This is one that theologians have so far missed, but was concocted and tw**ted by the atheist philosopher Maarten Boudry (h/t to Peter):
The Argument from Embarrassment
January 4, 2015 • 10:26 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Subscribe
sub
sub
Sub
LOL. That’s the most convincing argument for Yahweh non-appearance I’ve seen.
*Yahweh’s
Yeah I thought the same – the most convincing argument yet!
Reminds me of Theater of the Absurd! I’d add that as women are more sensitive than men, in general, that said embarrassed deity is likely female.
Naaaaaa, a woman wouldn’t mess us the world that badly!
Whoops…mess UP
Is there no way to correct errors after submission? There should be.
According to Hindu thought you’ll come back for another shot at it in the next life. Or something.
Sorry, but you’re the gazillionth reader to ask that, and WordPress has no feature that allows it. If you make a really bad error, email me and I can fix it.
God actually was very ashamed at his creation at one flood incident juncture as I recall lol.
Since God is timeless, then he is still ashamed. So yep Maarten is on some solid theological ground IMO.
Now there’s an oxymoron….
b&
It can’t be said to be solid ground in the way you or I could be said to be on solid ground. More like the very reason solid ground is solid ground at all.
You mean…the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in the atoms of the ground and the objects that don’t fall through it?
b&
God is repulsive. You nailed it.
It might still be too soon for “nail” jokes when speaking of the xtian theology.
Well, it is the thrust of the matter….
b&
Just trying to hammer home the point.
His embarrassment has been compounded by the repopulation of the planet with the same kind of people he drowned. For an omniscient being, he’s sure is a moron.
Maybe he just can’t find Earth. Argument from Forgot Where The Earth Was.
He needs that voyager sketch.
That’s understandable if he’s doing similar experiments all over the universe … OMG, I’ve invented the Many Worlds Interpretation of Theology. I can haz Templeton?
I’m reminded of that adage about the definition of insanity…
As I recall, A&E sinned because they became knowledgeable about Good and Evil because they ate some fruit from The Tree of the same name. (Or did they sin because they disobeyed God?) Would they and their descendants inescapably have always done Good had they not eaten the fruit? If there’s no knowledge of (the difference between) Good and Evil, could they have done Evil but not know it, and therefore be blameless? Once they ate, they became aware of their nakedness, and were ashamed. Ergo, we should be born with clothes on, apparently.
If this is to be taken as imagery and not literally, what does “eaten” mean? And if the tree is purely imagery, how did they come by this knowledge? (My church was pretty fundamentalist, so I quite easily-enough took it literally.)
One more example that religion makes you stupid. L
Good one!
Of course, the nonexistence of the Babelfish is also conclusive proof of Jehovah’s nonexistence. After all, we know that the Babelfish is, itself, perfect proof of his existence — and, therefore, his nonexistence — so, by extension, the fact we haven’t actually got any Babelfish must therefore be proof of his nonexistence — and, therefore, his existence.
Wait…what? And what’s with the funny white lines on the pavement?
b&
Must be a she…This he stuff is bogus.
s/h/it.
lol
Henceforth my pronoun of choice.
🙂
+1
yes, luv it. (s)he is incomplete!
It’s their own doing. They ( theologians at least ) insist on a god so devoid of real attributes that it’s alienating to itself.
With the rise of science they can no longer define “Him” into existence and at the end of the day they’re left with an it, objectively speaking. Instead they’re in the process of re-defining Yahweh out of relevance.
I think maybe they’re forgetting that s/h/it is a product of men and therefore need to reflect that in order to gain traction. Hence the uselesness of their endevaour, imo.
“…s/h/it is a product of man…”
In more ways than one!
Pretty much in every way, I would say.
I don’t think there were many women on the board. 🙂
Re the pic Ben linked – that’s a very good fake. Anyone know if the bar code means anything?
If you look closely you can see that they match the lines on the logo in the upper left of the picture of Art Lebedev. It’s just advertising.
Well spotted! 🙂
Religion is intellectually offensive.
And epistemologically void.
It must be about time for the fire, right? No more floods.
It’s jaguars next time, I heard.
As in, we all get a car?
Is Oprah god?
Check under your seat.
Is that where s/h/it hangs out?
In Australia we get them alternating. God never kept his promises down here.
‘I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his abilty’. Oscar Wilde
Reblogged this on Laying Faith to Rest.
Oops. I’m relatively new and did not realize that re-bl*gging a post would automatically leave a comment with nothing but a link. My apologies. Did not mean to violate Da Roolz.
That’s not a violation of Da Roolz, as far as I know. It is just a consequence of the Laws of WordPress.
On the other hand, JHWH, Osiris, Zeus, Odin, etc., etc., may have been engaged in a contest as to who could create the funniest humanoids and how long it would take for them to wreck their environment and destroy themselves.
Embarrassment saves! who would have thought.
Well, if Ken Ham was my representative, I’d hide my face too.
Omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence being the uncontested features of God, He never would create something leading to His embarassement and leading Him to remain hided. Hence we don’t exist.
The argument fails as an argument for the existence of God because it affirms the consequent. But it works as a defeater for the problem of divine hiddenness. Give that man Templeton money!