?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

50 reasons (NOT) to believe in god

#11 What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care--they both exist!

These "proofs" are getting worse all the time...

First of all, let's just clarify that eggs came first. Evolutionarily speaking, eggs evolved in fish and reptiles long before chickens even existed. So that settles that.

But secondly, even if we go with that analogy derived from merely superficial observational skills... god and what? If god was created, why do some people worship him and not what created him? And if something created god, 1) is her really a god, and b) what created the something that created the something that created god? This part of the argument is apparently just a restatement of the cause-effect argument which we dealt with before. But since we don't have a really chicken-or-the-egg thing going on here, since we only have "god", I don't see the point of even bringing up the analogy.

And if truth be told, the best way to make god fit into the analogy is with god and humans. But that would be saying that humans created god, and god created humans and so on in an endless cycle... or instead of humans, the universe... except there isn't a cycle, it just happens once. Using an analogy to "prove" something, is generally not a good idea if any part of the analogy fails, particularly such an important part as this.

Furthermore, I can hold an egg in one hand and a chicken in the other. And while I can touch a human, I can't touch god. And if we go back to the god and some other higher being who created him, I can't touch either one. I know that chickens and eggs exist independently of which one came first... but I can hardly say the same thing about god and what created god. I don't believe in chickens and eggs because of their circular relationship, which is what our crazy theist seems to be suggesting.

So let me see if I can do this too...

I say there is some kind of amazing object that only I can see called a tallo, and there is another thing called a... hm, let's call it a kapoof. And in the beginning there was just tallo and out of tallo emerged kapoof and tallo and kapoof mated and formed the universe. But another, competing religion, a heresy really, says that kapoof came first, and then tallo, but it's so obvious that kapoof had to come from something, and tallo is the universal being who always existed...

Now seriously, does it a) matter who came first tallo or kapoof? and b) does saying that it doesn't matter prove that either or both definitely existed? If it doesn't work for tallo and kapoof, it ain't gonna work for god and whatever supposedly created god either.

Profile

science wins
inafoxhole
inafoxhole

Latest Month

June 2011
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek