Sunday, March 14, 2010

a supreme being

As today is the Sabbath, or at least, the Sabbath for a portion1 of the Christian population2, it may very well be a good time to discuss a supreme being. I realize this is a controversial topic, and one which could very easily get me afflicted with acute lightningitis, but still, in the interest of completeness, we must infuriate all peoples on all topics, and ensure any woman considering returning my phone call(s) refrains from feeling guilty of her avoidance mechanism(s).

Back in the good ol' days, when you could claim divine guidance while conquering empires, the big question was whether the supreme being wanted you to conquer the whole world, or just a portion. On the contrary, the big question that gets asked these days is whether or not the people who believe in a supreme being are completely nuts.

This is the wrong question. Obviously. This question alone is evidence that there do, in fact, exist stupid questions, contrary to what your second-grade teacher told you. She was also wrong to insult you in front of the class by berating your chalkmanship on the blackboard, but that's another story.

It's a silly question because the answer is contained within the question. As a general rule, all people are crazy. That's one of your basics.

So let's take a step back from the intellectual melee, and analyze the evidence that argue both sides. Without examining what type of supreme being may exist, let us first ask, does a supreme being exist?

Evidence for: The law of gravity is perfectly balanced to allow for the creation of long-lasting stars that produce heat and energy for enough time to allow for the evolution of complex life on revolving planets. A little more force, and the stars would burn out too quickly, a little less, and stars wouldn't form.

Evidence against: I really had to go to the bathroom the other day, and there was no toilet paper.

As you can see, neither side has an obvious advantage. The law of gravity may very well have given us stars, but we can all agree it is extremely uncomfortable to be withheld a toilet. Let us examine other evidences.

Evidence for: We find ourselves on a planet that contains chocolate, beaches, flowers, beautiful women, orange juice, and the paragon of all phenomenality: the internet.

Evidence against: The nearest substitute restroom that day was clogged with toilet paper.

Oh, the irony! The willful workings of the universe against my relief! I see the evidence against piling up and overwhelming the evidence for. Let us give the debate one last chance.

Evidence for: I had the thought to take toilet paper from the clogged bathroom, and transport it to the un-papered bathroom, thus combining the two misfortunes into one amazing prodigious fortune!

Evidence against: This was obviously way too embarrassing to actually do.

As you can tell, there is no satisfactory way of resolving this debate. Some people will interpret evidence in one way, while others will cruelly insist I "get over myself".

I wish you luck as you decide what you believe.

1. Seventh-day Adventists: we know. You worship on Saturday. No need to remind us. We still like you.
2. A family member of mine who shall remain unnamed is affiliated with Methodists, Catholics, and Baptists. If only she were thinking, she could have gone for Islam and Judaism for two of the three, and scored a permanent 3-day weekend.

No comments: