Let me tell you something: I'm emperor of the world. Your old country no longer exists: it's part of my vast earthly empire. You believe me, right?
What? You say you don't believe me? How dare you! You'll spend the rest of your life in prison for this! Take your last look at the sun before my imperial soldiers arrive to take you away.
Actually, you know what? I like you. I don't want to see you locked up. Let's make a deal: I'll let you go free, but you have to bow down before me as your emperor. That's it, nice and easy. But reject me, and it's into the dungeon for you!
You may say that there is no evidence that I am your emperor. You may say that if an emperor took control of the world, you would have heard of it, or you may point out the slim likelihood of an empire forming to encompass the earth. But think of what you're risking: if you don't bow, it's the rest of your life in prison! Surely you don't want that, regardless of how low the chance is? And it would be so easy to just bow down to me. Last chance! I'll give you five minutes to make your decision.
PS: You can also leave a comment below praising your emperor; Ill accept that as well.
Alright. Now, supposing you rejected me as your emperor, let me ask you a question. What if instead of the emperor of the world, you were reading about the god of the bible? What if, instead of the threat of life imprisonment, it were the threat of eternal torment in hell, but with the option of salvation through Christ? Would this change anything? Would this be any more valid an argument?
Ironically, the claim that I am emperor of the world is more likely to be true than the claim of god. After all, we know emperors to have existed, whereas we have yet to see any god.
The only way you can use this argument to justify god without first accepting me as your emperor is by presenting evidence of god's existence. You therefore cannot use this argument as an excuse to make an assertion with no evidence.
Not convinced? Please leave a comment below.