From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Devonian Chalk)
Organization: Invis-O-Bob and the SlackMasters
Does "Bob" exist ?
Here are some popular arguments:
The Argument from Popularity:
1. Almost everyone believes that "Bob" exists. Those
who don't believe He exists are in the minority.
2. Many respected people claim to have received visions from Him.
3. In almost any society since the dawn of the Industrial Age, there
has been some form of "Bob" myth.
4. Given the universality of the myths, it is unlikely that such myths
are not based on truth.
1. Most people are clueless morons who need to believe in the Great
Benevolent Uber-Salesman, and that He protects and watches over
2. So who's to say it's "Bob" that created the Church?
Why not Stang, or Joanne Worley, or Zeus, or Thor or any other
such mythical creature?
The argument from Authority:
1. Stang insists that "Bob" exists.
a. Stang claims to have images of Him
b. Stang claims to have paychecks signed by Him
c. Stang has Revelation X, written by Him or His disciples.
1. Since when has Stang known what he was doing?
2. Using the Revelation X as proof that Revelation X was written
by "Bob" is circular. It could be a fabrication.
Argument from Design:
1. One looks at a pipe, and sees evidence of intelligent design.
2. It is therefore likely that something created it.
3. One looks at the Church and sees evidence of intelligent design.
4. It is therefore likely that something created it. That something
1. If you think the Church implies intelligent design, you haven't
seen *our* Church.
2. Even assuming this proves the existence of a "Bob",
there's no evidence "Bob" is intelligent.
The ontological proof:
1. Given: The property of existence is more Super than the property of
2. "Bob" is defined as "a salesman, than which no more Super a
salesman can be conceived"
3. No matter how great a Super Salemsan you can conceive which
possesses the property of non-existence, you can then add the property of
existence and make the Super Salesman even more Super.
4. Therefore, "Bob" exists.
1. Rests on a dubious definition of what is and is not Super.
2. The concept of a Super Salesman is nowhere near analogous to the
Super Salesman itself. I can conceive of something, but that's only the
Concept of it, not the thing itself.
The Spinozist Argument:
1. "Bob" is defined as the most perfect Salesman possible.
2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which
possesses it must necessarily exist.
3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological
proof), then necessary existence is better still.
4. Any perfect Salesman must possess the property of necessary
5. Therefore "Bob" must necessarily exist.
6. Being perfect, "Bob" cannot make mistakes.
7. Being perfect, "Bob" can not be capable of
goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the
Church is somehow less than perfect in its current state.
8. Therefore, "Bob" is really more of a force of
nature within the Church.
9. Arguably, then "Bob" *is* the Church itself.
1. None, since "Bob" has been defined to the point
where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing.
At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument
proves that *if* "Bob" does exist, he cannot be intelligent.