In the letter, Michael makes it clear that he once was an atheist (we all are born atheists, so that's honest!) and that his sky fairy friend is much happier if Michael worships him than if Michael doesn't worship him. Michael skips over the "proof" of his invisible friend because it is "self evident". It may very well be self evident to people who are interested in seeing/feeling invisible entities. It is not self evident (and it completely lacks evidence) to me.
What I find bothersome about the whole letter is the title that was published in the paper - "SHOWING ABSURDITY OF ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE". There are few things as absurd as believing:
- in a being who can (supposedly) do anything but fails to stop suffering
- in a being who (supposedly) killed almost everything on earth (flood)
- in a man living in a "giant fish" for 3 days
- that a 600 year old man built a boat for his family and 2 (or 7) of every animal on earth
- people lived to over 900 years old
- the earth is only 6000 years old
- absolutely anything without a shred of evidence in support of but mountains of evidence against
Michael's primary argument is that logic is transcendental - (The Transcendental Argument for God). The problem (as with most of his arguments) is that they are based on unproven (disproved) base assumptions. The premise must be proven before the argument can be made. Start with proving god, Michael, or your arguments are circular (at best).
Michael Shoesmith fails to recognize that logic is clearly something that evolved into being. Other animals display logical behaviour (and both humans and animals display illogical behaviour). It seems that his invisible friend gave dirty (and clean) animals logic also.However, transcendental would mean that logic is absolute where it is not. "Logical" conclusions are only "logical" based on the available evidence to support it. Many years ago, many would have claimed that it was illogical to assume that man could transport itself (and hundreds of others) through the air. Today we see commercial air travel as not only possible but a "given" in the "logic" of today.
What Michael also fails to realize is that science continues to advance and update theories and, with such updates, alters conclusions that were once "logical".
Michael then returns to his "proof" of God's existence and how one can go about getting such proof of this invisible being (that fails to exist).
Michael, Michael, Michael - if logic is a gift, why have you failed to open it? Logic relies on evidence and you have failed to provide a shred of evidence in support of your (illogical) beliefs.
What "God" are you referring to? Please do define your god, Michael. Is your earth only 6000 years old, did Noah build a boat at 600 years old and was there a world-wide flood less than 6000 years ago? Did your god create this earth in 7 days? Did humans walk on earth with dinosaurs?
When it comes to "absurdity", Michael, you take the cake.
You have to write a letter to the editor. I saw the letter in the paper on the weekend and I am frustrated that such nonsense gets printed.
YES, someone please write a letter to the editor of this stupid paper that prints michael's CRAP!
If the name of the author wasn't published, I would certainly write but there are tooooooo many theist idiots out there that are tooooooo scary for me!
Yes, facing the wrath of the christians is something I'm hoping to avoid for the short term. It won't be too long before I "come out" but until then, I'll leave the letter writing up to someone else.
The Observer will post anything. They are starving for letters or any material at all. Hence the recent "Moon the Balloon" media hype nonsense. As long as Michael Shoesmith keeps writing, they'll keep printing. But they'll also print rebuttal letters too. Get your pen handy.
You really have no idea what logic is do you? Please educate yourself so that you do not further the harm you have already done to your readers (all three of them). Logic has always had the same validity regardless of anyone's ability to comprehend it. Comprehension of logical realities has been increasing over time... but logic has never been less logical no matter how far back in time you go. To suggest anything else shows an obvious lack of education on your part. Logic has not evolved over time. I hope you regretted writing that. I would delete that if I were you... I don't believe you are that silly.
And by the way, I need not prove the existence of God... only to point you to the door of the prison you and your fellow atheists have built for yourselves so that you can see for yourself that the narrow minded view of the philosophy of naturalism is a cage without locks or gaurds and you can simply walk out into the truth and be reached by God... who loves you and your friends very much.
Awesome! Michael Shoesmith proves, yet again, that building an argument is not a simple thing for him to do.
Logical abilities have evolved - the point to which we can use logic to make decisions, too, has changed. (Great linguistic gymnastics, by the way.)
Either way you look at it, it is not evidence for an invisible sky fairy.
And, by the way, you DO need to support your claim with some evidence or proof or we will continue to point out the absurdity that is Michael Shoesmith.
Post a Comment