Yeah, yeah, I know I said I was done for the day, but I just got back from a 5 or 6 mile bike ride(Home Depot seems a lot closer by car) and something crossed my mind while I was waiting for that runner's high I hear so much about.(I'm inclined to think it feels an awful lot like angina, but I'm just guessing) Anyway, if I might parse from that wholly remarkable book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
My question is this: does proof deny faith? And if so, why? Is it written somewhere that if God were to give unambiguous proof of his existence that man would cease to believe? That seems rather counter intuitive to me. It seems more likely that it is a rationalization by the faithful to make those of us who require a bit more than the words of superstitious nomads who lived 2-6 thousand years ago shut up. I want to believe, and if an angel were to show up here in my living room right now and show me unquestionable evidence that there is a God I'd be the first one in line at the communion plate next Sunday. Now don't get me wrong, I speak not to disprove what anyone else has spoke, yet I am here to speak what I don't know. Any opinions?
Secondly, and lastly for today, can anyone explain why Starbuck, the Kitten of the Apocalypse, rushes into the bathroom every time I get out of the shower meowing and purring as if to say, 'Thank Bast you're ok! I thought I lost you that time!"?
Ok, here endeth the lesson. You are now free to roam about the firmament.
Marius the Puzzled