# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/41 "2006-06-13T02:54:01Z")
> [@](#): > > My argument comes from interpretation of universal data that has been proccessed by universal formation (brain and Personal awareness). the computed output of the universal form is Awareness above that of the formed being. Awareness of the entire universe as a whole (God) is the computed output. Formation of Awareness and Intelect is Soul. Soul gives access to Former of universe who is The All Knowing Awareness, God. Wow. It’s a Vulcan evangelist. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/42 "2006-06-13T04:03:31Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] **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. [/QUOTE] Sorry, I think I’m missing a step here. Without both omnipotence and omniscience we cannot say if one is more powerful than the other? So how does that preclude one being from posessing both qualities? Baby step me through it? 😉 ---
**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 13, 2006, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/43 "2006-06-13T04:22:17Z")
[QUOTE=MixieArmadillo] Sorry, I think I’m missing a step here. Without both omnipotence and omniscience we cannot say if one is more powerful than the other? So how does that preclude one being from posessing both qualities? Baby step me through it? 😉 [/QUOTE] Both omniscience and omnipotence are _infinitely_ “powerful” by definition (although “powerful” isn’t really the right word). One cannot logically exist to a greater or lesser degree than the other. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/44 "2006-06-13T04:33:32Z")
The trouble with the Argument from Evil is one can simply counter it by insisting that evil, while practiced by free agents, can never be _purposeless_, and that it all somehow works out in the end. Really there are an endless number of ways to stack the deck with rationalizations, and theists do this liberally. There’s no arguing logic if the premises cannot be agreed upon, and that’s precisely the problem in all logical attacks on the existence or non-existence of God. It’s pointless, except as a brain-teaser, to even bother debating. ---
**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 13, 2006, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/45 "2006-06-13T05:34:17Z")
[QUOTE=MixieArmadillo] Sorry, I think I’m missing a step here. Without both omnipotence and omniscience we cannot say if one is more powerful than the other? So how does that preclude one being from posessing both qualities? Baby step me through it? 😉 [/QUOTE] I hope my response to **Polycarp** helped. The problem is not deciding which is more powerful, since I think it is fair to say this cannot be decided, but that they cannot co-exist in one entity. There are mathematical entities called lattices, which are defined on partial orderings, such that not each element has an ordering defined. (It was so long ago I can’t remember an example.) Thus, you can have two things that have nothing above them, but neither of which are above the other. Since there is no supreme being, the argument fails. In any case, most definitions of god assume he is both, which shows their fundamental incoherence (in the technical sense.) That probably confused you even more. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/46 "2006-06-13T06:49:37Z")
Wouldn’t it be easier to call him a noob, then kill him in a duel\* and tell him he’s been **PWNED** LOL? Or maybe link him to fundie sites that’ll tell him he’s going to hell for playing a satanic game or something? \*online pvp duel, of course. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/47 "2006-06-13T13:08:56Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] That probably confused you even more. [/QUOTE] No, actually, it was crystal clear. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/48 "2006-06-13T14:22:15Z")
[QUOTE=Lissa] My husband found a line from The Simpsons to be quite useful in a similar situation: “Take it outside, God Boy.” Everyone laughed, and the guy stopped. For about two days. [/QUOTE] Actually, this is quite brilliant - treat social proselytizers like any geek who can’t say carry on a conversation unless it invokes the object of their geekdom. IMHO a bible-thumper becomes slightly less of a PIA if you percieve them as another variety of geek, while neatly sidestepping any issues of logic, truth, philosophy, etc. What’s cute about this is that it leaves a world of room for those who feel deeply about their religion yet have the good taste not to “geek” about it in front of others. It addresses the _social_ impropriety without attacking Religion. Naturally, this is not an appropriate approach for dealing with a fundamentalist organization or movement. In numbers, these geeks like to change laws. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/49 "2006-06-13T14:59:57Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] Wouldn’t it be easier to call him a noob, then kill him in a duel\* and tell him he’s been **PWNED** LOL? Or maybe link him to fundie sites that’ll tell him he’s going to hell for playing a satanic game or something? \*online pvp duel, of course. [/QUOTE] Of course anyone like this must have a lock or a shadow spec priest as a main. On second thought…gotta be a Paladin or a Hunter, all the biggest dumbasses I have ever played with were one of those. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/50 "2006-06-13T18:03:00Z")
[QUOTE=Misery Loves Co.] Actually, this is quite brilliant - treat social proselytizers like any geek who can’t say carry on a conversation unless it invokes the object of their geekdom. IMHO a bible-thumper becomes slightly less of a PIA if you percieve them as another variety of geek, while neatly sidestepping any issues of logic, truth, philosophy, etc. What’s cute about this is that it leaves a world of room for those who feel deeply about their religion yet have the good taste not to “geek” about it in front of others. It addresses the _social_ impropriety without attacking Religion. Naturally, this is not an appropriate approach for dealing with a fundamentalist organization or movement. In numbers, these geeks like to change laws. [/QUOTE] This fits in nicely with my theory that theology is the original fanwank. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/51 "2006-06-13T23:16:16Z")
[QUOTE=MixieArmadillo] Huh. I’m not _certain_ but I think he’s making less and less sense as the discussion continues. I asked if he was familiar with Anselm’s “proof” as summarised by **Huerta99** , here’s his response (note the truly _astounding_ bolded bit: [/QUOTE] So, wait, you posted a supposed proof of God, and he argued against it? That’s great ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/52 "2006-06-14T05:51:38Z")
I’m always amazed at people who feel the need to somehow try and logically defend or “prove” that their particular belief system is a “fact”. I actually find it quite sad, the beautiful thing about theology is that it transcends all of those purely physical requirements, the wonder of theology is having faith in the _absence_ of “proof”, yet all the time you see people throwing that away by insisting that they can “prove” something that is by definition unprovable. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! (Please note that my post has absolutely nothing to do with _religion_. Religions are seperate entities) ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433/53 "2006-06-14T13:25:41Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] I’m always amazed at people who feel the need to somehow try and logically defend or “prove” that their particular belief system is a “fact”. I actually find it quite sad, the beautiful thing about theology is that it transcends all of those purely physical requirements, the wonder of theology is having faith in the _absence_ of “proof”, yet all the time you see people throwing that away by insisting that they can “prove” something that is by definition unprovable. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! [/QUOTE] Mr. Armadillo has tried to tell him this exact thing several times, and he insists that we’re just “too indoctrinated with the religion of athiesm” to “think abstractly” and that’s why we can’t see the overwhelming evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unintentionally-hilarious-defense-of-religion-ever/360433.md?page=2)