Airtight Logic
One of the great works of philosophy that has always grated on my nerves is Rene Descartes “Meditations on First Philosophy”. His proof of God’s existence is ridiculous :
There only remains, therefore, the idea of God, in which I must consider whether there is anything that cannot be supposed to originate with myself. By the name God, I understand a substance infinite, [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself, and every other thing that exists, if any such there be, were created. But these properties are so great and excellent, that the more attentively I consider them the less I feel persuaded that the idea I have of them owes its origin to myself alone And thus it is absolutely necessary to conclude, from all that I have before said, that God exists.
There’s no way I could come up with the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, so God must have planted the idea there himself. To me, this has always seemed like the foundation for all of those cheezy books sold in Christian bookstores in which a scientist or journalist offers conclusive “proof” that God exists and is the creator of everything we see (as if blind faith were something that you can argue your way into or out of).
Fast forward 366 years and there’s an even more powerful argument to prove the existence of God from former sitcom star Kirk Cameron :
“Darwin said in order to prove evolution, which is the #1 alternative to God, you’ve gotta be able to prove transitional forms. One animal transitioning into another. And all through the fossil record and life, we don’t find one of these…a croco-duck.”
Nice try Descartes, but with the croco-duck and finding out that bananas are an “atheist’s nightmare”, I’m finally convinced. Amen.
16 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
by that dude’s banana-theory, i guess it would also mean that blowjobs are proof that god exists. and boy am i thankful. praise jesus!
Comment by tomN! — May 10, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
So, Superman’s real, too, then? Being a Christian is gonna be awesome!
Comment by Scott — May 10, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
Nightline once was my favorite show on TV, but it has fallen so far. I’d rather ABC just cancel it instead of allowing it to suffer the degrading fate of limping on in its current incarnation. Have you ever seen a sorrier excuse for a debate on television?
Comment by E-Rock — May 11, 2007 @ 6:52 am
I got really annoyed with St. Anselm’s argument for the proof of God as well, which Descartes’ reminds me of. It was something along the lines of: God is the most perfect being of which one can conceive. Existence is a perfection, because it is better than non-existence. Ergo, God exists. [And so do unicorns, sayeth I!]
Comment by Rojo — May 11, 2007 @ 6:56 am
I think, therefore I am.
ergo,
the question is not does god exist,
but does Kirk Cameron exist?
Comment by Kamachanda — May 11, 2007 @ 7:37 am
HA! He took that picture from omne of those Worth1000 photoshop contests, I remember seeing the crocoduck. What a douchebag.
Comment by Guav — May 11, 2007 @ 7:47 am
“The banana and the hand are perfectly made for each other”
Can you think of anything else perfectly made for the hand?
How about the banana?
Of course you can.
Isn’t god wonderful?
Comment by Kamachanda — May 11, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Sorry to be boring, but the explanations are pretty simple, perhaps so obvious you’ve not bothered saying what they are. Anyway, here goes:
1. There is no requirement for a crocoduck because their common ancestor was most likely superficially unlike either of them. Form is far more mutable than biological chemical pathways, as I understand it.
2. Banana trees reproduce, I’d think, by their fruit’s seed being digested then excreted. Making it easy for primates to eat the fruit means the seeds will travel further allowing more trees to exist due to the extra resources that become available. So there is an advantage to the form for the plant and its fruit-eaters. A banana-like fruit that was, say harder to get into or less brightly colored, would have had slightly less of this advantage. It’s predecessor would be less adapted still. And so on, back to a crude seed with a bit of pulp around it nibbled at by primitive tree-climbers.
Comment by me — May 11, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Did anyone notice that Bill O’Reilly claimed that he disproved the big bang theory? Someone call Stephen Hawking and tell him his services are not needed anymore. BillO has single-handedly shot down the entire basis of astrophysics. And they tell us that you need at least a basic knowledge of Physics. Bah!
Comment by rjv — May 11, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Evolution is just too complex for God. Creation was a magic trick and Paul Lynde from Bewitched is God.
Comment by Becky — May 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
B.O’Re’s proofs:
1. I thought “it isn’t”, therefore I’m right.
2. If the universe exists, it must be bigger than my ego. Therefore the universe does not exist.
3. Similarly, if there had been an explosion louder than my honking voice, I would be insignificant. Therefore it cannot have happened.
4. a) Liberals believe it, thus it is not true.
4. b) Corollary: some conservatives don’t believe it and most don’t care. Thus it is not true.
Comment by me — May 12, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Paul Lynde from Bewitched is God.
Circle gets the square!
“Paul, how do you make a frog croak?”
“Stick it’s little head underwater.”
Comment by spocko — May 12, 2007 @ 8:58 am
I don’t need a
croco-shitcroco-duck or a banana to know that evolution can’t possibly occur. I have a jar of peanut butter.I’d write more, but I gotta get back to watching that Jif. I mean, I know that nothing’s going to happen, but in case some new life form spontaneously emerges from my 12-ounce Extra-Crunchy, I want to be there.
Comment by Ereshkigal — May 12, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Ereshkigal, it will occur, you just have to wait a few billion years. Oh, and you need a planet sized jar of peanut butter.
Comment by me — May 12, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
i tried to watch that ‘discussion’, but didn’t make it all the way through. I love how Cameron said that they would prove the existence of god without resorting to faith. No, they resorted to delusion instead. Then Kirk Cameron’s puppetmaster told the rational response squad representative that they quote history books as if they were gospel, and ignore the gospel records. The fact that he believes that sentence even makes sense is quite telling.
Comment by holly — May 14, 2007 @ 10:35 am
i’d write more, but i gotta get back to watching that jif.
what? you don’t use skippy peanut butter??
Comment by skippy — May 18, 2007 @ 1:18 pm