HEADLINE: DEVIL’S ADVOCATE DEFENDS EXISTENCE OF GOD(S) ON ATHEIST WEBSITE

I get around, especially on the Internet. I always knew that the Internet was an example of a finite construct containing an infinite object: stupidity. I also know it contains as much information as misinformation. But a collection of humanity's musings is bound to be entertaining, if not educational. But recently, I also discovered the logic to prove that infinity could be contained, or at least represented finitely. To explain how I arrived at this hypothesis, I have to explain the infinity I want to expose.

Being an internet junkie, web designer, software developer, novel author, and poet laureate (for my website anyway), I have absolutely no time to spend dealing with stupidity. Stupidity being so prevalent, I'm bound to encounter it (if not dispense it myself) from time to time.

"’Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so’' ‘Very deep,’ said Arthur, ‘you should send that in to the "Reader's Digest". They've got a page for people like you.’"
[Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_]

Lack of free time aside, I do try to participate in many online communities that offer discussion groups. You will soon discover I have many tastes (if not personalities), many of which conflict internally. I'm an Aquarius, get over it. But I digress (often, forgive me.) These differing viewpoints of life are evident in the types of discussion groups I read. I post even on even fewer, writing taking longer for me than reading, so I save my rants up for good use.

Through my virtual travels, and actually thanks to an article I wrote espousing the virtues of religious tolerance in America based on quotes by Thomas Jefferson, I received a note from a fellow author named Solomon Tulbure. I should have known when he declared that Jefferson was a member of the Illuminati, as Tulbure also claims to be, that I was about to go on a wild adventure indeed. I followed his link to his homepage, and from there I read about his recently published book, Christianity Exposed. Being an agnostic, I like to think I have an open mind. Being prone to stupidity, I decided to find out more about the book.

The title alone alerts you that he is an Atheist hell-bent to awaken the world to the lies spread by Christianity. His website and related discussion board are set up to proclaim Solomon as an master debater, ahem, I mean he claims to be willing to debate any Christian, any time. He prides himself that many have agreed to do so, but have later changed their mind. (Read on, you'll soon understand why.)

"...Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons."
[Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_]

Myself, I've never debated professionally or in school. I consider myself a Devil's Advocate -- someone who sees and can defend both sides of a story. This set me up for a lot of fun in Tulbure's forum involving the existence of God(s). The message thread began with weak, if not comically embarrassing, evidence for God, based on the female witnesses to Jesus' resurrection and the prophecies involving the Messiah. Tulbure jumped in, as did many other members of the group, attacking the original post's misogynistic views. A rough start for a thread entitled "God evidence right here, it was laughed at on another board but here goes".

But, other members posted, in my humble opinion, very interesting theories in an honest attempt to engage Tulbure in a debate. Tulbure did not demonstrate proper debating skills, or even decent writing ability. (I'm no expert, but even I know that an author and forum host should not degrade his readers.) As the ignited fuse inched nearer to the powder keg, Tulbure completely alienated a fellow reader. Ka-blam! Poisoned pen in hand, I wrote a reply full of my disgust with our host. Here's a sample:

"Solomon has written a book. (Ooh) Somehow managed to get it published even. (Ahh) This gives him a God-complex. (He's even admitted to it in this thread.) To suit his own ego believing he is somehow omnipotent since he has beaten God, he challenges us to prove him wrong. When he has a point that successfully attacks his opponent, he seems quite capable of posing it. When he is threatened he takes a defensive stance. Either he refuses to debate and refers to his book, derides his opponent with slurs ("moron" being his favorite), or says the discussion is over.

It is obvious that he expected that this would BE his fan club, and not a forum for intelligent debate about an oft-debated topic. He does not understand why his opponents can come back with more discourse because they have been educated to have Faith that God exists. His position of Logic to defeat Faith is pointless."

There's no point in quoting Tulbure, because most of his posts aren't but two sentences long; one of which declares the recipient to be a moron. Truly bad form, I wouldn't even call it immature. I'm sure I'll be next person he points out to be intellectually inferior.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
[Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_]

Cleaning my fur after retracting my claws, I must have still been expecting a second round. I should have never jumped to the next topic, "Science found God?" This topic started interestingly enough. It was not a review so much as a preview of an article in the December 2001 issue of Readers Digest entitled, "Searching for the Divine", by Vince Rause of the Los Angeles Times Magazine.

The article presents a theory suggesting that we are "hard-wired to believe in God" and explains that some research shows "how brain function could produce a range of religious experiences, from the profound epiphanies of saints to the quiet sense of holiness felt by a believer during prayer." The ultimate claim is that religious feelings "are born in a moment of spiritual connections, as real to the brain as any perception of 'ordinary' physical reality."

I would have been more than happy to begin a discussion of how the human brain can manufacture everything from dreams, to comatose visions of white light tunnels. Humans can write parables and historical works, which handed down through generations become scripture. A debate would have happily formed and I would have enjoyed reading neurological vs. psychological vs. spiritual arguments. But instead, Solomon turns in his educated insight, without sources: "That article has been dubbed as ridiculous, since the area of the brain in question is responsible for emotions of all/any kind."

I was fully intending to state a similar position, and then I realized that meant I'd be defending his side. I may never learn, but at least I had some fun:

That's like refuting an article detailing "a discovered area of the brain that is capable of having the revelation that 2+2=4, and it is a universally shared observation" MUST be ridiculous because that same area also can calculate that 2x2=4 and is responsible for calculations of all/any kind. The earth-shattering epiphany that 2+2=2x2, and therefore n+n = 2 x n is irrelevant to you! You would admonish, "but n+n != nxn, so your theory is invalid, you have no proof, you're a moron!"

I'll just say, "I have Faith that infinity + infinity = infinity x infinity, since infinity is Infinite, Boundless, Incalculable, Immeasurable... Immortal... ILLOGICAL!" You will never be able to prove it is right, or wrong, but simply try to wrap a plastic Vulcan Logic around a boundless constant, pick a side of the fence and sit there.

I felt good about my place in the Universe, my Faith that it is Infinite, and therefore nothing is impossible (some things are just less likely to happen.) Where does that leave God? I don't know, but it sent me on a tangent. What is "infinity"? I have felt inspired by the late Douglas Adams (can't you tell?) that I decided to visit another forum, though this one is unique. Based on Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the BBC has continued one of his projects online. I am one of many Researchers for the Guide known as h2g2.com. I decided to visit and lookup up "infinite universe". I found many articles, but one entitled Proof that the universe is infinite struck my fancy.

The anonymous author attempts to describe the endless nature of an infinite universe with a simple mathematical example:

Try to divide 10 by 3 and write the answer out on a sheet of paper... You should run out of paper, or at least have a sheet covered in 3's (footnote: "Unless you're really bad at maths") and so this number must be infinite in length, as it can never quite reach a stopping point.

Now if this number must be infinite then it couldn't be contained in a finite universe because you would eventually reach a point where everything in the entire universe has the number 3 on it and there would still be more 3's to add on. Apart from imagining the universe's largest case of graffiti in the history of time itself you have also shown yourself that the universe must be infinite.

I loved the visual, as I am familiar with this example. A pocket calculator will display a three, a decimal point, and as many more threes as its finite liquid crystal display can manage. Thanks to the mathematical acceptance of "rounding", 3.33 is sufficient to denote the value, as long as an approximation is tolerable. Our friend is correct, though, that the decimal number system has no chance of representing this result exactly.

However, I replied to his message because, "maybe I'm bad at maths".

You see, 10 divided by 3 can be expressed with finite precision as the following:

a) 10/3 (aka, ten-thirds)
b) 3 1/3 (aka, three and one-third)
c) in long division as 3R1 (aka, three with a remainder of 1)

One-third of any finite object is still a finite object (just two-thirds smaller.)

But what I wanted to know was, what is one-third of an infinite object?
a) infinity
b) infinity less two-thirds of infinity
c) infinity.3333333333333333333333333333333333..... (ad infinitum...)
d) all of the above

I finished my post in DNA style, and then realized I had a "Babel Fish" moment! (Another Adams discovery, that provides a comical proof of the non-existence of God.) I shall now apply the same logic to prove the Existence of God. It goes like this:

Since any finite number divided by a finite number results in a finite number... (10 divided by 3 equals 3 1/3, for example) but a possible result could be expressed by an infinite decimal representation... (3.33333333333333333... threes ad infinitum...) infinity can be represented finitely!

Therefore, if God is Infinite, It can still exist within the hearts and minds of humans, which are most certainly Finite. Q.E.D.!

Next I'll prove black is white... ::stampede of zebras approaching, Solomon Tulbure riding at the head:: Oh no, not again.

In Memoriam, Douglas.
Don't Panic!

(C) Copyright 2001 Daniel Shaurette, all rights reserved.

Dan Shaurette lives outside of Surprise, AZ, USA with the only people on the planet who can tolerate his ramblings on a daily basis. Besides being a Researcher for h2g2, freelance web designer, software developer, author, and all-around good guy, he was recently ordained as a minister by the Universal Life Church. He doesn't ask for much, except the right to believe what he wants, say what he believes, and quote everyone else whose eloquence surpasses his.
Visit: AquariusChurch.org

"Can't we all just get along?"
[Rodney King]

As Dan has too many websites that he maintains, too many message bases he visits, and too many email addresses, he humbly suggests, should you like to find out more about him, that you visit his main website: