Creationist Wisdom #477: Proof that God Exists

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Oklahoman of Oklahoma City, the capital of Oklahoma. The letter is titled God has revealed himself with hundreds of fulfilled prophesies.

Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is David. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Robert K. Stock (Your Views, Sept. 20) contends that unless God “can be measured and tested under controlled situations,” it logically “disproves the existence of God.”

This is the letter he’s talking about: No unicorns, no God, and it doesn’t quite say what David claims it says. Rather, Stock’s letter said:

A thing exists if it can be measured and tested under controlled conditions. The same logic that enables us to know without doubt that pink unicorns don’t exist also disproves the existence of God, Satan and all heavenly or infernal hosts.

Let’s get back to David’s letter:

How is it logical for Stock or anyone to even presume he could control, measure and test God?

Hey, David: All Stock said was that God can’t be measured and tested. That’s why science doesn’t have anything to say about God, one way or the other. David continues:

Stock further claims there is “no evidence” for God. Perhaps he should examine “Many Infallible Proofs” by Henry M. Morris or “The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity” by former atheist Lee Strobel.


I know God exists because He revealed and proved himself with hundreds of fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years of history.

Uh huh — like the prophesy about the voyage of Columbus, or Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe, or the American Revolution, or the atom bomb, or … oh, never mind. Moving along:

I know God exists because science can’t logically explain where the incredibly complex cell came from (a mathematically impossible “probability”).

Ah yes — Ignorance of X is evidence of Y. And here’s the last of it:

It’s illogical to believe that everything came from nothing, violating the basic scientific law of cause and effect, as well as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

That was quite a letter! Thanks, David. It’s good to see that everything’s OK in Oklahoma.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #477: Proof that God Exists

  1. I know God exists because He revealed and proved himself with hundreds of fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years of history.

    This one’s a puzzler, isn’t it? (And I hate the spelling “prophesies” even though Webster’s says it’s allowable!) I mean, there’s the occasional Biblical prophecy that, according to the Bible, came true, but not hundreds; and I can’t immediately think of any Biblical prophecies of events that have come to pass outside the Bible.

    Maybe David is a Tea Partier and believes Obama to be the Beast 666, and thus reckons Revelation has got at least one prophecy on the mark, but otherwise . . .

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    To quote Albert Rosenfield (in Twin Peaks) “Aw, look. It’s trying to think.”

  3. The whole truth

    David drooled: “It’s illogical to believe that everything came from nothing, violating the basic scientific law of cause and effect, as well as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.”

    Creationists claim their their so-called ‘God’ created everything out of nothing (by speaking it into existence) and I’ve seen or heard many creationists claim that ‘God’ is everything. So, how and where did ‘God’ come from? What caused ‘God’?

  4. Those silly scientists. They completely overlooked the obvious fact that the big bang theory violated God’s laws of thermodynamics. They keep validating the theory with observational data while all the time it violates basic laws. Don’t they see? They need to check the ancient texts of pre-scientific peoples before they make such rash theories.

    There were some fulfilled prophecies in Harry Potter, as I recall. That must mean that the novels are true!

  5. I have creationists tell me the Gospels must be true because Jesus fulfilled so many OT prophesies, but don’t realize that each of the Gospels has him fulfilling different and sometimes conflicting ones and any decent hack who could read could write a Gospel adding in characters and events to fulfill prophecies – they have to be true.

  6. This comment is OT, but related, and not only because the (yet another male) “wisdom”-peddler’s name is “David.” But with 48 comments on the Klinghoffer thread, mine will get drowned out even more than usual. And here it is:

    You “Goliaths” who are addicted to the word “creationist(s)” listen up! There really is only one “creationist” that matters, and his name is David Klinghoffer. Why? Because he’s either the first one who “figured it all out” or the first to admit it. Which is that “Darwinists” are right about the science – not just what “RM + NS” can do, but the whole ~4 billion years of common descent. The problem is that acceptance of that by the “masses” leads to all sorts of evil behavior. You know, as if “all is permitted.” So it’s mandatory to lie about it.

  7. …the incredibly complex cell…”

    Wonder if he misread or misspelled “irreducibly.”

  8. Need proof that podunk dust bowl news rags have no journalistic standards and that drooling morons scribble on their pages? Read David’s little piece and savor the comments.

  9. A Mathematical Proof of the Existence of God:

    I know God exists because science can’t logically explain whether the Axiom of Choice is true (a mathematical impossibility – that is, an explanation of the Axiom of Choice being true, as well as one of it being false.)

  10. I can’t get the comments to show, even if I switch off Ghostery (which on one pass showed the Oklahoman page as having 37 — thirty effing seven! — trackers and other privacy invaders. You can always tell the “Christian” sites, can’t you?

    Anyway, if you have a moment to share some of the Comedy Gold from the comments, I for one would be immeasurably grateful.

  11. @realthog: “NewsOK does not enable comments in response to letters to the editor.”

    Alas, that would have been fun.

  12. My favorite prophecy is the one where JC tells the twelve that some of them will not “taste death” before the coming of the kingdom of God.

  13. @Mark Germano

    “NewsOK does not enable comments in response to letters to the editor.”

    Yet waldteufel (see above) was obviously able to “savor” the comments. What gives?

  14. Me, I rather enjoy Ezekiel 26, where the prophet, a crazy old man, tells us that “Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon” (v7) will beseige and conquer the city of Tyre, enter its gates, put its people to the sword, and plunder it. Read it. It’s all there, with relish, purple prose gushing from every orifice.

    It must have looked like a pretty good bet at the time. Only it didn’t pay. Nebuchadnezzar beseiged the city, all right, but the seige failed. Tyre didn’t fall to him.

    Having been caught uttering a series of gigantic whoppers, is Ezekiel repentent? Does he reflect that maybe he’s got it wrong, that God isn’t actually talking to him? Does he bollocks. At 29:18 he says, unblushing, that “no gain from Tyre accrued to him (Nebuchadnezzar) or to his army from their campaign.” But guess what? God was giving him Egypt instead!

    Only that turned out to be a crock as well. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t conquer Egypt, either. That was done by the Persians, later.

    I’ve had fundies tell me that the prophecy of Tyre falling was fulfilled when Alexander the Great took the city, three hundred years later. Garbage. The prophet named Nebuchadnezzar, said he was the one who’d do it, and he was wrong. The prophecy was false. It didn’t happen.

    Deuteronomy 18:22 applies. This is not a prophet, and his divinations are lies. Oddly, ol’ Zeke is still in the Bible. I think it might have something to do with his chapter 23 – hottest stuff in holy writ.

  15. Are theists just lazy? Why, one wonders, if he believes everything must obey the law of cause and effect, is their god exempt?

  16. Why is it that, even when I was in grade school and had yet only learned the Genesis version of creation (old-earth version) that when the teacher started rattling off names like Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar that my mind started wandering to other subjects?

    Anyway, as usual TomS gets to the point. Radical fundamentalists always like to bait-and-switch between “a god” in general and their particular cartoon caricature than many (most?) Christians and Jews reject. We must never miss an opportunity to call them on that every time. And never take the bait and suggest that “no evidence for any God” is the same as “evidence that no God exists.” Free will itself is the ultimate mystery. The more we look for it, the more we find “something else,” namely the “chance and regularity” that Dembski tries to rule out – with another clever bait-and-switch.

    Whether one starts with “God exists,” “God doesn’t exist” or “I have no clue if God exists or not” and follow the testable “what happened, where, when and how” of life’s history, one arrives in the same exact place, namely evolution, and ~4-billion years of common descent. “Scientific” creationism figured out the trick to follow the evidence “backwards.” But in the process it makes a colossal political mistake as well as the colossal scientific one. That is, trying to “prove” a particular god, and a particular origins account (always one of several mutually-contradictory, long-discredited one). ID avoids the political mistake at least by taking no official position on the designer’s identity or “what happened when, etc.” Unfortunately we make the political mistake when we claim that ID “really means Genesis and it’s cartoon god.” Sure that’s what they want their fans to infer, but what we need to show is how the games they play strongly suggest that they are peddling what they know ain’t so.

  17. That may be true of the leading creationists, who are just bilking the suckers–but there are plenty of bilkables out there, simple souls who don’t understand either science or the Bible but know which one promises that they’ll live forever in paradise and everyone they dislike will get theirs.

  18. @Eric. I’m specifically referring to ID peddlers. There are no “rank and file” IDers as there are “rank and file” YECs and OECs (the “bilkables”). For the latter, and maybe even some peddlers of those quaint (compared to ID) pseudosciences, there may be honest belief of one of the mutually-contradictory scriptural accounts, but when you ask them enough questions (unfortunately almost no one does) nearly all of them eventually admit that they don’t really think that independent evidence supports their position (at least not yet), but that they think that scripture overrules any inconvenient evidence.