The Incontrovertible Existence of God

I keep a cheap paperback dictionary by my desk for simple spelling and usage reference. In it, I found:

"God (god) n. 1. God, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching."

The entry goes on for a while after that. Better dictionaries have much longer entries, and there are plenty of conflicting ideas in the various dictionary definitions. But let's start with the first one, which I've quoted above.

I didn't research the matter at great length, but I did look into a bit of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching, and lo and behold, there was the idea of God, the creator and ruler of the universe. God, therefore, according to the first definition I found in the first dictionary I opened, does, in fact, exist.

Now this is, I'll admit, all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there is a serious point to be made here, one whose consequences are seldom explored by the mental juveniles who waste everyone's time with their dull rehashing of the pink burden of unicorn proof, or whatever other pet syllogism they might fancy.

To start with, God exists as an idea so widely recognized as to have its own word, with that word appearing in just about every general reference book you can find. God as idea exists just as surely as the ideas of love or negative numbers or extraterrestrial intelligent life exist. Moreover, if we sift through reference books for a while, we find that god exists as a particular type of idea; God exists as an ideal. God, in this aspect, exists as surely as human rights and international law and feudalism exist. Finally, God can be said to exist as a living component of society, as an ideal or collection of ideas that many people currently try to organize their lives around, though there are variances in the interpretation from one nation or component of society to another. In this last regard, God exists as surely as Democracy exists.

To prove that God exists in this manner, as a sociological or anthropological artifact, one need only open a newspaper. Since I am in a somewhat playful mood, I will now coin a term to refer to acknowledgement of this socially defined existence of God, a term calculated to infuriate some of the more infantile evangelical atheists I've run across: weak theism.

This incontrovertible existence of God, this easily observed sociological phenomenon, has nothing to do with the sort of material or physical God that immature atheists are so eager to debunk. Interestingly, accepting this phenomenological definition of God gives acknowledgement of God's existence exactly the sort of predictive power that stubborn atheists are so fond of demanding. For example, if we acknowledge the sociological existence of God, then we can predict, for example, that a new abortion clinic will meet with greater protest in a community where God's existence is more strongly expressed.

In fact, a great many self-described atheists admit to weak theism when they bemoan the countless atrocities committed in the name of God throughout the centuries. To fault belief in God for these acts is to admit the existence of God as a powerful ideal capable of directing human affairs.

Now there are, I suspect, many theists who would regard this description of weak theism as heresy, not least because it describes God exclusively in terms of Man. There are probably a few people out there who mean to imply nothing more than weak theism when they claim to "believe in God," but I suspect most theists have a broader conception of the almighty.

There are, regrettably, those who insist on the existence of a material God. They posit a hand on a lever behind the Big Bang, or a vast conspiracy of atoms, whispered behind Heisenberg's screen, or perhaps an unseen thumb on the quantum scales, tipping the random into the deliberate. I will not say that believers of this ilk are idiots, but in addition to providing the figures on which the bleating atheist children model their men of straw, they engage in an activity that I suspect is exactly what is cautioned against when one is advised to avoid attempts to know the nature of God. We might refer to belief in a physical God in nature as materialist theism.

In addition to the weak theist and the materialist theist, there are a great many theists who, while they don't seek to place God in nature, do believe that God has some greater meaning or reality. After all, God to the weak theist is more real than a unicorn only in the sense that God represents more, and to more people, than the unicorn. The unicorn exists as well, of course, as a widely understood mythological character, but the breadth, complexity, and currency of the unicorn are far less than those of God. Similarly, the pink unicorn quite clearly exists, but its existence is even less consequential than that of the unicorn, as the pink unicorn, existing solely (and ironically) as a rhetorical device deployed by unschooled atheists to demonstrate nonexistence, lacks the extra symbolic attributes of the more mythologically grounded non-pink unicorn.

For those who regard God as something beyond a more current and vastly more complicated unicorn, there are many avenues of belief available. At this point, I'd like to nod in the direction of the dual nature of the phrase "believe in," meaning both "consider to be real or credible" and "put one's faith or trust in." I will make no further note of this, as it is surely familiar ground by now, but it might be interesting to keep the dual meanings in mind in what follows.

To many theists, belief in God is belief in absolute (though perhaps never perfectly known) morality. It is belief in a discoverable right and wrong. Theology, to such a believer (and comparative religion too) is, in large part, an ongoing effort to more closely approximate our human understanding to that absolute. In such a context, to say that one "believes in God" might imply that one believes that the human ideal can be approached through the study of and devotion to God.

There are many other non-material definitions of God, and countless means of extending weak theism to lend greater significance to God. I will not describe or even attempt to list these possibilities, but I will outline one that ought to appeal to the wankers who spend too much of their time composing point-by-point rebuttals to post on the inter-worldly web-net.

The particular extension of weak theism that I have in mind is one implied by the very first words of the Bible. If we take the notion that in the beginning there was the Word, and that the Word was God, then we might situate God in the act of communication, or even go so far as to define God as language itself. In this conception, to place God above the material world is to place communication before object. An agreeable moral code might be built on this foundation, though I'm sure there would be some quarreling over the details.

Those who are uncomfortable pondering anything beyond the material need not feel left out of this little study: consider Physics. In modern physics, it is thought by many that the four fundamental forces of the universe might all be explained by the emission and absorption of particles (indeed, only gravitation is in any doubt); in other words, the forces of the universe can all be attributed to a single basic form of communication. Thus, according to our definition, particle exchange would be the manifestation of God in the physical world.

Please do not mistake that last wanky notion for my own belief, as I am hardly prone to such pop-science nonsense in my personal theological musings. Indeed, the origins of this short essay lie in a contrarian exercise, one which I felt obligated to take up after a bit of goading provoked an adequate response. Though the issuer of the initial challenge, sadly, does not seem to be able to meet the terms of his own game, I would encourage those who are able and willing to continue in the original spirit of the exercise.

	A few uncanny thoughts. (none / 0) (#1)
	by Uncanny Vortex on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:42:04 AM PST

	...implied by the very first words of the Bible. If we take the notion that in the beginning there was the Word, and that the Word was God... Actually, those phrases are taken from the first words of the Gospel of John. Perhaps your knowledge of Holy Writ is a bit lacking. I believe that the starting point for seeking god is to utterly throw aside all preconceived ideas, organized religions and "holy" writings -- then focus on the notion of right and wrong. What makes it wrong for someone to rape and murder a helpless child? What makes it right for someone to feed a starving person? From whence did we humans get our internal sense of justice, of propriety and morality? Of course it comes partially from societal conventions, learned behaviors, taboos, and parental conditioning. However, there are core values and morals which have been shown to be innately human, outside of such influences. By understanding why these values exist and what they are, one begins the road to understanding the concept of god. I truly believe that each person who seeks will discover a different notion of god, based in part on their own persona and their conditioning. Perhaps they are all right, but I doubt it. Each human-worshipped deity has its faults, its human-imposed characteristics, and its limits. That is why theistic understanding has to start with the questions of morality and ethics, which ought to transcend all systems of religion. Not through the religions of the world, and their concepts, can god be found or understood, and not through cold logic. Only the liberated conscience, only the heart can understand, and never the mind. -- Uncanny Vortex

	So lets just clarify it then. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by dmg on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:19:02 PM PST

	That is why theistic understanding has to start with the questions of morality and ethics, which ought to transcend all systems of religion. Is is OK to eat pork ? To turn a light on on a Saturday ? Must I eat fish on a Friday ? Should I circumcise my son or not ? Is pre-marital sex OK or not ? I would expect to get the same answers from all you humans out there, if UVs theory is correct. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Morality is not utilitarian. (none / 0) (#3)
	by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:28:17 PM PST

	I think even the modern-day Pharisees will agree with me on that point. -- Peace and much love...

	Basic concepts. (none / 0) (#6)
	by Uncanny Vortex on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:51:17 PM PST

	In discussing the basics of morality, I was not referring to petty questions of religious practice, nor questions of societal acceptability such as that of extramarital sex -- especially given the fact that marriage is itself a societal and religious institution. There are some core values that, it cannot be denied, exist in all humans to some degree -- and those values have nothing to do with religion or social norms. Fish sticks on Friday and such are not core moral values. Helping someone in need, when possible, is a core value; not killing needlessly is a core value; the basic milk of kindness (such as sharing with others) is a core value; knowing that it is wrong to physically abuse or torture another person is a core value. These are just a few examples, and each one may have exceptions and controversy which may surround it at any given time, due to the nature of each situation. However, nearly every person can agree on a few basic morals (love, kindness, etc.). Those who cannot are either incredibly narrow-minded, or are too high-minded to grasp the simple truths of this universe. -- Uncanny Vortex

	Where we get our sense of morals (none / 0) (#102)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 08:29:21 AM PST

	Its pretty damn simple. As intelligent beings we can imagine ourselves in another persons position. There's no Godly intervention about it. We see a starving man and we think "That must be terrible to be like that". By imagining that mans position we feel terrible ourselves and so we decide "lets give him food". This is to make us feel better too. Normal people believe murder to be wrong simply because we can put ourselves in the victims shoes and imagine the suffering. We feel terrible when we imagine what it's like and so we dislike murder to a point where we call it wrong. From all this stems our concepts of Good and Evil. Murderers are evil - charitable people are good. That's what I love about the 10 commandments - "Thou shalt not kill".."Thou shalt not steal"...its all stuff that people knew was wrong before.

	It's a shame... (none / 0) (#103)
	by derek3000 on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 08:50:52 AM PST

	there was no Godly intervention to keep you from hitting the post button twice. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Blame that on adequacy (none / 0) (#122)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:07:21 AM PST

	Seems that when u dont enter your password it simply posts under anonymous reader.

	If you asked... (none / 0) (#104)
	by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 10:02:51 AM PST

	a random sample of people why murder is "wrong," I doubt the first answer you'd get is that it's because they could put themselves in the victim's shoes and feel his or her suffering. And why do we feel terrible in the first place? That is to say, what is the impulse that makes us feel bad and where does it come from? As for the concepts of good and evil, they are slightly more complicated than you think.

	I believe guilt is Biological to some degree. (none / 0) (#110)
	by JoePain on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:27:31 PM PST

	Although to prove this I would have to administer the necessary drugs which would rid people of their 'guilt reaction' if I may and make them sociopath... While the smart ones would exist in society almost unknown because they would fear the potential consequences of such actions (but not feel guilt as you described) the dumb ones would probably make a blunder and break a law (meaning commit some dreadful behavior) and get caught. Both would be 'able' to commit the sin. What would enable these people to commit these acts to begin with? Would simply having access to 'the thought', that is 'being conscious of that possibility' be enough?

	Yes. (none / 0) (#118)
	by Illiterate Bum on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 10:59:30 PM PST

	"Being conscious of that possibility" is more than enough, as far as enabling these people to commit "these acts." That's just simple logic, man. Perhaps you meant "why do these people commit these acts to begin with?" ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

	Hello? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:46:04 PM PST

	Maybe I should have chosen a stronger title? The article actually shows that God exists. Maybe it was too subtle for you? Here, I'll summarize: God exists. Do you get it now? Let me know if you need any clarification. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	No way! (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:28:11 AM PST

	You impress me! God exists, but juast as an idea. So what? It has no consequences whatsoever. "Zeus" is just an idea, one of a big muscular guy sitting on a mountain, throwing lightbolts. Therefore Zeus exists. So what? Piotr Krehbiel "God is dead" - Nietzsche

	I really don't care about why. (none / 0) (#145)
	by JoePain on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 06:31:43 AM PST

	That's for them to tell their lawyers. I want to know how they're capable of committing the crimes. So you believe that once they're conscious of the potential for the act they'll act? I don't believe that's true. As I've said before an intelligent individual, moral or not, will consider consequences prior to commiting to the behavior. A calculating psychopath will act only after he determines the risk- the probability of receiving punishment * the level of punishment, or some such thing.

	A question (none / 0) (#124)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:53:39 AM PST

	If 99% of the world population was given your "guilt-ridding" drug then is murder evil anymore? Sure, the 1% minority would say it was but its the majority which decide such things. You raised an interesting point there: What drives a guiltless person to commit an evil act? Well normal people have guilt and fear of consequence to prevent them commiting murder, for example. A psycopath would only have the fear of consequence to stop them. How effective this is at stopping them all depends on the level of consequence.

	But it is still valid. (none / 0) (#117)
	by Illiterate Bum on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 10:45:10 PM PST

	Let's assume that much of individual morality is based on logic. When we make a moral decision, we logically reason why we will make/made that decision, giving no regard to how vague or concrete the reasons might be, i.e. "I will not steal because of my ethical standpoint" is just as valid and logical as "I will not steal because it is against the law" or "I will not steal because I might get caught." It follows a logical train of thought, and most of us will go through a number of these thought processes before coming to a final decision. A major turning point in the psychological development of a child (according to Jean Piaget) is the idea of reversability, or seeing things from another's viewpoint. Along with such concepts as conservation and object permanence, reversability plays a major role in simple logical deduction, from which concepts like abstract thinking and symbolic interpretation build upon. So yes, if we asked a random sample of people why murder was wrong, than we would be given a myriad of different answers, with reversability more likely than not being low on the list. But by that point (assuming, of course, that we are asking a group of normal, functional adults and not, say, pre-adolescents) it is safe to assume that most of this random sample is at a point of cognitive development where such concepts as reversability and conservation are done on the sub-conscious level. We are so used to these processes that they are done automatically and unaware, while we engage in higher modes of thought like asking why. For example, when we see a horror movie (a good one, not the tripe that's being fed down our throats today), reversability is sub-consciously kicking in. We feel the apprehension and fear that the "victim" feels, and when said victim dies a gruesome death, we recoil because we can imagine what, say, getting slowly decapitated by a chainsaw would feel like. But never are we consciously thinking "I feel this fear and this disgust because I can place myself in the victim's shoes." No, most of the time we just say, "Damn that scared the hell out of me," and move on (there are exceptions to the rule, but I'm sure we can agree that the majority of the population works this way). That's also why if you placed a child in front of a horror movie before a solid sense of reversability is established (roughly between birth and six for most of the population) you wouldn't get as much of a response as from a teen, if any. So when we think of why murder is wrong, we automatically go through the process that says "murder is wrong because I wouldn't want that happening to me," and proceed to come up with a definition that is more equal to our cognitive level, like "murder is wrong because killing without justification is inherently evil." We think "damn I wouldn't want my throat slit" and move on (taking a page from Lawrence Kohlberg's book) to think on a conventional, or for the special few among us, post-conventional level. As for where "the impulse that makes us feel bad" comes from, you could argue (using the stance as stated above) that a large portion of it comes from the reversability factor. We feel bad when we, say, steal because a part of us says that we wouldn't want that happening to us. Then the upper functions of the brain kick in, giving us a better justification of why we feel bad (usually making us feel worse), built on (place name of moral origins here- social mores, religious influence, God, parental guidance, etc.). We feel bad because we broke the law. We feel bad because we acted against the moral codes that we built for ourselves. We feel bad because we could've stolen something much better. So on and so forth. But is good and evil more complicated than the parent poster would indicate? I think that we'll leave that to another time, as this has become monstrously long as it is, and it is a question best left to philosophers and theologists, and not mere sociology majors like myself (though it would be interesting to take a stab at it...). ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

	nice (none / 0) (#125)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 12:05:43 PM PST

	that was a good read. Very clear and enlightening. Sociology always interested me but unfortunately like so many things that interest me I have to focus on my own subject instead. I didn't know it was called reversability but ive thought about it before but always fail to describe it. I thought your horror movie anology was brilliant at showing it.

	You're over complicating the whole issue (none / 0) (#123)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:43:47 AM PST

	You're asking the question "why do humans feel that murder is wrong?" Most people will just answer "because it is" without having analysed WHY human beings actually feel this. So questioning people on the street is just going to give ignorant answers and not the truth. The impulse that makes us feel that murder is wrong is nothing magical or spiritual. It's entirely physical and forms a prime part of our survival instinct. On the most basic level of human thought is individual survival mentality. We dislike discomfort and we dislike suffering to ourselves. There is also a fear of death itself although this is caused by more complicated reasons. We try damn hard to avoid death, discomfort and suffering. Now if someone is murdered then our intelligent mind kicks in. First we notice that the murder caused suffering, discomfort and death to the victim. Then our brain correctly calculates that murder could easily happen to us also. The brain is good at that - we can't predict the future but we can guess all sorts of possibilites - not just the likely ones either. So now we know that there is something painful, which causes suffering and death and it could happen to us. So naturally we don't like such a thing. We want to be rid of it. We could therefore class murder as "Bad" for ourselves. Human society is all about order and coexistance. If the majority of humans think murder is bad and want it eliminated then no wonder laws are made against it. Evil is just a label made up by society to describe someone or something which causes or commits things that most people find bad or disturbing. It's certainly not a univeral constant. For example we all agree that murder is Evil and yet the Aztecs performed sacrifices that they believed were Good. In the same way most Americans think murder is Evil but many would call the murder of Bin Laden Good. So Good and Evil are actually on a more mundane level than our feelings. Basically if we don't like something then calling it "Evil" is over-generalising. It implies that everyone finds that thing bad. But there are always two sides to everything.

	No, I don't think so. (none / 0) (#148)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 10:39:06 AM PST

	To me, what makes murder wrong is the extreme selfishness and pride that accompany that act. When you murder someone, you are in essence saying that their money/your obsession/your convenience/etc. are more important than their lives. And you are playing God. So at least for me, the impulse that makes murder wrong is inherently spiritual. Whether the baser emotions come into it or not is thus secondary at best, and unimportant at worst. Evil in its strictest sense is not just a label that society agrees upon, and to call it that is ignoring a significant part of what it means to be human. Everyone has the capacity for evil within himself; to ignore that is to close your eyes to reality.

	So.... (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:34:58 PM PST

	What you have in fact done is labelled a social phenomenon, the idea of god, "god". And since you have labelled the idea of god "god", you have proved that "god" (the idea of) exists. So what does this article actual show?

	I am not worthy. (none / 0) (#7)
	by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:06:26 PM PST

	May I kiss the ground you walk on, pretty please? -- Peace and much love...

	Way! (none / 0) (#48)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:45:22 PM PST

	Are you completely out of touch with world events there, Skippy? When was the last time a suicide bomber set out with his heart steadied with thoughts of Zeus? The existence of God is, in fact, deeply consequential. Frankly, I think you probably read my article too quickly to understand it. Go back and read it again, pausing every so often to consider what you have read. I will not answer any more childish, belligerent demands for a "point" when I have in fact already provided you with more than you seem willing to think about. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	so what you're saying is (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 01:14:44 AM PST

	That because a lot of people believe in god, or act in the name of god, god must exist. Again, I'm not entierly sure you're correct: If a lot of people believe in god, or act in the name of god, then the idea of god clearly exists. but no more can be proven by this argument. Similarly, a rather large proportion of acient greeks believed in Zeus and the other gods, and acted in their names. Zeus exists as an idea as well, this cannot be denied. The only difference between Zeus and your god is your idea is more popular at the moment.

	Are you still here? (none / 0) (#61)
	by RobotSlave on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:23:51 AM PST

	Again, you are attempting to impose your own definition of God rather than consider the one I have offered. This is apparent when you again refer to God as a mere idea, when I have clearly gone beyond that, and then whine that "no more" can be proven by this argument. By "more," you probably mean something nice and solid that an empiricist might comfortably set about measuring and testing with ocilloscopes and thermometers and whatnot. I'm afraid that's not how this works. There is, in fact, quite a lot "more" that could be done with this argument. It could, for example, be used to address the Problem of Evil. If you weren't stuck on step one back there, crying about the notion of God as idea, then you might be able to contemplate the complications of applying an ideal to a living society. Here's another difference between Zeus and God for you: widespread belief in Zeus died out, but widespread belief in God has not, despite several upheavals in society. Why do you suppose that might be? I ask only to encourage you to begin considering God as an ideal as well as an idea. From there, we might be able to get you to a point where you can begin to understand the argument I've laid out. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Did you (none / 0) (#75)
	by S on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 04:42:16 PM PST

	recently read the novel "Jitterbug Perfume", by Tom Robbins?

	Yes (none / 0) (#106)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:15:21 PM PST

	"you again refer to God as a mere idea, when I have clearly gone beyond that" I seem to have missed that part somehow... Please give this definition. Quoting the main article: "This incontrovertible existence of God, this easily observed sociological phenomenon, has nothing to do with the sort of material or physical God that immature atheists are so eager to debunk." sociological phenomenon == idea. You just proved that god (yahweh in particular) as an idea exists. Nothing more, nothing less. "Here's another difference between Zeus and God for you" The first one being...? "Widespread belief in Zeus died out, but widespread belief in God has not, despite several upheavals in society." Widespread belief in Shiva or any other Hindu deity lasts longer than the belief in Yahweh. Is that supposed to prove that Yahweh is just a rip off from "real" Hindu gods? Or maybe all gods, current and past are just equal idea, that come and go? "I ask only to encourage you to begin considering God as an ideal as well as an idea." Whats the difference? Longman dictionary tells us that an ideal is "an idea of what something would be like if it had no faults or problems". So it's just an idea. Piotr Krehbiel "God is dead" - Nietzsche

	How dare you. (none / 0) (#129)
	by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 03:56:37 PM PST

	A sociological phenomenon is a mere idea? Are you completely insane? That's tantamount to saying that the Holocaust, or any other event in history motivated by belief, is just an "idea." If you don't understand what the phrase "sociological phenomenon" means, then please don't use it. Sociological phenomena can be studied by gathering evidence. The fact that the subject under study is the behavior of human societies does not reduce the facts under discussion to mere ideas. The first difference between God and Zeus, and the one implicit in mentioning them separately, is that of their names, you intellectual cripple. After that, we can look at the differences that you yourself brought up, differences in idea, in particular Zeus's mountain, and his "lightbolts." Only then do we proceed to the point where I offer another difference between Zeus and God. As to your lamentable attempt to drag Hinduism into this: Where in my argument did I say that the relative age of particular gods had any bearing on this? Thank you for quoting Longman. Ever so helpful. Did you notice the fact that even Longman added a few bits on top of "idea" to get to "ideal?" That even your precious Longman defines an ideal as something more than a mere idea? Never mind the fact that you deliberately chose a definition at odds with the sense of the word as used in the article. You are, after all, flailing around in the boggy mire of your own incoherent thought, and it is only to be expected that you will scrabble and grasp at anything in your attempt to escape from the muck. The fact that your vigorous thrashing about is only causing you to sink faster is sad, but ever so predictable. You could at least have set up Plato as your straw man in poking at the notion of an ideal, but that would require you to have read and understood Plato and his critics, which is plainly way to much to ask of a miserable little knee-biter such as yourself. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this comment, in whole or in part, without express permission of the author. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	you didn't really (none / 0) (#50)
	by nathan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:08:02 PM PST

	Ever read Nietzsche, did you? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Of course he hasn't (none / 0) (#59)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:32:05 AM PST

	Why would anyone who'd read Nietzsche's works or knew anything about his life use that hoary, out-of-context quote?

	It's still a nice parable, (none / 0) (#60)
	by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 07:56:52 AM PST

	about the liberalist bourgeoisie killing off God. I think it would be a fine quote for use in response to anything 'Slave or Refutation write. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	"God is dead". (none / 0) (#89)
	by tkatchev on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 12:37:46 PM PST

	"Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live forever". (I can almost see the hellfire in the lower-right corner of the poster.) P.S. "Fortunecity" must die a horrible death. -- Peace and much love...

	Yawn (none / 0) (#113)
	by caffeine on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 03:06:01 PM PST

	God exists - Very compelling argument. Your article doesn't show God exists. I merely points out the blindingly obvious point that God as an idea exists. You don't need to prove that God is an idea or that God is an Ideal. Of course the idea of God being Ideal exists. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the idea didn't exist. I doesn't prove anything, except your grasp of the obvious.

	Yawn (none / 0) (#114)
	by caffeine on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 03:08:45 PM PST

	God exists - Very compelling argument. Your article doesn't show God exists. It merely points out the blindingly obvious point that God as an idea exists. You don't need to prove that God is an idea or that God is an Ideal. Of course the idea exists. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the idea didn't exist. I doesn't prove anything, except your grasp of the obvious.