The Banana, an Atheist Nightmare (revisited)

[marplots]

From this we can deduce that the existence we know of is in some way related to, or an expression of, the nature of this being or cause. How could it not be? as like with an artist the cause would leave a signature or stylistic technique in its creation. Not just an objective signature, but a subjective signature.

The problem comes in with the "signature or stylistic technique" part. I don't think we can distinguish between the necessary and the stylistic. So, for example, if Da Vinci is working in paint, he's bound by the physical facts of paint. How are we to distinguish between the material of creation and the stylistic choices made by God?

The reason I think this is largely impossible is because we don't yet have another creation to compare ours to. I can tell which artist created something only if I have some experience in comparing one painting to other, different paintings. I don't know ahead of time what colors limit the palette and what might have been a result of God's preferences.

If we dodge the limits of the material (the palette) and take our God to be all-powerful (and the other attributes) we are still stuck. It does little good to view a work from an artist who is all artists -- any style is only a subset of the possible styles and no information is obtained by viewing a single work.

I can't even get past the assumption that human beings matter to God. Judging by what we already know, we are just as likely to be a short step on a very long evolutionary staircase. Or, worse for us, we might be on the extreme fringes of His real work -- something happening a gazillion light years away.

 

[abaddon]

Nope, it's cats that are the chosen people. They don't eat bananas, and have human companions slaves to do whatever that want.
And we all know the bible was pro-slavery,
Ergo, it's cats.

LOL, it is well known that you do not own a cat as a pet, a cat owns YOU as a pet.

 

[TimCallahan]

True Christians with Strong Faith shouldn't have to peel the banana. If they pray and believe really hard, God will remove the banana from the peel through a divine miracle or send along a guardian monkey (or malamute) to peel the banana for them.

Jews, one the other hand, have the banana peeled within eight days of the birth of the banana bearer.

 

[Spindrift]

Because the banana fits the hand, that means there is a god. Perhaps Mr. Cameron would like to explain his problem with the penis and anus fitting together.

 

[tsig]

I know that this is a lighthearted question. There is however a thread of logic in this kind of thought experiment if you shift your perspective from the banana to the God for a moment.

If you define God as the being who caused, or the cause of, existence as we know it. Then by design or not this cause resulted in the particular kind of existence that we are aware of.

I will restrict the cause at this stage to a single cause for simplicity.

From this we can deduce that the existence we know of is in some way related to, or an expression of, the nature of this being or cause. How could it not be? as like with an artist the cause would leave a signature or stylistic technique in its creation. Not just an objective signature, but a subjective signature.

In a way the inner banana in God somehow became revealed in the expression of God. Or alternatively the inner thinker in God became revealed in the expression or creative act of God.

By this reasoning one can envisage that all forms present in our known existence were put there specifically by this God with or without intent because they were already present in some form in God.

This isn't reasoning.

 

[The Norseman]

It makes me wonder if Cameron has ever seen a pineapple, or a coconut, or an artichoke.

Blasphemer!!

 

[carlitos]

Hmm. Man has had the same shaped hand for a looooong time.

Bananas have only been available in colder climes since the 15th century or so, and not on a regular basis until the 20th century.

???

 

[aggle-rithm]

If I were God, I would have made the banana with an edible peel, thus removing the need for the "easy-open" tab.

 

[punshhh]

.

Thanks for your reply. I do agree to a certain extent with what you are saying here. However I wasn't addressing our ability to determine anything about God, I was going to cover that later.

Also I am not adopting the position of intelligent design, which I disagree with.

The problem comes in with the "signature or stylistic technique" part. I don't think we can distinguish between the necessary and the stylistic. So, for example, if Da Vinci is working in paint, he's bound by the physical facts of paint. How are we to distinguish between the material of creation and the stylistic choices made by God?

I agree with this point provided that God does not have the ability to drastically alter the material of creation. In this case God is crafting already existing material.

The reason I think this is largely impossible is because we don't yet have another creation to compare ours to. I can tell which artist created something only if I have some experience in comparing one painting to other, different paintings. I don't know ahead of time what colors limit the palette and what might have been a result of God's preferences.

I agree.

If we dodge the limits of the material (the palette) and take our God to be all-powerful (and the other attributes) we are still stuck. It does little good to view a work from an artist who is all artists -- any style is only a subset of the possible styles and no information is obtained by viewing a single work.

Here I think we are stretching the analogy too far.
I will refer to God's mark as his signature, if we are considering an all powerful God, all existence would fall under the scope of his signature including the material. So space or time or mass might be his particular signature or choice.

I can't even get past the assumption that human beings matter to God. Judging by what we already know, we are just as likely to be a short step on a very long evolutionary staircase. Or, worse for us, we might be on the extreme fringes of His real work -- something happening a gazillion light years away.

Yes I agree, however I would consider that a gazillion light years away might well be right here in the same place we are* and spatial extension is only an apparent effect of the signature.

Going back to my original point, I am suggesting that everything in and about the existence we know of is a signature. Our existence is the signature.

This brings up the question of where did God get his signature? To which my reply would be that from a consideration of the signature we can observe, it would suggest a cosmic evolution, a world of evolving Gods. Or a greater evolution of materials of which our universe is one point in that evolutionary development.


*ie the concept that all atoms occupy the same space, are in a certain dimension superimposed.

 

[jadey]

From this we can deduce that the existence we know of is in some way related to, or an expression of, the nature of this being or cause.

Following your logic, we can deduce that this "being or cause" likes to blow **** up!

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

http://youtu.be/XnSeKHnB_k8

Next , I eat the banana!

 

[keyfeatures]

In the 60s my Catholic aunt had a hippie wedding at Westminster cathedral to a man with a banana tied around his waist. That was the least of the sartorial peculiarities.

This clearly points to not only the existence of god but the attribute of a rather warped sense of humour.

 

[keyfeatures]

And don't forget the provision of something everyday and inoffensive to demonstrate correct condom fitting in sex education classes...Such foresight! (shame s/he didn't think to remove the foreskins if they were unnecessary prior to manufacture however).

 

[HansMustermann]

There is the more specific question though, in the context of this thread: how do you know that the banana is part of that "signature".

How do you know it's not akin to looking at Pieter Bruegel the Elder's "The Dutch Proverbs" and concluding that the theme is about hats, because, look those people wear hats, and they fit so well on their heads? Unless you're Dutch or know the 100 proverbs he illustrated in one painting, you'd never figure out WTH it's actually about.

Even if you wanted to find some "signature" theme of the artist, how would you get it from there? Would you even come out to the idea that actually a common theme of his is hinting at sayings based on feces. There are at least three things in that painting based on sayings about feces ("to crap on the world", and "both crap through the same hole", and "to wipe one's ass on the door"), while in another painting he illustrates the saying "to crap at the gallows" (basically not to give a crap about it.)

The same thing about God, really: if there is some signature of his, how would you know it's the banana and not, say, the screw worm or some other nastyness? In fact, why not the whole nastyness in the world, since it seems to be a rather common theme. Unless you give the devil or humans powers of permanent creation (which Augustine reserved only for God), then God must have created all the parasitic larvae that devour their host from inside, and the fungi that explode ant heads, and cancer, and the plasmid that makes the bubonic plague bacterium so deadly, and the ones in cholera, and so on. If an artist went to such extremes to include nasty stuff in every single part of his creation, how do you know if THAT isn't his theme and signature?

 

[punshhh]

In the 60s my Catholic aunt had a hippie wedding at Westminster cathedral to a man with a banana tied around his waist. That was the least of the sartorial peculiarities.

This clearly points to not only the existence of god but the attribute of a rather warped sense of humour.

I always wanted to hear Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on the magnificent organ at Westminster Cathedral. That would be divine.

 

[punshhh]

There is the more specific question though, in the context of this thread: how do you know that the banana is part of that "signature".

How do you know it's not akin to looking at Pieter Bruegel the Elder's "The Dutch Proverbs" and concluding that the theme is about hats, because, look those people wear hats, and they fit so well on their heads? Unless you're Dutch or know the 100 proverbs he illustrated in one painting, you'd never figure out WTH it's actually about.

Even if you wanted to find some "signature" theme of the artist, how would you get it from there? Would you even come out to the idea that actually a common theme of his is hinting at sayings based on feces. There are at least three things in that painting based on sayings about feces ("to crap on the world", and "both crap through the same hole", and "to wipe one's ass on the door"), while in another painting he illustrates the saying "to crap at the gallows" (basically not to give a crap about it.)

The same thing about God, really: if there is some signature of his, how would you know it's the banana and not, say, the screw worm or some other nastyness? In fact, why not the whole nastyness in the world, since it seems to be a rather common theme. Unless you give the devil or humans powers of permanent creation (which Augustine reserved only for God), then God must have created all the parasitic larvae that devour their host from inside, and the fungi that explode ant heads, and cancer, and the plasmid that makes the bubonic plague bacterium so deadly, and the ones in cholera, and so on. If an artist went to such extremes to include nasty stuff in every single part of his creation, how do you know if THAT isn't his theme and signature?

Of course, I agree with most of what you are saying here. I am not saying that we can work out God's* signature. Rather that it is there/here whether we can see it or not and the banana is part of it.

*Assuming the definition of God as the being or cause responsible for the existence we know of.

 

[keyfeatures]

I always wanted to hear Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on the magnificent organ at Westminster Cathedral. That would be divine.

I'm not sure it was terribly magnificent. They divorced shortly afterwards.

 

[Brainache]

Of course, I agree with most of what you are saying here. I am not saying that we can work out God's* signature. Rather that it is there/here whether we can see it or not and the banana is part of it.

*Assuming the definition of God as the being or cause responsible for the existence we know of.

And if we assume no God, how can we tell the difference?

 

[punshhh]

And if we assume no God, how can we tell the difference?

I see no way we can tell the difference, as the material of existence (which we know of) is the same in either case.

If we assume no God then the signature is of something else (unknown), or there is no signature (it is illusory) and we don't have a clue about the answers to the fundamental questions which are usually addressed with some kind of divinity.

We are clueless, apart from our understanding and manipulation of our immediate environment (including ourselves). There is no purpose or destination in existence and our frail existence is as a piece of dust. A piece of dust randomly cast into an infinitude of other pieces of dust.

 

[Wolfman]

We are clueless, apart from our understanding and manipulation of our immediate environment (including ourselves). There is no purpose or destination in existence and our frail existence is as a piece of dust. A piece of dust randomly cast into an infinitude of other pieces of dust.

Or...alternatively...

...rather than having our purpose or destination pre-determined by some outside force, we have the freedom to define our purpose and destination for ourselves. Personally, I think it is a terribly sad and pathetic life if you think that the only way to have purpose or destination is for some higher power to define it for you.