A God-Created World Would Look Like a ’60s Family Sitcom

A God-Created World Would Look Like a ’60s Family Sitcom September 5, 2016

God Jesus sitcom“You’re so smart?” the Christian apologist says. “You think you can read God’s mind? Then tell us what life on earth should look like if God created it.”

I’m glad you asked. If an omnipotent and all-loving god created human life here on earth as a way to develop us into better people who would deserve eternity in heaven, our world would look like “Leave It to Beaver.”

“Leave It to Beaver” was a popular American sitcom that originally aired 1957–1963. It showed the adventures of Beaver Cleaver (to the right in the photo above, with his TV parents and older brother Wally).

Who graduates from God’s classroom?

First, let’s view life from the Christian perspective. Jesus makes clear that few will make it to heaven.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13–14)

Making it through that small gate is our purpose in life. I’ve heard Christians give different metaphors for our world. God made a challenging life on earth as a test to see which people are made of the right stuff. Or it’s a proving ground where the good souls get a chance to prove their worth. Or a crucible where the dross burns away to improve our character and prepare us for heaven.

But let’s imagine life as a classroom. God apparently is so poor a teacher that he only graduates a few of his students.

If you were the president of a college, you might think that if 80 percent of the freshmen graduate, that’s a decent fraction. It’s too bad about the rest, but it’s not possible to make that fraction zero. But God could. God would know exactly what the problems were and how to fix them. Is it a lack of motivation? A lack of funds? Classes not relevant or interesting enough? With God in control, he could create colleges with a 100 percent graduation rate.

God isn’t president of an ordinary college; he’s president of the Ultimate College—life. What fraction of people graduate from God’s college into heaven? Not even half.

Is this the best of all possible worlds?

Eighteenth-century German polymath Gottfried Leibniz argued that this must be the best of all possible worlds. How could God allow all the bad that we see in the world—famine, plague, violence, and so on? Leibniz simply assumed that God would give us the best of all possible worlds, that God couldn’t improve one part without making the overall worse. QED.

This is the Hypothetical God Fallacy—assuming God exists and then (surprise!) it all falls into place, with us unable to critique God’s super-smart plan.

Let’s respond to Leibniz. God can’t make things better than what we have now? Let me suggest some ideas.

Tips for God

Here’s how an omnipotent and all-loving God could better organize life. I propose a world with a 100 percent graduation rate where everyone gets into heaven. It would be a world with gentle correction for errors, like in “Leave It to Beaver.”

To see what that world would look like, here are some of the plot summaries from that sitcom:

  • Beaver and Wally are in charge of the neighbor’s cat, but then a dog chases it away (“Cat Out of the Bag”).
  • Beaver discovers his old teddy bear and reluctantly discards him after his father and brother tell him he’s too old for dolls. Beaver changes his mind, but he’s too late to save it before the garbage truck comes. He tries to get it back (“Beaver’s Old Friend”).
  • Beaver is scheduled to receive an award at school and argues with his parents about whether he needs to wear a jacket and tie (“Beaver’s Football Award”).
  • Beaver must write a book report on The Three Musketeers and decides to watch the movie on TV instead of reading the book (“The Book Report”).
  • Beaver and a friend are in charge of the class cookie fund, but another student steals three dollars (“The Cookie Fund”).
  • Beaver rips his suit pants and lies about it. He’s scolded for the lie and then tells the truth when he rips the pants of his other suit, but his parents won’t believe him (“Beaver’s Bad Day”).

There are 234 episodes. In each, the stakes are low, and there is learning at the end. Beaver gets a little wiser as he’s gently nudged toward adulthood. Not everyone reaches their goals in each episode, but nothing particularly bad happens. Sure, embarrassment during a date or punishment after a mistake is traumatic, but it’s not cancer. Things are black and white, just like the show itself. It’s life with training wheels.

Contrast Beaver’s life with plausible plots from our reality:

  • Little Suzie gets smallpox and then dies (“Suzie’s Bad Day”).
  • Frank is at work when he feels an earthquake. He makes his way home, but he’s too late—a tsunami has swept away his entire town, including his family (“Frank’s Bad Day”).
  • Jamey is tormented by homophobic bullying in school and online. He hangs himself at age 14 (“Jamey’s Bad Day”—a true story).

The Christian demands, “Aren’t you the arrogant one? You think you can tell God how to arrange the universe?” But of course that’s not the question. We don’t take God as a presupposition and then rearrange the facts to support it. Instead, we just follow the facts. And this world certainly looks like a world without a god.

The best thing about believing in a crazy, illogical,
manmade, totally fictional afterlife
is that you will never find out you were wrong. 
— Ricky Gervais

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 7/8/13.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

 

"Yeah, like you, I look forward to seeing the next 12 "arguments" on that page ..."

Bad Atheist Arguments? Let’s Investigate 16 ..."
"Yes, that's one definition, but I think most people, discussing atheism, would insist on some ..."

10 Commandments (for Atheists)
""You won't be surprised to hear the author say that there's loads more to say ..."

Bad Atheist Arguments? Let’s Investigate 16 ..."
"There are arguments of the sort: If God existed, we should see X; we don't ..."

Bad Atheist Arguments? Let’s Investigate 16 ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Voltaire wrote Candide as a satire of Leibniz’s idea, including such real-life horrors as the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, one of the deadliest in history. Pangloss, one of his characters, is a devotee of Leibniz who simply refuses to change his mind about it, no matter what happens. He also makes ridiculous design arguments like “Noses were designed for spectacles” and “Legs were designed for pants.” Voltaire was a deist, and he strongly criticized Christianity.

    • Myna A.

      Voltaire was deeply affected by that quake in Lisbon and its occurrence might well be argued as a watershed in solidifying the collapse of Christian power in Europe and widening the door of the Enlightenment more quickly.

      Here’s a good link to Voltaire’s literary and philosophical response to the disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po%C3%A8me_sur_le_d%C3%A9sastre_de_Lisbonne

    • Sammael Moon

      I came to post this; glad someone beat me to it 🙂

  • Uzza

    A world designed by God would solve overpopulation by keeping birth rates high and introducing predators so that only a tiny percentage survive to adulthood, the rest getting eaten live or starving.
    A world designed by me would have low birth rates.
    God is a moron.

    • Aegis

      Hell of an argument against the anti-choicers, really. A world created by an omnipotent god would mean humans would be able to choose whether to conceive – and not in the ‘not keeping her legs shut’ sense that certain self-righteous shitwits think counts as total bodily control, but actual implantation in the cell wall requiring conscious effort or at least will. Then overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem.

      • TheNuszAbides

        Then overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem.

        it would be an enormous step, but i doubt it’d be a complete solution. there’d also need to be a decrease in general ignorance/credulousness/etc. as far as directives like ‘be fruitful and multiply’. but i’m reminded of the frequent and righteous assertion of C.Hitchens, that the most consistent cure for poverty (and generally, by extension, ignorance and other deficiencies) is the empowerment of women, which i take to be the gist of your eminently agreeable point.

  • Sastra

    The constant use of the parent-child analogy to explain God (“God relates to us like a Father relates to His children”) means that it’s perfectly legitimate to use this analogy to argue against this hypothetical God’s existence. Parental discipline has limits. We would not say that a father was justified in letting a rebellious toddler get run over in a busy street to “teach the lesson of obedience.”

    It would be more plausible to agree that nobody was watching the child.

    Frankly, I think the whole parent/child analogy is a poor one — at least when it’s used today. In the modern world, the parent is trying to teach the child to one day become independent — to meet or exceed the parent in knowledge and ability as they go from child to adult. If your child one day catches and gently corrects one of your mistakes, the response is supposed to be pride, not outrage over disrespect for your higher status.

    The relationship between God and human beings is not so much like parent and child, but more like owner and pet.

    It’s an idealized situation maybe even more apt than “Leave It To Beaver.” Pets never grow up to become human beings. They learn gratitude and obedience. They give affection and loyalty. And in return, they are “loved” for recognizing their role:an eternal dependent state of slavish devotion.

    And like pets who turn feral or bite their owner, it’s okay to put them down.

    Wally as a demanding Master,then, rather than Dad. “Fetch, Beaver — I said FETCH!”

    • epeeist

      The relationship between God and human beings is not so much like parent and child, but more like owner and pet.

      Not a bad analogy given that a pet is a chattel.

      We have had this one from a number of theists when it comes to the Noachic flood; yeah, god did kill 99.99996% of humanity but that’s alright because he made us and therefore owns us.

      • Michael Neville

        In all western countries there are laws against cruelty to animals. So drowning a pet just for grins and giggles could result in a fine or even imprisonment. Again it appears that humans are more moral than Yahweh.

        • epeeist

          Again it appears that humans are more moral than Yahweh.

          Yep, despite all these objective moral values that god apparently has we still do better than it.

    • MNb

      “In the modern world, the parent is trying to …..”
      Indeed. In the Roman Empire the child remained dependent on the father as long as the latter lived.

      • Pofarmer

        Hey Mark.

        I found this video on Youtube and really enjoyed it. Some of the things she says about Danes certainly reminded me of you.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1RXGltx4SI

        • MNb

          I appreciate it that you think of me, but I’m a notoriously bad listener and 82 minutes is way too long for me.
          Sorry.

        • Pofarmer

          Ah, it wasn’t as much for you as everybody else!

  • Joe

    You’re so smart?” the Christian apologist says. “You think you can read God’s mind? Then tell us what life on earth should look like if God created it.”

    Either theists have such a limited imagination, or they redefine what “perfect” means when it comes to defining a world.

  • Max Doubt

    “Things are black and white, just like the show itself. It’s life with training wheels.”

    • busterggi

      That’s not sad, now he’s with JEEEEEZUS!

  • eric

    First, let’s view life from the Christian perspective. Jesus makes clear that few will make it to heaven.

    Its also interesting that most American believers are in the top 1% wealthiest people on Earth, and yet don’t think they are wealthy enough to qualify as camel-needle rich (i.e., they don’t think Jesus’ warning that the rich are not likely to gain salvation applies to them). They seem to have a ‘keeping up with the Jonses’ mentality, where as long as they don’t feel rich compared to their neighbors, they don’t consider themselves rich. Meanwhile, the global average is $18,000/year and about a third of the human population makes less than $2/day. American middle class, meet needle.

    Next time you meet someone who is sure they’ll get into heaven, ask them whether the richest 1% of humanity is likely to be saved or whether they are in the camel-needle-trouble category. Then ask them if they make more than $35,000/year/person. Then point out that that’s the 1% cutoff. 🙂

    • Myna A.

      The top 1% are multi-billionaires and their wealth is primarily generational. Anything under is chicken feed to be dispersed among the nouveau riche, the upper and middle classes and enough to keep the poor working in the service industry. There used to be a lower middle class. That was before Reagan & Co. ground it into more chicken feed.

      • eric

        Nope, the global 1% is a $37,000/year income per household member. Many Americans are in the top 1% of wealthiest people on earth, even if they don’t think of themselves that way. If there’s a god and he makes it difficult for rich people to get into heaven, most of the US middle class won’t make it

        • Myna A.

          I see what you mean now. I was thinking in terms of the U.S. and got a little political. I looked up a link to understand it better globally: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-as-half-the-world/

          There isn’t any god of man’s religion, so it seems moot who goes through the eye of the needle or not, but I get what you are saying.

        • adam

          So what does that mean in REALITY.

          37K doesnt go very far in Manhatten
          But you could live like a King in other parts of the world.

          ‘most of the US middle class won’t make it’

          MOST of humanity wont make it according to the bible.

        • TheNuszAbides

          If there’s a god and he makes it difficult for rich people to get into heaven,

          there’s also the curious coincidence of how relative wealthiness seems to make it easier (in at least a practical sense) to work on all manner of problems which the poor tend to have too much stress and/or not enough time to deal with (or at least are convinced by scumbag thought-leaders that they can’t).

      • Jim Jones

        > The top 1% are multi-billionaires

        0.01% perhaps.

    • Is it more complicated than that? The global income average for the top 1% might be $35K/year, but cost of living is a factor, too. Money goes a lot farther in the third world than in the US.

  • igotbanned999

    Well if the Three Musketeers exists as a story in their world, muskets must exist, which means gunpowder exists, which means weapons, war, and death exist.[/overanalysis]

  • RichardSRussell

    “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

    —Richard Dawkins PhD, River Out of Eden, 1995

    • Cygnus

      …and then we come with our fabrications: design, purpose, evil, good, God, etc., an evolutionary step to keep ourselves at the top of the food chain. We have reached the maximal evolutionary step, we’ve became good, so good that we will end in eating each other… yummy, yummy…

      • RichardSRussell

        I once attended a science-fiction convention where the masquerade was emceed by a guy in full Dracula regalia. He informed the audience that we mortals were now only #2 on the food chain.

        • Kodie

          “Imagine we were still in the food chain, on top of everything else”
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uur0e7zbRGU

        • Cygnus

          That’s nothing, we fabricated God at top of the food chain, so we can piggyback it and be at the top food chain even “after life”

    • busterggi
  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    While I love the essay, if challenged by a hypothetical xtian that way, I’d put the burden of proof back where it belongs, y’know? 🙂

    • Not quite sure. I assume you’re saying that there are other interpretations about what God’s plan ought to be?

  • King Dave

    “…everyone can see that there is no evidence for a God who answers prayers and that any God who would grant prayers for football championships, while doling out cancer and car accidents to little boys and girls, is unworthy of our devotion.” – Sam Harris

    • Michael Neville

      I see it slightly differently. Any god which creates a universe with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets isn’t going to care if you find your car keys or if a teenager masturbates.

      Hubble Ultra Deepfield

      • King Dave

        Sam was referring to the claim of the divine effectiveness of prayer, not about whether a god has the time to respond to them. I find it interesting however with the size of the known universe, no artificial signal has been detected from outer space. And no clear evidence of how life got started on earth which could be duplicated in a lab. We may truly be alone…? To belive in god one would have to abandon science for fiction or hypothesis…

        • Michael Neville

          It’s not that a god might not have time to answer prayers, my argument is more that a god might not have the inclination or the motivation to answer prayers.

        • King Dave

          Yeah, Jesus was supposed to make a triumphant return within his immediate followers lifetime. Not only did he not show up, he didn’t even bother to call.

        • Greg G.

          But to be fair to Jesus, he probably assumed that after two generations, his followers would get the message.

        • Michael Neville

          What’s that famous quote? “Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me … You can’t get fooled again!”

        • Greg G.

          You can’t get fooled again!

          Who sang that?

        • Michael Neville
        • King Dave

          “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

          Even if they lived as long as Methuselah, they would still have still felt stood up.

        • MNb

          “And no clear evidence of how life got started on earth which could be duplicated in a lab.”
          That won’t take too long anymore. And many IDiots are anticipating: “duplicated in a lab is evidence for design, because the lab scientists designed the experiment!”

  • Snowflake

    I appreciate the college graduation analogy. Son is in 12 grade, and we have been looking at colleges and one consideration is job placement rate. RIT is one choice, with engineering job placement is 95%. Can heaven match that?

    I know this is trivial and somewhat off topic, but what happened to Beaver’s teddy bear?

    • tubi11

      It was donated to a preschool, became a ruthless tyrant, and eventually was strapped to the grill of a Krumm garbage truck.

      • Snowflake

        Toy Story 3?

        • tubi11

          Yes, Andy is Beav’s grandson.

        • Snowflake

          How does that work? Beve is a 1950’s character. Andy rocks as a Disney Character. Natural selection? Ken Ham’s head would explode.

  • busterggi

    “Aren’t you the arrogant one? You think you can tell God how to arrange the universe?”

    Well clearly somebody should have or he wouldn’t keep messing creation up repeatedly.

  • XCellKen

    Q: What was the most risque thing said on television in the 50s ?

    A: “Ward, you were a little hard on the Beaver last night” !!!

  • MNb

    “Leibniz argued that this must be the best of all possible worlds.”
    Like the ontological argument this undermines omnivolence.

    “A Manichäan might retort that this is the worst of all possible worlds, in which the good things that exist serve only to heighten the evils. The world, he might say, was created by a wicked demiurge, who allowed free will, which is good, in order to make sure of sin, which is bad, and of which the evil outweighs the good of free will. The demiurge, he might continue, created some virtuous men, in order that they might be punished by the wicked; for the punishment of the virtuous is so great an evil that it makes the world worse than if no good men existed. I am not advocating this opinion, which I consider fantastic; I am only saying that it is no more fantastic than Leibniz’s theory. People wish to think the universe good, and will be lenient to bad arguments proving that it is so, while bad arguments proving that it is bad are closely scanned. In fact, of course, the world is partly good and partly bad, and no “problem of evil” arises unless this obvious fact is denied.”

    Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, the chapter about Leibniz.

    • Kevin Zeller

      omnivalence – definition and meaning – Wordnik.com
      http://www.wordnik.com/words/omnivalence
      Omnivalence is the appreciation of nuance and the recognition that conflicting perspectives often add light and meaning…?!

      • MNb

        In the first place that link didn’t provide that definition and meaning when I click on it.
        In the second place and didn’t write omnivalence.

  • Vince L

    Couldn’t get past the skeptic’s premise. Christianity is not about creating people that deserve eternity heaven. Christianity is for the undeserving people. (Matthew 9:11-13) With such a faulty premise, all that follows will be unstable.

    • Greg G.

      Those were analogies that come from Christians, not a skeptic premise.

      • Vince L

        In this case, it is presented in the skeptic’s response from his viewpoint. It is a clear misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

        • Greg G.

          There are 45,000 different denominations of Christianity. They all have different understandings of scriptures and think the church down the street has misunderstandings.

        • Vince L

          This is a generalization that does not deserve a response – unless you can provide a list and source for 45,000 Christian denominations.

        • Myna A.
        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming that you refuse to consider even the inconvenient (for you) stuff other christians write. You do this because you want to maintain the illusion that your particular version of christianity is the only one. Thus you display the same utter arrogance as for instance Ken Ham, if not worse – you think you are the Bearer of the Truth.

        • Greg G.

          Myna A provided the list and source as of two years ago. See line 45, next to last column.

          Edit: fixed typo in line number.

        • Myna A.

          The guy asks for the source of your claim and when he gets it, ignores it. Apparently even evidence from a reliable study report doesn’t deserve a response, and now he’s conveniently run off, tossing in a bit of that old manipulative admonition in his wake.

          I see Vince doesn’t have an avatar. I’ve found one for him.

        • Greg G.

          The guy asks for the source of your claim and when he gets it, ignores it.

          He really fooled me. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!

        • Myna A.

          About as shocking as 44, 999 of those numbers not being true Christians. It’s got to be a burden for the authentic disciple. However shall Vince cope with it all?

        • Here you go. Look at entry #45.

          This is from the International Bulletin of Mission Research.

        • MNb

          That’s not our problem. Take it up with the christians who use these analogies.

        • Vince L

          It *is* the skeptic’s problem when the skeptic chooses to erect a strawman that is inaccurate for the foundation of all his arguments. The Christian view no longer matters.

          Additionally, it is unfortunate that Bob misunderstands Christianity so completely as to use this poor strawman premise. Again, it *is* the responsibility of the skeptic to understand ‘the other side’ and it is his problem when he does not.

        • MNb

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman_Fallacy

          “Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.”
          You are not that person. The person is the christian apologist who uses the analogies Greg G referred to.
          Your particular interpretation of your favourite holy book is not the standard for all christians alive or dead. Your accusation only makes sense if it were. As such you display an arrogance that totally defies what your Great Hero Jesus preached.
          You only confirmed that it’s not our problem. You also displayed your hypocrisy with your refusal to take it up with those christians who do use those analogies and instead try to hold BobS responsible for them.

        • Michael Neville

          Bob misunderstands YOUR christianity, which from our experience is a minority view. What Bob described is basically what I was taught in Catholic schools and I know that Lutherans and other mainstream Protestants would have no problems with Bob’s description of Christian premises. They’d have problems with his interpretations of those premises but not with the premises themselves.

        • Vince L

          I am not responsible to answer for every Christian viewpoint any more than you are responsible to answer for every skeptical viewpoint. Aliens? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Vortex power locations? My original post stands.

        • Michael Neville

          Your original post is silly. You have a minority style of Christianity and you cannot expect anyone besides you to know the particularities and peculiarities of your one-man cult. Sorry if reality doesn’t meet with your approval.

        • Vince L

          lol. you’re funny. thanks for the laugh.

        • Dys

          But your complaint concerning a strawman falls apart. Just because someone is picking apart a version of Christianity other than your own doesn’t mean the post is a strawman.

        • Vince L

          Actually, it’s your logic that fails. One cannot take what you interpret a portion of a large group believes (which is already proven false in my original post) and discount what you interpret and then assign that apparent failure to the entire group. That is precisely a strawman argument.

          This is my last post. I rather talk to people that think logically, are open to real discussion, and that don’t drop into ad hominem attacks (as others have done in this thread). I know you’ll attack me for walking out, but it’s not for lack of intelligence, evidence, or truth on my part. I just don’t have time for absurdity, especially when there is little chance of progress. (Any answer to this post, knowing that I’m not going to read it or respond, will simply prove my point.) Best wishes.

        • Dys

          One cannot take what you interpret a portion of a large group believes

          You need to decide whether you’re speaking just for your own Christianity or not.

          This is my last post. I rather talk to people that think logically, are open to real discussion, and that don’t drop into ad hominem attacks

          You haven’t particularly demonstrated that you’re logical or open to a real discussion. And you’re essentially committing an ad hominem on the entire comment board with this infantile excuse. So on that note, we can see that your attempt to place yourself above everyone else is a failure.

          I know you’ll attack me for walking out, but it’s not for lack of intelligence, evidence, or truth on my part.

          Stop patting yourself on the back, you’re just going to hurt yourself.

          I just don’t have time for absurdity

          Whatever you need to tell yourself. I find that Parthian shots are largely boring attempts to assuage one’s oversized ego, and are a complete and utter waste of time. You’d be better off not bothering with one next time.

        • TheNuszAbides

          such an early quitter, he doesn’t even deserve credit for sticking the flounce.

        • A strawman? Show me. Where’s the problem?

    • Christianity is for the undeserving people.

      Christianity is about the undeserving people and how God will fry them forever in hell? Or is it about how to coax us to become better people in the life we have here on earth? If it’s more the latter, then I don’t see your problem.

      • Vince L

        That’s the point: it’s not about the latter. That is the same as your premise. With regard to your question, it would take more than a blog to answer. You and I can meet any time you want. 🙂

        • Not sure what you’re saying here.

          You and I can meet any time you want. 🙂

          Oh? Do you live in the Seattle area?

        • Dys

          Not sure why he feels the need to meet up…it’s just the usual works vs. faith deal. No one can earn their way into heaven through works (that’s the undeserving part), so they have to avail themselves of Jesus’s non-sacrifice in order to get into heaven.

          Basically, no one is deserving of heaven, everybody deserves hell, and the only to get into heaven is to take advantage of an extremely poorly thought out loophole that doesn’t logically hold up if you examine it too closely.

  • Kevin Zeller

    This article is only mistaken in its presuppositions: When it discusses no God, think NO CHRIST! http://jesusneverexisted.com That much CAN be proven; that there is no God in this universe is a mere presumption. Humbly Submitted, Rev. Kevin Zeller, MDiv, BMus

    PS Don’t give up, friend. Keep on tryin.’ Just change the target of your attack to Jesus, the man-god who interacts with “His” universe and not with the Power of God as is KNOWN by the Gnostic “religion.” I invite you to join us in our fight to state the obvious, that there is NO JESUS. Not in this crazy world! How is one “saved” then?

    ANSWER: By realizing that THOU ART GOD. Even da Buy-bull sez: “Be still, and know THOU art God.” Hence, one must argue away the entirety of God’s body, the human race…! That is, if you really WISH to argue away the FACT: that God IS.

    Cogito, ergo sum? I think, therefore I AM. No less than Cartesian logic, my friend.

    • adam

      • Kevin Zeller

        Hey, since we seem to agree, why not consider moving to Sunny San Diego and attending the brand new church alternative that is definitely AF (or atheist friendly). It will go by the name of 1st Church of Christ Spirit because we only see that Christ exists AS A SPIRIT…

        A “spirit,” that is, which speaks to out heart FROM WITHIN, (obviously) that we are God. You may even be Associate Pastor! 🙂

    • MNb

      Yeah – and a non-sequitur. According to that same Cartesian logica you can’t know that it’s the “I” that thinks. No less than an elementary logical mistake, my friend.

      • Michael Neville

        I think I think therefore I think I am.

      • epeeist

        The other day I presented MR with a tongue-in-cheek fallacy, argumentum ad cuniculos crinitos – argument from fluffy bunnies. The above post commits another such “fallacy”, argumentum ad litteras maiusculas – argument from capital letters.