12 thoughts on “New page of Hate mail, and a reality check….”

  1. I’m wondering why people cannot exist without them needing a god to exist along with them? It appears that all other animals and insects on earth can live a normal existence without the need of information about a god.

    Of course there is something greater than us humans out there, but from our limited position on earth and our limited access passed our solar system we have no way of knowing what that greater thing is.

    Why do we need a god to believe in?

    Why would believing in a god make our lives any better?

    Why a god, is a three letter god at the top of all humans ability to think passed a god?

    Why does there have to be a god?

    There could be something better than a god out there, we have no way of knowing, no one on earth can say with 100% certainty.

    It’s all human speculation.

    Chantal, come back and answer these questions.

  2. The version of me that can grow to enormous heights and stand atop skyscrapers reaching into windows and plucking young blonde virgins (ahem) from their office desks is far more powerful than the me who sits in an internet cafe dressing Jesus up as the Easter bunny…..therefore the King Kong version of me must exist…..I expect you all to look out for him/me and give him/me the respect he/I deserve……worship will be fine

  3. At 14 it is time for her to learn to let go of fantasies and discover how amazing and wonderful the real world is. That is the obligation that we, as adults, have toward children, to teach this to them. You are doing a great job of this Bob. I hope you continue to do so for many more years.

    Hopefully Chantal will one day take a course in logic and learn that existence is not considered a property. Rather, it is the precondition for the having of properties. An entity must exist first before it can be ranked amongst other entities.

    She has a strong mind. I just hope that she learns how to ask more questions instead of trying to invent answers.

  4. This is how I interpreted her “arguments.”

    1. Assume God exists.
    2. Therefore, God exists.

    That’s pretty much her entire argument in a nutshell, yes?

  5. She was intending to prove that God exists. All she proved was that a concept of God exists. There was nothing in her word whirlwind that gives any evidence of a god. Nothing.

    Don’t let her get you down. Her definition of logic is conceptual just like her argument for god. Science and reason don’t rest on concepts alone.
    How about I put Alcohol at the top of my list? There is a great alcohol god that affects lots of people and it is powerful. It makes them do stupid things. It is my god that I bow down to at the porcelain throne.

  6. Wah! My brain hurts!

    Where did this girl come from? She’s like smarter than all the other sheeples combined. And she’s still dumb.

    Still, I have to admit, this argument came out of left field for me and I actually had to *think* about it. I have been used to the same old easily-deflated arguments and this one, to me at least, was a new one.

    It wasn’t until I read her brother’s letter that I really felt comfortable with saying “oh right! Yeah! Of course!”.

  7. “here is the proof. god, if he exists….”

    IF he exists? Well, the whole point is that you must prove that he DOES exist, not that he MIGHT exist. What is a “god”? What does it look like, where does it live, how does it communicate with you, how tall is it, how much does it weigh, what color are its eyes, hair, and skin, what is its gender? Unless you can give us a description of this “god” thing, you are simply spouting off a three-letter word without meaning, for how can you begin to prove something exists if you don’t know what it is? Is it an invisible, male, genie-like being, living up in the sky? That seems to be the Christian concept of a god. Is that the idea whose reality you are trying to prove? If not, then what?

    “now, since existence itself is an attribute and “to exist” is more perfect than “not to exist”, god, being the maximally prefect being, must exist.”

    Something that does not exist cannot be said to BE anything, let alone imperfect. Existence does not equate with perfection. Millions of things exist, but not many of them can be said to be perfect. Your statement that God must be the most perfect thing ever is simply an assumption on your part. If this “god” exists, we have no evidence that it is perfect. But then, we have no evidence that it exists at all, and you have failed to provide any.

    “thats hardly being logical bob. “this theory is false because others have told me its false” correct me if i’m wrong but isn’t that the kind of thinking you dont like in believers?”

    It is false because it is utter nonsense. With every blind assumption and silly statement you make, you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. You came here to PROVE God exists, but instead of doing so, you keep stating, over and over, that you BELIEVE God exists. There is a difference, and at 14, you should know the distinction between belief and evidence.

    “we can agree that logic exist. what i am claiming is that if logic exists, a most powerful being also exists because logic (and logic alone) allows us to rank abstract concepts in order of power.”

    Wrong. It enables us to rank abstract concepts in order of their PROBABILITY OF EXISTING, and the probability of your invisible, male-gender genie with super powers existing is pretty damn close to zero. I can only assume that you took a six-week philosophy course in 8th grade to get some extra credit or something, and now you fancy yourself an expert in the subject. Get real. You are just a 14-year-old girl still clinging to the fantasies of childhood.

    “insofar that god allows us to know about him…”

    How can you know that God allows anything if you cannot even prove he/she/it exists? That is your first step: to prove God exists, like you said you would. But you have skipped over that step and moved right on to making assumptions about its character and behavior, such as that it is perfect, it allows us to know things, it makes choices, etc. You are putting the cart before the horse and then wondering why neither of them move.

    “If every holy book written by man were false, it would be the same as if god was blinding us about him…”

    Every holy book ever written IS false because they all contain nonsense, fantasy, lies, forgeries, and badly mangled myth. It has nothing to do with “God” blinding people, it is simply because these books are written by human beings who imagine that they know something about an invisible entity which they have never seen, heard, or spoken to except in their fantasies. God has nothing to do with the Bible, the Koran, or anything else ever written. And again, you haven’t even proven that God exists, yet you want us to believe that it writes things, or tells people to write things. An entity which doesn’t exist cannot tell anybody to do anything.

    “As God chooses not to be invisible to human reasoning…”

    I could argue that Obi-Wan Kenobi chooses not to be invisible to human reasoning. Entire websites and books exist about the philosophy of Star Wars, and thousands even claim “Jedi Knight” as their religion on census papers, so I guess that means Obi-Wan is real, since so many people talk about him.

    “In short, i argued that a most powerful entity exists.”

    Arguing that something exists is not the same as proving it exists. I gave an argument that Obi-Wan Kenobi exists. I now expect you to fully believe it. Good luck.

    “No i dont set out with the supposition of existence.”

    Yes, this is exactly what you did. The fact that you don’t recognize it proves that you lack understanding even of your own arguments. Then you go on and on about atoms moving, a load of bullshit gleaned from who-knows-where. You haven’t proved God exists, only that the concept of God exists, and that is NOT the same thing. Please come back when you have acquired some maturity.

  8. Isn’t the notion that existence is better than non-existence (the fulcrum on which Chantal’s proof is balanced) something of an assumption? Does anyone really have avalid conception of what non-existence is like? And if existence is so great, then why have all of us spent almost the entire 13.8 billion span of the universe refraining from existing?

  9. Hi, Bob.

    The Chantal letters are using the weak classical argument called “The Ontological Argument.” This is called “presuppositionalism,” because it assumes that God exists on the outset. It presumes that God exists because it is defined that way.

    Well, I want to show you what my life is like a little bit. This is a page from a site written by my hubs, Francois, a few years ago. This page is called “The Ontological Argument for the Non-Existence of God.”

    And that’s what I married. See? There’s got to be people perfect for each other!

  10. So, then, by this argument I can define god as anything I choose, e.g. a million, billion, trillion invisible elves, or the wooden penguin on my end table? Great! I knew that penguin was perfect in every way; I just needed a way to prove it. Thanks Chantel.

  11. Following Chantal’s logic.
    Visibilty is an attribute.
    God, if he exists would be perfectly visible.
    Therefore god does not exist.

Comments are closed.