THERE IS A QUEEN!

Spot the logical error...

I believe, I truly believe, that there is a Queen of England. I believe she is not just the Queen of England but also of Canada, where I live. Some say she is just the Queen of England, however.

I know of six standard arguments for the existence of the Queen of England. Now, I know that none of these arguments constitute definite proof of her existence, but I still think they're quite persuasive. (Except for the Ontological Argument.) I have abiding faith that there is a Queen, even though I haven't seen her and there isn't much evidence of her presence.

Now, the Queen of England owns corgis - that is nearly certain. Can we truly call ourselves Canadian if we don't believe the Queen owns corgis? Be assured she owns several of this breed of dog.

The corgis have names: These are Emma, Linnet, Monty, Holly and Willow. Some people omit the name Emma from the list. Others include the names Cider, Berry, Candy and Vulcan. Both sets of people, the Emma-omitters and the Dorgists are utterly, absolutely wrong and should have their Canadian citizenship revoked before they destroy the commonwealth.

--------------

You spotted it. If the existence of a is uncertain, and if b is put forward as an attribute of a, b cannot be more certain than a. Nor, I think, can you have complicated discussions about b until a has been established as certain. It is useless to assert that Jesus is the Son of God, unless God's existence is certain. What a dilemma for a Christian. Unless one removes oneself entirely from "descriptive" talk about God in favour of "evocative". Not "information" but "meaning". Not the letter but the spirit.

--------------

And what was the point of this? Just that I am tired of people on both the religious right and the religious left telling me, in tones of utter certainty, what "God wants" us to do. How can these people say they know this?