Poor Rev Dick!
Published:Sunday | September 26, 2010 | 12:00 AM
The Editor, Sir:
I hope that for the sake of his flock, Reverend Devon Dick doesn't prepare sermons like the article he wrote on September 23, chastising atheists, like me, for being irrational in our non-belief in his God!
Rev Dick claims that "God brought himself/herself into being". If he was thinking when he made that statement, he would have realised that it is a nonsense argument. If that statement is true, where was his God before He brought Himself into existence? Is the Rev saying that before He brought Himself into existence He was not in existence? Or is it that He can be both at the same time, seeing that He is supposed to be able to do anything?
Then the goodly Rev tried to claim that "there is no laboratory proof for or against God". However, wouldn't it be good if there was even a single proof for his God?
Orderly universe?
One of the arguments used by theists like the Rev is to point to what seems like our orderly universe. However, how do we know that our universe is orderly? When we define something as being orderly, we do so based on a comparison. Do we have another universe to compare this one with to say that this universe is orderly? This reality that we all exist in is all we know, and, for all we know, it could be very disorderly!
Anyway, what the Rev seems totally unaware of is the fact that his God is very contrary and could not be real. One of the things that make Him impossible is His infinity. For one thing, when did this infinite God begin to create everything that the Rev attributes to Him? This may sound like a simple question, but there can be no answer for Rev Dick's infinite God.
You see, every act must have had a previous act that caused it. So, when the gentleman's God created everything, He must have thought about it first. That thought must have had a cause, which in turn, must have had a cause, and so on. See where I am getting to here?
The infinite God of the Rev could not have had a first cause that eventually triggered His act of creating everything. If He could not have had that first cause, He could not have created the universe.
Burden of proof
However, I wouldn't want to waste too much time on the Reverend's very weak arguments against atheism. What I would want to point out to him is the fact that his challenge to atheists like me, to prove that God doesn't exist, is both impossible and irrelevant. Impossible because a non-existent entity cannot be proven to "not exist", and irrelevant because the burden of proof rests with the one making the positive argument - in this case, theists.
If someone comes to you and says that the Earth has two moons and not one, it is not so much for the one who is contesting that claim to disprove it. The burden of proof would rest with the one claiming that there are two moons. If he can't prove the claim, then he can be ignored.
It is clear that the Rev was not thinking when he wrote that article. I would strongly advise him to think first before putting finger to keyboard!
I am, etc.,
MICHAEL A. DINGWALL