the snow-ological proof of the existence of God

[Originally posted on our Writing Center blog]

Yay! Our first snow! Woo hoo! Four-plus inches, I’d say. It’s just now starting to slow down. It’s been snowing since, what?, 3 or 4 am?

Wow, my serotonin shoots up when it snows. Why? No, it’s not because I’m an ex southern Californian. All, if not most of, my friends down there are not big on snow (at least nothing like I’m big on snow). So, see, it ain’t that.

So, why? It’s really because… well, it’s really because snow is the best of the various proofs of the existence of God! No, really. It’s true.

You’d think some other theologians would’ve figured this out earlier, but no. St. Anselm used ontology (the universe of the mind — basically, the stuff we can’t see) to prove God. Even though he had snow as evidence (11th century England had its share of snow), he didn’t use it. Why, I don’t know. It was right there in front of him.

Thomas Aquinas moved closer to the snow-evidence when he developed his cosmological proof (basically, everything we can see). He pointed to various aspects of the created order and put forth the five ways we can see the existence of God from the physical universe. But he failed to see that nothing proves God like snow, not the order of the cosmos, not the need for a prime mover. These are mere incidentals in the scheme of things compared to snow.

Really theologians ought to lean the weight of their thinking on the mighty magnificence of snow, not on the sandy ground of scripture or creation or personal revelation. What are these but the dimmest reflections of snow!?

And philosophers have done no better. They miss the snow-evidence, too. Immanuel Kant came along and used morality as evidence for God. (And, yes, there most definitely was snow in 18th century Germany, so no excuse there.) The very concept of morality, he argued, necessarily required that we have a God at its foundation. Now, that’s all well and good. But why doesn’t the joy that comes from snow just as necessarily require a God as its source?

Anyway, they all tried. You gotta give ’em that. And they got close — at least Thomas did. At least his argument theoretically included (though didn’t specifically mention) snow. But over all they missed the proof that was irrefutable, right in front of their noses — or under their feet, as it were.

So that’s why I’m feelin’ fine today. Can’t help but feel good when intricate evidence of a Creator drapes everything. Now if only I won’t slip on the ice and break a bone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s