“If God didn’t exist, Jesus would have died in vain. Therefore God exists.”On Twitter I have replied Dawkins by suggesting him to imagine a Divine Frog. I wrote the following statements.
“My Sunday School teacher (my Madrasah teacher etc) told me God exists. Therefore God exists.”
“When you die and go to hell, you’ll soon discover that God exists. Oh yes. Oh yes indeed. Just you wait. Ho ho. Therefore God exists.”
“If God didn’t exist, there’d be nothing to stop me killing and stealing. Therefore God exists.”
“If God didn’t exist, my entire life dedicated to his service would have been pointless. Therefore God exists.”
“People need their God. Therefore God exists. Or even if he doesn’t, it’s good for those poor little people who need him. So shut up.”
Prof. Dawkins, this is an image of a Divine Frog. You can believe in it, even worship it. The real issue is not whether this Frog God exists or not, but whether this Frog God can make you a good and noble man or not. The real issue is not divine ontology, but social ethics. If this Frog God can make you a great and noble man, this Frog God has functioned ethically to the full.
Prof. Dawkins, why do you let yourself again and again entrapped in traditional debates about divine ontology, whileas the real issue is the socioethical functions of various religions in the world? The essential function of religions is to make anybody good and noble, not to make villains.
Imagine again this Frog God. I hope you are going to like this god and never again mock any gods. I hope, after you ponder on this Frog God, you will change into a kind, great, wise, dignified, serene, calm and friendly old man. If this happens to you, I shall thank the Frog God.
If you don’t have ears, you can listen. But if you have ears, you cannot listen.