On his "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, Colorado Republican state Rep. Gordon Kilngenschmitt offered up a scientific test that can prove the existence of God once and for all.
Responding to a recent interview in which atheist Richard Dawkins said that he would change his mind about the existence of God as soon as someone shows him some evidence, Klingenschmitt eagerly took up the challenge.
"You want evidence of God?," he asked. "I can give you evidence of God. In fact, I'll show you God; all you've got to do is repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and invite him to come into your heart. Now this is a scientific method. I'm giving you step A: you repent; step B: you believe; step C: you invite Jesus Christ to come into your heart as Lord and Savior. Follow that scientific method and I guarantee you will see Jesus Christ."
Those who refuse to follow this "scientific method," Klingenschmitt explained, will never discover the proof of God's existence because they have have not "followed the method that works."
"You want evidence? I'll give you evidence," he said, "but you've got to do what Christ commands."
37 comments
At least he didn't cite the Bible as evidence. Probably because he doesn't understand what "evidence" actually is, but hey, it's not like he's going to actually produce any, anyway.
Step A: I am a law abiding citizen, and don't have much to repent for.
Step B: One does not choose to believe. convince me or I will disbelieve.
Step C: A person setting up shop in my chest is not conducive for a healthy living experience, or even a living experience for that matter.
Also. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, YOU MORON!
That this boils down to: If you'd just believe you'd believe. Doesn't phase some of his audience at all, they think this is a solid argument because their brains have been corrupted.
Don't believe in the legends of Leprechauns? Just believe it, despite no evidence except personal testimonies.
Don't believe Gordon? There you go.
"You want evidence of Allah?," he asked. "I can give you evidence of Allah. In fact, I'll show you Allah; all you've got to do is repent and believe in the Lord Allah as your Lord and Savior and invite him to come into your heart. Now this is a scientific method. I'm giving you step A: you repent; step B: you believe; step C: you invite Allah to come into your heart as Lord and Savior. Follow that scientific method and I guarantee you will see Allah."
Or you could drink a lot. You'll see god, or maybe pink elephants.
"step A: you repent;
step B: you believe;
step C: you invite Jesus Christ to come into your heart as Lord and Savior."
For HOW many is this gonna come to a screeching halt at step B?
They won't believe until they see some evidence and, they're told, they won't be able to see the evidence until they believe.
So, you have to believe, or else the evidence will not appear? Kinda self defeating, it is not evidence, then.
""You want evidence? I'll give you evidence," he said, "but you've got to do what Christ commands.""
Somehow, that reminds me of what the party preached in 1984.
So in other words, believe first and then you'll see evidence everywhere. I wish Christians could understand how incredibly stupid this sounds. That's not how it works, since we need to see the evidence first in order to believe that he exists. Klingenschmitt is putting the cart before the horse.
@Doubting Thomas
I'm a christian and I understand how stupid this argument is. When I read the comment, I thought it was hilarious because that is how religion not science works. Growing up I was told that it was not possible to make a person believe in Jesus. All you could do was talk to the person and leave it to God to convince them.
So, I will believe when I get evidence, but to get the evidence, first I have to believe?
That is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the scientific method.
As a person of faith, I feel I must say this...
THAT ISN'T SCIENCE!
What in the blinding blue fuck made you think that 'just do what I say and blindly follow' is scientific? And good scientists don't withhold evidence of their claims, they share it freely in the hopes of either validation or truth (ideally, anyway).
How can you not know better than this?
"You want evidence of God?," he asked. "I can give you evidence of God. In fact, I'll show you God; all you've got to do is repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and invite him to come into your heart. Now this is a scientific method. I'm giving you step A: you repent; step B: you believe; step C: you invite Jesus Christ to come into your heart as Lord and Savior. Follow that scientific method and I guarantee you will see Jesus Christ."
...ah, the tried & tested (but not subject to peer review ) Avoiding the Question technique.
Because you know what the only possible way is to prove we Atheists wrong; and we demand to be proved wrong:
image
...but then, the only ones who would be proved wrong would be you fundies: when you can't do the above. Your 'God' certainly can't. Ergo...!
Not a lot to ask of a supposed 'Omnipotent ' being, I must say, eh Gordon Clingonschitt?
A rainbow doesn't physically exist, yet can be seen , so you've got some proving to do, fundies; the burden of proof , and all that jazz. Otherwise, why is the world so secular ...?!
"You want evidence of God?," he asked. "I can give you evidence of God. In fact, I'll show you God; all you've got to do is repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and invite him to come into your heart. Now this is a scientific method. I'm giving you step A: you repent; step B: you believe; step C: you invite Jesus Christ to come into your heart as Lord and Savior. Follow that scientific method and I guarantee you will see Jesus Christ."
Yo Mr. Doctor Chaps, your method fails. I did that once, but I no longer am a follower of the Christian god. Scientifically, your method fails horribly.
Cool. But before I believe, I need serious evidence. For example, go to your local hospital, find an amputee, lay your hands on them, and regrow their limbs.
Oh, surely you didn't think that I could believe some absurd claim without hard evidence, did you? I don't think you guys understand how this works.
To get proof of god, you must believe in god first?
...
That explains why a lot of creationists don't know how to think scientifically, I suppose.
"but you've got to do what Christ commands."
So, it looks like you're wearing mixed fabrics and working on the Sabbath.
Are you really sure you want us to do what the bible commands?
"but you've got to do what Christ commands."
So, it looks like you're wearing mixed fabrics and working on the Sabbath.
Are you really sure you want us to do what the bible commands?
Mathius_dragoon
The’ll serve you the same compassion-less answer I’ve seen and heard times and times again: “you never truly believed in the first place”. Followed by sentences that makes as much sense as wookie speech.
And they won't understand when this blatant show of disrepect, which contradict their own belief (understanding, compassion), will fail to convince you.
Actually this will probably confirm them in their own view because it will show "you just won't listen".
... The mechanism of fundie-ness (whatever it is about) is so predicable and so depressing.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.