# Most unintentionally hilarious defense of religion ever. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433 "2006-06-12T15:26:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/1 "2006-06-12T15:26:09Z")
In the middle of a bashing-ones-head-against-a-wall sort of god vs evolution debate in my World of Warcraft guild’s message board. The guy is probably thirteen and definitely uninformed. He says something to the effect of “humans are powerful divinely inspired creatures because God made them so. The fact that they are powerful and intelligent is proof that God exists.” I counteract with “Your last paragraph is such a mess of weird double-think that it’s really impossible to argue with. The sky is blue because the invisible pink unicorn said it was so. See how it’s blue? That proves the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. Humans are powerful, therefore they must have been given that power by the magic invisible pink unicorn, and the fact that they are powerful proves the existence of the invisible pink unicorn.” His response? “And it is humerous to see you bring up pink unicorns and garden gnomes when clearly they do not exist, You fail to realize we are speaking of God, Complete awareness, Complete Intelect, Complete Knowledge, Complete Power, all these things are real, you just can not understand how they can be inside of a divine unity. So try and compare your arguments with actual things it will align your theory much better.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/2 "2006-06-12T15:28:40Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I do not “feel” god exists, the facts have shown me that he does. You on the other hand take the aformentioned evidence and attribute it to “I do not understand” or “does not compute”. > > Wait wait wait… have you even visited this thread before? > Let me make it crystal clear for you. The preponderance of evidence shows that there are scientific, not magical or supernatural, explanations. All of these things can be attributed to the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, genetics, and any other scientific field you care to name. That you attribute these things to magic is your explanation. If it makes you feel good and gives you a reason to live and be a decent human, great. Some of us do not need a supernatural reason to be good people. > Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? The simplest explanation is generally correct. We have been able to explain much of the phenomena of the natural world, and demonstrate these explanations, through our knowledge of physics and mathematics. That there are questions we have yet to answer is not a reason to assume that there must be a magic behind it. Maybe there is. I do not believe that to be the case. I do not consider myself an agnostic for this reason. I recognize that the possiblity exists, just as I recongize the possibility that there are little garden gnomes wearing funny hats that steal my blueberries off the bushes before there are enough of them to bake a pie. However, I am fairly certain in my conviction that it’s much more likely there are squirrels and raccoons in my garden. > Is that clear enough for you, or are you completely incapable of rational thought? That was the garden gnome thing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/3 "2006-06-12T15:33:09Z")
“Complete knowledge” of everything except how to spell. I think you’re right. This guy sounds like a 7th grader without even the most basic idea of how to formulate or follow an argument. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/4 "2006-06-12T15:54:32Z")
I’m not sure, **DtC** , I’ve encountered far too many adults equally unable to formulate or follow an argument, regardless the subject. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/5 "2006-06-12T16:03:02Z")
\*Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, honey.\* ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/6 "2006-06-12T16:03:21Z")
Oh dear. The scary thing about religion, about any absolute ideal, is that logical reasoning is not required. In fact, the less logical the reasoning and the less informed the idealists are, the more fierce they are. To quote a Dutch writer, a political refugee from Iran: “It was there, at that border post, that I realised with horror that I might get shot there and then, by this young man who couldn’t even spell my name.” ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/7 "2006-06-12T16:10:17Z")
What really stumps me is how they make the jump from “we are so complex that there must have been a designer” to… “this designer is God, he is singular, he communicates with us spiritually, he is all powerful, he has given us books of rules to live by (bible, koran,etc.) that are all knowing all true accounts of him”. You could just as easily make the argument that a sophisticated alien race designed us lightyears ago, abandoned us, has no idea we still exsist, and has since became extinct themselves. It’s still creationism, just not their “idea” of it. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/8 "2006-06-12T16:36:29Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > I’m not sure, **DtC** , I’ve encountered far too many adults equally unable to formulate or follow an argument, regardless the subject. As I mentioned in another thread: “Evolution says that God created Adam from a ball of slime and created Eve from another ball of slime.” That from a guy in his 40s. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/9 "2006-06-12T16:39:23Z")
The best response I ever got from a Creationist about evolution was this brilliant bit of logic: “If monkeys actually turned into people, how come you don’t see the same thing happening today?” ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/10 "2006-06-12T16:47:25Z")
> [@](#): > > He says something to the effect of “humans are powerful divinely inspired creatures because God made them so. The fact that they are powerful and intelligent is proof that God exists.” This is a classic example of a _tautology_. A series of circular statements which are self-proving regardless of their truth. When the author of such lacks critical thinking skills, you’ll never be able to explain the logical fallacy of tautologies. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/11 "2006-06-12T17:08:52Z")
What is going on here has an echo of Anselm’s attempt to “prove” the existence of God. Give the kid a break, as seriouis philosophers had to go through some struggle to figure out what was wrong with Anselm’s formulation (which I’ll roughly reproduce for those who haven’t seen it). 1. What is called “God” is “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” 2. The greatest possible being would have every perfection. 3. Existence is a perfection. 4. The greatest possible being would thus have to possess existence. 5. Therefore, God possesses existence. In his argument, as in the one you had, the problem arises from the tricky nature of identity statements associated with the arguer’s characterizations of the attributes that a supreme being **would** or **necessarily ought to** have – if he existed. “Is” serves an ambiguous and not wholly consistent purpose in the statement that “‘God’ is a being than which no greater can be conceived” or your kid’s statement that “God is pure power,” etc. Yes, God _would be_ those things if he exists, but that’s not what the arguer assumes when he makes statements about what “God” “is.” This is also a form of question begging, which, again, even somewhat skilled debaters fall prey to. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/12 "2006-06-12T17:11:52Z")
Oh, you have _no_ idea, \*_DtC_. The most recent response is this: [quote] The evidence I am using is the structural formation of the universe. Either your intellect can understand the data or it can not. Apparently yours is one that can not interpret the data, “does not Compute” is what pops out, i am sorry but that is your interpretation of the data. The data when computed with my intelect returns “Awareness and Forethought Detected” Evidence that leads to " Higher Awareness then Human Beings, Supreme Intelect detected". What can you really argue but that you do not understand, as i said before say you do not belive me but do not argue my ability to understand something that you clearly do not understand.\* Sigh. That was in response to Mr. Armadillo, who is a geneticist, and is actually attempting to patiently clear up his erroneous interpretations of scientific data, bless his little heart. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/13 "2006-06-12T17:12:21Z")
[Thomas Aquinas](http://members.aol.com/KCC1TIM/aquinas.html) came up with a longer proof, but it’s still basically the same old _petitio principii_ at work. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/14 "2006-06-12T17:13:41Z")
Damn, let’s try that again, shall we? Oh, you have _no_ idea, **DtC**. The most recent response is this: > [@](#): > > The evidence I am using is the structural formation of the universe. Either your intellect can understand the data or it can not. Apparently yours is one that can not interpret the data, “does not Compute” is what pops out, i am sorry but that is your interpretation of the data. The data when computed with my intelect returns “Awareness and Forethought Detected” Evidence that leads to " Higher Awareness then Human Beings, Supreme Intelect detected". What can you really argue but that you do not understand, as i said before say you do not belive me but do not argue my ability to understand something that you clearly do not understand. Sigh. That was in response to Mr. Armadillo, who is a geneticist, and is actually attempting to patiently clear up his erroneous interpretations of scientific data, bless his little heart. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/15 "2006-06-12T17:19:01Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > What is going on here has an echo of Anselm’s attempt to “prove” the existence of God. Give the kid a break, as seriouis philosophers had to go through some struggle to figure out what was wrong with Anselm’s formulation (which I’ll roughly reproduce for those who haven’t seen it). > > 1. What is called “God” is “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” > 2. The greatest possible being would have every perfection. > 3. Existence is a perfection. > 4. The greatest possible being would thus have to possess existence. > 5. Therefore, God possesses existence. > > In his argument, as in the one you had, the problem arises from the tricky nature of identity statements associated with the arguer’s characterizations of the attributes that a supreme being **would** or **necessarily ought to** have – if he existed. > > “Is” serves an ambiguous and not wholly consistent purpose in the statement that “‘God’ is a being than which no greater can be conceived” or your kid’s statement that “God is pure power,” etc. > > Yes, God _would be_ those things if he exists, but that’s not what the arguer assumes when he makes statements about what “God” “is.” > > This is also a form of question begging, which, again, even somewhat skilled debaters fall prey to. Unless I am mistaken, this is the reasoning **Leberal** often used, is it not? I would have to say the dumbest arguement I’ve seen was from Kirk Cameron’s Christian videos where they determine that the shape of the banana being easily held and shaped to fit in the mouth is proof of God. Odd how it isn’t also proof of the religious necessity of blowjobs. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/16 "2006-06-12T17:20:03Z")
> [@MixieArmadillo](#): > > Damn, let’s try that again, shall we? > Oh, you have _no_ idea, **DtC**. The most recent response is this: > Sigh. That was in response to Mr. Armadillo, who is a geneticist, and is actually attempting to patiently clear up his erroneous interpretations of scientific data, bless his little heart. Ask your logically challenged buddy what connection there is between the god he assumes from the intelligence of humans and the god he believes in. Maybe Odin or Zeus (or Prince Philip) designed up - the argument works just as well. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/17 "2006-06-12T17:20:57Z")
Sorry for misspelling your name, **Liberal**. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/18 "2006-06-12T17:23:59Z")
> [@flight](#): > > Unless I am mistaken, this is the reasoning **Leberal** often used, is it not? **Liberal** ’s argument was subtly different. He used existence in all possible universes as the measure of supremeness, not omnipotence and omniscience. The problem with these is that we can show a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient is logically impossible. Without both, we can’t say if a being who is omnipotent is more powerful than one who is omniscient. Since there is no supreme being, there is no need for existence, and the argument fails. Which is a bit over the head of the person mentioned in the OP, I’d wager. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/19 "2006-06-12T17:30:30Z")
Is it just me, or is religion getting a little more amusing lately? Between Pat Robertson, a.k.a. Rev. Hans (I guess that makes Jerry Falwell Rev. Franz?), and **Diogenes** ’s “atheism test” thread and this stuff, it seems a bit funnier than usual. I hope it stays this way. Religion is a lot better for everybody when it’s funny-enjoyable instead of funny-tragic. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/20 "2006-06-12T17:38:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The problem with these is that we can show a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient is logically impossible. Can you explain this proof in simple terms, please? (Not being a wise-ass, but I’ve never run into it.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433.md?page=2)