San Diego Coalition of Reason

Disproving the existence of God is a trivial undertaking. To do so let me first prove the existence of God. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_… Now, I bet you're saying, "That's not God!" Well, you'd be wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Moveme… Of course, you're probably saying that's ridiculous and primitive. You'd be correct. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clark It's a problem of definition. You say your God is God. They say Prince Philip is God. You're both correct. The only difference between you and they is that they can point at their God and say, "See, there he is." So you worship YHWH or Jesus, or whatever. That's the entity you have chosen to worship. That's what makes your God your God. Now I ask you, what's the difference between worship and admiration? I'll tell you: submitting. I might admire someone like Jesus but you submit to him as a God. I have still held my right, actually my responsibility, to my own decisions. If Jesus says something that I consider absurd or evil, like say, "But those mine enemies who would not that I should rule over them, bring hither and slay them before me," I can say, "Hey Jesus! Stop being an ass!" I'm not on my knees. Sure, all Christians claim that they are free to question God all they want. You even believe that you are, but you are not. In the end you must, invariably, find that God is correct or he is not God...no? Since you've already chosen to call him God then you've already chosen who to believe...his judgment and not your own. You actually don't have the right to do this. Every human being is responsible for, and in charge of, their moral choices. You don't get to just put that off on some super-entity and wipe your hands of it. That's the sin of Pilate. It is _your_ responsibility, always. Thus disproving God is quite trivial: 1. To be called a God a being must be worthy of worship. 2. Nothing is worthy of worship for worship requires the abdication of moral autonomy. 3. Thus no being may be called a God. Even where your God to be proven to exist, and it would be trivial to do so if he did (prayer would be effective, violations of the laws of physics would occur, etc...) I would still not call him God. Hopefully I would still have the spine to not cower in fear, facing the impending reality of certain doom for disobedience...and be me. Certainly nobody knows how they will react until the gun is put to their temple...but we all hope we'll be strong enough to hold our values. But just because an entity has control over my continued existence or can send me to places I'd rather not go...does not make them worthy of such a lofty title as "God". Nothing is. God is not God...and that's all the proving that need be done.
— November 25, 2009 12:06 p.m.