God on Trial
(written in haste)
mankind is responsible for many a great farce. Perhaps the greatest spectacle ever inflicted upon the
world was when the theists, the atheists and the agnostics put God on trial.
Many years earlier, a bill was introduced, and in it discussed the necessity for a proper definition of God, so that it may or may not be included in
the legislative process. The scope of the bill was debated, and it was agreed that just in case, such a definition wasn’t such a bad idea. After
referring the bill to committees and various think-tanks, the motion was put forward to have a trial in which God was to be proven.
The results of this trial were to become consensus and law, which would in turn define God’s place in society as decided upon by the judges of the
highest courts. Cases would be argued by those fluent in arguing about God: the theists, the atheists, and the agnostics. If the theists were to have
their day in court, and the judges were convinced that God existed, the word God would be used throughout the legislative process, and the Bible would
be authority. If the atheists put forth the better argument, and the judges were convinced that God did not exist, he would remain absent from any
legislative process and society, free from divine authority. The agnostics were against the trial altogether but were strangely one of its most vocal
proponents; and wanting to have their non-opinion of God heard and thus mandated, sought to have their day in court, even without any specific outcome
in mind. Any other opinion would simply be unheard.
God was subpoenaed. Because God has no fixed address, mass prayers were set up to pass on the message.
The debacle began on the world stage with all manner of bourgeoisies, politicians, pundits, celebrity and intellectuals tweeting their predictions
upon the hungry masses. The outcome of this case was sure to set off a domino effect across the world. The fervour invoked ideological violence
amongst fundamentalists—blood was spilt; and in the more passive-aggressive violence of liberal herd tendency, group-thought inspired movements took
to the streets to bang drums and wave pithy signs in a display of indignation and enthusiastic esprit—property was vandalized. People of all walks
of life revelled in dogmatic opposition, at the same time losing their humanity in a fit of ideology. All this in preparation for the proceedings.
The logistics of such a trial was immense, and of course, no expense was spared, with intellectual, emotional and rhetorical currency being syphoned
from more practical interests and concerns to the vain-glory of such a spectacle. Each faction involved put forth their brightest minds, scientists
and rhetoricians, who, while previously concerned with the important goings on of the world, would go on to focus their energy, talent, and life-long
study on to what they must have rationally concluded were more important matters, that being the attempt to prove once and for all the existential
reality of our favourite deity. Stocks plummeted. Industry ceased.
The trial began on a Sunday, after church. Of course, it was televised.
The theists entered, represented by various priests, scientists and intellectuals of varying monotheistic religious denominations. Because of the
sheer variety of denominations, there were many of them, leaving their differences aside while unified in the conviction that God exists. Atheists
followed, represented by the most vocal of atheists, consisting of people who had spent most of their time arguing the non-existence of deities on the
internet. The agnostics wandered in last and took their seats as sure as possible.
Court proceeded and the factions would begin their preliminary arguments. A representative of the atheists, a physicist, spoke first.
“Honourable justices of the court, we are prepared to supply any and all scientific data ever compiled. Upon our own scientific analysis of said
data, there has never been any indication or evidence of a supernatural being governing the states of affairs in nature. Of course, if such a being
were to prove itself today in this courtroom, there is room for it in our scientific data and model of nature, but until that void is filled, there is
no reason to suppose that it is actually there in the first place.” The atheist cleared his throat.
“The first piece of evidence we’d like to bring forward is this rock.” A large granite stone was brought in and placed on the desk.
“This rock is a product of natural processes and law. The theist simply refuses to interpret the evidence. Evidence shows that this rock’s
existence has been formed by geological processes such as plate tectonics and climate. Further, this rock is evidence of nuclear synthesis in the
early universe, which predates the account of creation as told by such canons as the Bible by billions and billions of years. The rock is, in fact,
existing as it is due to the Laws of conservation, atomic structure and electron interaction, and is the result of a long chain of causal occurrences
that extend back to the beginning of the universe.” He looked to the other atheists for assurance. They nodded, some of them stroking beards.
The physicist continued. “The stone is, therefor, evidence of many things, but none of it is evidence of anything more than the laws of nature, with
no evidence of God present.”
An agnostic yelled, “Objection your honour! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!”
“Overruled.” said a judge. “Absence of evidence is exactly evidence of absence, especially in the face of no evidence of presence. Please
A marxist smirked. “Thank you, your honour. That is all we have at this time.”
A bomb exploded outside and many were killed. Court was adjourned until the situation was sorted, and the mess was cleaned up.
On return, and after a light lunch, a theist, a man of muslim faith, began his argument.
“Honourable justices of the court, we are prepared to supply any and all evidence of God’s existence. We are quite sure that upon presenting this
evidence a reasonable conclusion in our direction can be met, only to be vindicated by God himself when he takes the stand.” Court waited as the
muslim paused for prayer, the first of many such delays. After finishing, he continued.
“The first piece of evidence we’d like to call forward is this rock.” A large granite stone was brought in and placed on the desk.
“This rock is product of God. The atheist simply doesn’t know how to interpret the evidence. The laws of conservation state that particular
properties of certain systems do not change as systems evolve. Because this is the case, and much evidence supports this, then it would go to show
that the laws of conservation themselves do not change. And because the laws of conservation do not change, following that logic, there must be a law
conserving those laws, a greater constant, something with enough power to set those laws in motion, and to continually enforce their constancy
throughout eternity, while maintaining its own. The law I speak of is God, and natural laws are but the hands and fingers of God.”
edit on 29-4-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)