This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.

Comic 1 - INTRODUCTION, Page 1

13th Oct 2013, 1:00 PM
INTRODUCTION, Page 1
Average Rating: 5 (1 votes)
<<First Latest>>

Author Notes:

alschroeder 13th Oct 2013, 1:00 PM edit delete
This will be a weekly monologue, every Sunday.
Many of you may know the arguments I am about to present, the evidence I am going to cite—many will not. (I don't know if it's ever been presented in comic form, save for a passing reference in Alan Moore's PROMETHEA.) I do NOT claim this is original, and when I know the source I will attribute them–sometimes.
This will take a while. It'll be a few weeks before I get into the meat of the argument, and it will probably be a year or so, at weekly updates, before I get to the closing arguments. Maybe more than that.
Some things take some time to explain. Sorry.
This will be apologetics without apologizing. If you are offended by religious discussions, this is not for you. If you are bored by science–this is not for you, either.
You'll see.
I'm hoping to make this the anti-Jack Chick tract. I am going for–in graphic form–a reasonable case for a Creator, not threats of damnation or the inerrancy of a religious tradition. ANY religious tradition.
I know this will be mocked mercilessly. And hey, this is the Internet, I'm okay with that (like I can stop it?) but I do ask you link back to this.

Comments:

KAM 13th Oct 2013, 1:11 PM edit delete reply
KAM
Reading this I was reminded of an essay by Mark Twain (unfortunately the name of the essay escapes me), but in it he compared the Bible to a pharmacy with lots of poisons (fire & brimstone, etc.) but also the strongest medicine of all... love, and he wondered why more people don't use that instead of the poisons.
dougwarner59 1st Dec 2013, 2:23 PM edit delete reply
dougwarner59
Please tell me this is a conversation on the existence of a non-biblical God. Because there is no amount of science that can logically explain the biblical God to me.

Note: I think you should change your title: to scientific proof of God, or something like that, because I almost skipped over this post.
alschroeder 2nd Dec 2013, 2:29 PM edit delete reply
This case I'm making here is JUST for a Creator. Period. It could be Jehovah, Ptah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whether I make a further case narrowing it down (Mortimer Adler, in his TRUTH IN RELIGION, made some inroads on this on purely logical grounds, narrowing it down to some religions more likely than others) would be a further project.

And....vis-a-vis the title: I'll take it under advisement, but sometimes the soft sell works best, and there's a difference between a reasonable case and conclusive evidence without anything to dispute.
Christopher 13th Jan 2014, 2:10 PM edit delete reply
I do not believe in a god. Wich does not means none exists.

But I highly doubt that any of the gods as writen in Religious Texts exist. The core books of any religion are written by people. And not even the people who had those experiences or witnessed those stories, but people who lived a century or more later and decided "that goes in, that is wrong and never get's in".
Then those books have been translated multiple times (propably faulty; just look here: http://www.rense.com/general45/islamafter.htm). And partially rewritten (like the late addition of Suicide as a Sin to the bible, to prevent serfs from escaping a miserable existence).

I find it absolute possible that god really was there, he told the people then how the universe actually is (Atoms, Suns, Planets, Galaxies, Elemental Forces) but the people didn't get it. And then those responsible for Editing the Bible 1.0 never wrote it down.
Indeed I think that scenario is more likely then half the stuff being written in any religious text to be true.
And equally likely that he just didn't care about that one species at all.
A Nuran 4th Aug 2014, 7:56 PM edit delete reply
1) You don't break your teeth on theodicy
2) You avoid all the usual logical pitfalls such as argument from incredulity, special pleading, moving the goalposts, pathetic fallacy, appeal to consequences, begging the question and so on
3) You seriously entertain the possibility of more than one god, gods who aren't some variation of an Abrahamic Invisible Sky Wizard
4) You treat Pascal's Wager as the sucker bet it is
5) You consider the possibility of gods in a Creatorless cosmos
6) You don't privilege the Christian Bible

That's just for starters. But best of British Luck to you.
A Nuran 4th Aug 2014, 7:58 PM edit delete reply
By the Pope's own estimate about one in fifty Catholic clergy is a pedophile. That is not a "relatively small number". That is huge.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28282050