Illness disproves Ontologics
I feel like crap today. The nose, the head, the chest -- it's all bad.
Yes, we can use illness (or natural disasters, etc) to show that an all-powerful deity isn't up there, but today my stuffy head turned to Ontology, probably due to all the cold medicine.
The ontological argument basically states that if one can imagine a most perfect entity, that such an entity either exists or does not exist. Since existence is more perfect than nonexistence, then the most perfect being must therefore exist. A poisonous little gem of confusion. Many have offered their counter arguments, but my runny nose makes the point.
You see, if disease exists, and a perfect god exists, then that god bears responsibility for the disease. BUT, if a deity does not exist, then he cannot (obviously) be responsible. It is this responsibility, indeed for all things bad, which makes an extant god LESS perfect than a fictional one, for a deity which created all this crap in my head would have some explaining to do (a murderer is less perfect than a non-murderer).
So beyond all the arguments of Dawkins and Descartes, this damn cold which has infested my family proves the point in the simplest of ways -- a fictional deity is more perfect than a real one, given the real problems we have.
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/11/20/illness_disproves_ontologics