The God Premise

So, I decided that I wouldn't post another blog until I search the subject using Google's Blog Search. And I had an idea for a blog post, but the blog I found on the subject really didn't say everything I wanted to say. So I decided to blog about it.

First, I thought about the Ten Commandments, and how they are found in Exodus 20. But really, and this is something I recently learned, they are also found in Exodus 34. They are also apparently different. I found this blog performing an analysis on the two sections of scripture.

So, if you're reading this, and you probably aren't, because practically nobody reads my blog, then you might be asking yourself one of two things. 1) Is the analysis in the above blog secular or 2) is the analysis of the above blog religious. And right now, you might be asking yourself, well, what is the difference?

Enter "The God Premise". See, Dawkins didn't have it right. He shouldn't have called it the "God Delusion", he should have called it "The God Premise". Well, I guess it really depends, doesn't it? Can you be logical and still be delusional? I guess it really depends on the meaning of the word delusional, doesn't it? Wiktionary probably could give us an *idea* of what the word is "supposed" to mean, but really, all words are just agreed upon symbols pointing to some inexplicable thing, right? Anyway, basically, according to the definition of "delusion", you can't really prove "The God Premise" false, and thus is isn't really delusional. But, here in lies the problem, the definition of "delusion" may not be comprehensive enough, and in all fairness to Dawkins, the Flying Spaghetti Monster also can't be proven false. So am I delusional for believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster Premise? I think most rational people would say "yes" or "who cares"?

Well, here's the big problem with "The God Premise", it is impossible to prove it wrong, and as such, it is futile to attempt to prove to someone who adamantly believes in it that any of the scriptural support that they use as proof substantiating their belief in The God Premise as false because The God Premise will fuel their apologetics to the point of inanity. I haven't heard the apologetic for why Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 are actually saying the same thing, even though they clearly appear not to be, but that may be because I just don't have enough practice taking scripture out of context in order to substantiate my belief in The God Premise, nor do I have very much imagination or even desire to try, probably because I doubt The God Premise. I also find it rather challenging swimming through out of context references to biblical scripture to substantiate all kinds of crazy stuff. You know, like it's okay that God ordered the death of women and children, and yet God is still moral. Or how it's okay to stone people for breaking the mosaic law. Or how it's okay for God to burn you for not "believing" in something. I mean, that's not even something you did, that's something you think. Or how he can entrap you, not explain the reasons for why he's doing it, and when you fail, punish you and all of your descendents and also the animals that unluckily inhabit the same planet. But I know it's just a matter of time before the apologetic is constructed, and if it isn't constructed, it may not even matter, because the question of Exodus 20 vs Exodus 34 can simply be ignored, another "awesome" tactic used by individuals who believe in "The God Premise". Maybe if I have time, I'll try to deconstruct biblical apologetics for "fun". Yeah..."fun".