At times when dealing with someone who wards off simple truths with oddly complex arguments, it can be helpful to illustrate that same argument in a different way. I had an opportunity to do exactly that when observing a conversation on Twitter between a Christian apologist and an atheist. The typical points were raised: there is no scientific evidence for God, evolution is a better explanation of our origins, Christianity is about money and control over the “sheeple”, the Bible can’t be used as evidence, and who would want to believe in such a wrathful God anyway?
Below is one way to illustrate the absurdity of those challenges. If we relate the universe to the Twitterverse, this is how those arguments would sound. The twitter account names have been replaced with “Christian” and “Atheist” in brackets.
[Christian] perhaps you should reconsider your belief in the existence of [Atheist]. What looks to you like an account from an intelligent being operating outside the Twitterverse is more likely the result of a process of continuous evolution giving the appearance of intelligence.
A better explanation is that Twitter has evolved an ability to respond to environmental stimulus more efficiently than its competitors such as the Blogosphere, Tumblr, WordPress, etc. This evolutionary advantage has helped it multiply its accounts at a far greater rate than others. These findings make it clear that no explanation other than the normal interaction of electrons manipulating common alphabetical codes is necessary.
Another possible explanation is that the followers of this being known as [Atheist] are skewing the data in their favor, perhaps motivated by money-grubbing or to exert control and influence over other tweeters.
The only proof anyone has yet offered that he actually exists are words which claim to be written (or at least inspired) by him. Obviously they were fabricated by his followers. Why should anyone believe their claim, especially when science can account for these phenomena by appealing only to the known operation of semiconductors instead of some mythical Tweeter? If his followers wish to claim that anything outside the Twitterverse actually exists, the burden of proof is on them, not us.
Finally, why would anyone actually WANT to believe in such a mean, vindictive Tweeter? Many who still believe the existence of such beings find it much more satisfying to follow a more friendly, less judgmental one.
