Incoherent religious babble; quoting of scripture; proffering pseudo-science; misrepresentation of history; total denial of documented fact, science and even scripture; blatant lies, and religious platitudes flowed like pus from a festering sore when a religious fanatic became enflamed over my disrespectful analysis, as though my single critical review of the horrid book would itself be enough to render it obsolete and impede its sale. If only.
You’d have thought I dug up Jesus’ corpse, dressed it in a prom dress, and brought it to the home coming dance the way he went on. If only.
Anyway, among the crazy statements and rants was this: “It’s easy to prove the existence of God, but atheists are too stupid to understand it.”
A couple of hours later it was edited to read: “It is easy to prove the existence of God (in the theist sense) is [sic] far more plausible than the absence of God, at least to rational people.”
Hmmm ... prove? As in “proof”? Super. Please, cast your pearls of proof before this stupid and/or irrational person. Favor me with your irrefutable evidence that I may be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Please, suffer a little waste of your time to permit this unworthy respecter of science and reason, this user of highfalutin – multisyllabic words to be enlightened by your objective evidence that it can be subjected to and sustained by the scientific method.
Oh wait ... proof “in the theist sense.” Uh-oh. I was unaware that proof has multiple meanings depending on whether it is invoked by theists or secularists. I promptly checked the old Funk and Wagnall’s. Nope. No such distinction exists.
Merriam Webster defines proof as the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact; the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning; something that induces certainty or establishes validity.
So...gimme some cogent evidence. Impress me with the validity of your proof predicated in reason. Lay upon me that which induces me to accept the existence of God with a certainty that cannot be invalidated. I shall try hard not to allow my stupidity and irrationality to be an obstacle to this enlightenment. I was primed and ready to receive what no theologian in the history of the planet has ever been able to provide. Alas, I was to be disappointed
No proof followed. Not even an attempt. I guess he rethought that sentence (for a third time.) Perhaps his “proof” of God's existence included things like the beauty of a rainbow, the silence of a forest on snow covered night, the existence of good, the perfect fit of a banana in a man’s hand, rain drops on roses and whiskers on kittens. Perhaps this is what he meant, and he'd be correct, that these things don’t quite constitute the same idea of proof of the divine to us stupid and irrational atheists as they do with his brilliant and rational fellow lemmings.