Pandaemonium

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR A DIVINE UMBRELLA

TWO SEVEN-YEAR-OLDS IN THE BACK OF THE CAR DEBATING GOD: 

C: I don’t believe in God.

A: I do.

C: So where does he live?

A: In the sky, of course.

C: So why have astronauts never seen him?

A: They were probably too busy doing things.

C: No they weren’t. They’re always looking out of the window in a rocket.

A: How do you know?

C: I’ve seen Apollo 13.

A: Apollo 13?

C: You know, where they say ‘Houston, we’ve got a problem’.

A: So?

C: Well, they’re always looking out of the window. And they never say ‘Houston, we’ve seen God’.

A: Maybe they couldn’t see him because of the clouds.

C: Is that where he lives then? In the clouds?

A: Yes.

C: So what does he do when it rains?

Merry Christmas all!

4 comments

  1. Gabriel Andrade

    Ah yes, ad-hoc hypotheses all along; astonishingly, lots of people reason as A… it reminds me of Antony Flew’s (an atheist hwo became a deist) invisible gardener. Merry Christmas to you, Kenan.

  2. you cannot “see” what you are not looking at and you won’t “see” what you are not looking for – AND- as Meno pointed out:

    1) how will you inquire into a thing when you are wholly ignorant of what it is?

    2) Even if you happen to bump right into it, how will you know it is the thing you didn’t know?”

    isn’t ALL language used to define ALL forms as an ad hoc hypothesis?

  3. Dear windblower – of course these are all ad hoc hypotheses – and they have a history, a development, a regression and progression and unless you accept that our human ideas come from a Voice In The Sky (along with the tablets of the law etc.) then they are the best ad hoc hypotheses we have made up so far. Enjoy the reindeer urine along with Santa’s gifts? Hey Ho!
    TomR

Comments are closed.