UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 3 to Talk Back 56
On Anagrams & God

by Maarten van den Driest

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

To be honest, I like Thomas J's anagrams better. However, I side with JT in this.

The fact that a perfect anagram exists for some words and sentences could be random chance. Thomas J is correct if he points out that it could actually be God's work. God could exist, God could control life right down to the most minute details, God could do anything. Right?

As an aside, 'evil sad tit' isn't something I'd picture God saying about the devil... ;-) Also, these anagrams work only in English, although that isn't necessarily a flaw in your argument.

Seriously, now. Although God could be responsible for the existence of anagrams, accepting this would mean losing all explanatory power. We could never explain or understand anything at all because maybe God did it behind our backs without telling us.

If I win the lottery this could be chance. But could it be God? Far more important: if I have to choose which one of the three boxes I want opened by the game show host, is God controlling the outcome? Can I trust basic maths? Do I fall if I jump off a high building? Do I suddenly float away or can I count on gravity to hold me to the Earth?

This issue has two points.

  1. - Yes it could be God but it could also very well be just random chance.
  2. - Accepting chance allows us to understand at least some things instead of just accepting everything that ever happens anywhere.