October 5th, 2011
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. This comic began to exist.
3. Therefore this comic has a cause.
4. You must buy a book.
There’s a 15% discount on USD purchases until Friday with the code
It’s the logical thing to do.
UPDATE: Kenan Malik riffs on the philosophical background to this strip in God, the universe and a bacon sarnie.
As usual, genius! And I might add …. therefore no masturbation?
Genius indeed. Therefore whatever we say. It’s only logical.
People are so willing to sell themselves out for the illusion of certainty.
1. I have written this comment
2. Therefore I am an author
3. So all your base am belong to me
Do to the existence of fools
The less stupid invented rules
To keep ignorant swine
Somewhat in line
Like a deservedly beaten mule.
What a ridiculous presupposition. There is no Time, therefore there is no ‘beginning’.
In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed? [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]
Wait a minute. What does Mo have against Kevin Bacon?
I am, therefore I masturbate!
i like this one 🙂
i like this cartoon 🙂
everything’s better with bacon or chocolate or bacon and chocolate
especially gay sex
Brilliant! You hit the nail right on the head with this one.
Even if the existence of some “Prime Mover” was proved real *cough* *bullshit* *cough* it still wouldn’t mean any of their dogma and insanity were right.
awesome! Finally I get it! It is so unspeakably logical! 🙂
Confusion of logical causes and temporal causes — very common in conversations spanning thousands of years over multiple languages that themselves are changing on the scale of decades.
That’s why most philosophy is bunk — you can’t sustain conversations over those scales without being reduced to idiocy. Religion is just the pop-culture version of philosophy.
@random ntrygg: agreed (though I think bacon – sizzling hot – and maply syrup – thick and very cold – are even better) ^_^
damn… maple syrup, of course…
I used to go to a crepe shop and get them to make me an “Elvis” crepe – it had peanut butter, bananas and bacon.
I think “Therefore, no bacon.” would make a dandy t-shirt (or coffee mug or whatever).
with “or gay sex” on the back
how come your links open an additional link to facebook too?
@xznofile What do you mean?
…cover your damn hair… …the women are required to cover their hair… …Mo’s hair is covered… …Jesus is a top???
@Sondra: Not certain I understand your deduction… you mean, someone taking on a feminine role in a queer relationship is automatically a bottom? Or all women are bottoms? Or m2f TVs are? Or only tops favour femminine TVs? Or would that just be Christian tops? Or what is the connection between Mo’s drag and Jesus’s dominance? ^_^
(On an unrelated note: Would Jesus, had he really lived, been the first Christian… or had he just been a somewhat heretic jewish Rabbi who caused the whole mess?)
Brilliant comic, as always. My version– http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/10/06/therefore-jesus/
@Cuttlefish – very, very good! I’ve saved it for future reference!
every time I go to your site, an additional secure page opens to facebook I was going to include the url here but it might include a virus or something. I’ll send you a link if you contact me through my email. 🙂 does any one else have this problem?
@xznofile – not me.
@xznofile – I don’t see that either, but I *am* using a fairly tightly screwed down version of Firefox (note: not FreeFox!)
@FreeFox, these particular versions of Jesus and Mo have expressed their opinion that the missionary position is the only acceptable one. If Mo is in drag, can he be other than a bottom with the only person he ‘sleeps’ with?
It’s late,so I probably haven’t looked properly. How do I see older cartoons without having to Back through all the ones I’ve already read? I want to read them all, of course!
quantum mechanics prooves the first premise false, subatomic particles exist on a level of probablility and do not have a “cause”. Funny how they take what they want from modern physics (“P2: the universe began to exist (ie. Big Bang) but then ignore it for P1 in order to get the answer they THINK is going to get them to “god”).
Even if we ignore the problem with the premise, the entire argument is a logical fallacy, known as the Fallacy of Composition, which is to assume that a set must NECESSARILY have the identical properties and characteristics of the members of that set. A brick wall is a set and the members of the set are the bricks: yes the wall is made of mud, gravel, etc. but it is NOT the same weight and length as an individual brick!
We didn’t conclude that the universe began to exist because we saw that there are things in it which begin to exist. We concluded it from all our observations specific to cosmology. Equally, we can’t conclude that it had a cause because things within it that begin to exist have a cause because that may not apply to the set…which it doesn’t because causation requires time and the BB is the beginning of TIME, as someone has already pointed out here.
Of course, it’s much easier to cut to the chase and answer the dingbats the way our trusty lusty barmaid has, and will save you a lot of bother!
sorry for the typo “prooves”, makes it look like I’ve just been to the Cock & Bull myself! 🙂
You shouldn’t even allow them to get away with “the universe began to exist”, it is claiming categorical absolute certainty when we don’t have it (they like doing that, don’t they?) Yes the universe started from something smaller than an acorn with all the matter condensed and then it had a rapid “inflation” and so you could say that it “began to exist”…but any cosmologist who claims that we “know” that it “came from nothing” is claiming to know more than we do. That little acorn could be eternal for all we know.
It could also have been born from a previous universe, which would then be like saying your parents are “god” because you “began to exist” (they might have shouted “oh god oh god while they were making you but that doesn’t make them actually “God”, does it?) and claiming the universe began to exist FROM NOTHING is like claiming you are the result of a virgin birth!
There is a beautiful fractal geometry of stupidity about the Kalam Cosmological Argument which allows you to shine the light of reason on one aspect (say, P1) and invalidate it, but then, for arguments sake, allow them that point and then go on to show how it is false anyway — in some other way!
And the most amazing thing is that sophisticated theists think this is their modern-day “trump card”! Hilarious if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.
And if they dispute all of the above, you tell them that is is a non sequitor — where is “god” in the argument? All the hard work needs to be done to get from “cause” to “god” and yet they think a fait accompli!
The barmaid seems to be allowing them the free pass from cause to god and just pointing out that it is just a deist god and they still have all the work to prove their specific god with his “no bacon” rules. Why even allow them that free pass? Let them squirm in their barstool as you point out every problem along the way!
I don’t see why an infinite number of primates typing infinitely would produce an infinite string of gibberish.
Some writers seem to think they are god. This usually turns out to be a nervous condition.
“Poor Richard says:
November 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm
I don’t see why an infinite number of primates typing infinitely would produce an infinite string of gibberish”
Poor Richard has obviously never seen ‘Hollyoaks’. Lucky Poor Richard!
No bacon! …and no dancing!
I just got northierthanthou’s joke.