 2015|06:48 am]
Phrembah (a potato-like mystery)
[Tags|, , ]

This was going to be a response to Justin Schieber's latest RealAtheology rant, but YouTube would not let me paste it into a comment box and I was too lazy to retype it.  So here it sits awaiting the applause of posterity.  Amen, hey Baby and all that jazz!

There's an assumption here that God is logical and that we can figure her out by employing logic which she is bound by and can't violate?  So, having figured her out, she does or does not exist and can't do that but must do this?  I think a better argument for the nonexistence of God is that I cannot currently hear peals of laughter ringing through the rafters of the Universe, which surely there would be if a deity existed to hear our arguments.  Maybe not.  Maybe the whole point of existence, maybe the only point of existence is entertainment.  Think about it.  Primal perfection of any kind is nothing if it's not boring.  Maybe perfection lies in creating an infinitude of stories large and small that one can experience over and over again from an infinitude of perspectives.

Uninterrupted uniformity is perfection?  A blank, unfolded, unruffled sheet of paper is a perfect sheet of paper and therefore the most desirable sheet of paper and God's obvious first choice?  True, a pristine sheet of paper is perfect in a way that a sheet used for anything is not, but a second-hand, once-crumpled, re-purposed envelope with the Gettysburg address scribbled on it is perfect in a whole other way.

“Unsurpassingly great” compared to what?  Necessarily everything, I guess.  But without us or an anthropomorphic deity of our own design judging things by our criteria, how will anyone know?  Why would God care if any act of creation was an affront to the perfection of the null world?  So what? I really, doubt that God is bound by our logic or our ability or inability to understand.  In fact, more-or-less by definition, God is unbound by anything including and especially our ability to define and judge greatness.

I agree 100%. The god you describe definitely does not exist.  But that doesn't preclude the existence of a god who is unbound by your logic and understanding.  A god that might not feel bound by the primal perfection of the null world, if for no other reason than its mind-numbing dullness.  The god you describe (should she deign to exist) is an automaton that must do this and can't do that because of the perfect logic that eternally binds her.

If there is a god, she invented logic and can do with it as she pleases.  She is not an inanimate law of physics, she is at least as alive as you are, probably far, far more so and seeks beyond all else, as you and I do, to be entertained.  I'll bet you she's not the kind that would hold still long enough for you to define her out of existence, but having been so defined, would probably fail entirely to give a rat's ass.
LinkReply