Some of my friends recently made the mistake of reminding me of the existence of these proofs. One of them even challenged me to come up with another of these proofs to determine the existence of a mysterious big and hairy ape-like creature known as Sasquatch.
What they so foolishly reminded me of, I now inflict upon you, readers. Here is my Thomistic proof for the existence of Sasquatch.
Objection 1: It would seem that Sasquatch does not exist. For Sasquatch has a bizarre name which any self-respecting sentient creature would immediately reject. But the name Sasquatch has stuck over the years. Thus, Sasquatch has not sought to change his name, and therefore must not exist.
Objection 2: Further, Sasquatch’s existence has never actually been confirmed by scientists. Now, in a modern world where cameras are ever-present, it would seem that Sasquatch’s existence would be confirmed by the tools of modern technology. However, the existence of Sasquatch has not been confirmed - thus Sasquatch cannot exist.
Objection 3: Further, Sasquatch sightings are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest region. But the Pacific Northwest is a boring region of the country. So the residents of the Pacific Northwest have to make up stories in order to justify their continued residence in such a boring place. Thus, Sasquatch, a supposedly mysterious creature, is merely a story told by residents of the Northwest in order to justify their continued existence.
On the Contrary: Sasquatch clearly exists. For beer commercials and commercials pitching beef jerky often show Sasquatch terrorizing individuals. But commercials for glorious substances such as beer and beef jerky do not and indeed cannot lie in any respect, because beer and beef jerky are such glorious substances that salesmen do not need to tell lies about them in order to sell them to customers. Since Sasquatch appears in these types of commercials that are incapable of lying, it is clear that Sasquatch does and indeed must exist.
I Answer That: The existence of Sasquatch is a definite reality. For Sasquatch is a rational non-human creature that is immune to the sins of fallen humanity. And his avoidance of fallen humanity is the surest sign of his existence.
Any non-human rational creature seeing the sins of fallen humanity would immediately seek to avoid humans to the best of his ability, because humans are sinful creatures. Thus, Sasquatch is seen only when he randomly stumbles across humans. Inevitably, Sasquatch's reaction to his encounters with fallen humanity is to run away or fall into a rage.
This is fitting. For unfallen creatures do not mingle with the fallen, the light does not mix with the darkness, and sin does not mingle with innocence. So is it with Sasquatch
Since Sasquatch avoids fallen humans and negatively reacts to them, clearly Sasquatch must exist.
Reply to Objection 1: Celebrities name their children all sorts of ridiculous names, like Apple, Audio Science, and Destry. Many celebrity children keep their strange names into adulthood, for sundry reasons. Thus, it is certainly possible that Sasquatch would choose to accept his ridiculous name, probably as a penance for the misdeeds of humans who taunt him in beer commercials.
Reply to Objection 2: Just because scientists have never actually seen Sasquatch does not mean that the creature does not exist. For scientific knowledge is and will always be imperfect, and cannot claim full authority about the existence of reclusive creatures.
Reply to Objection 3: This objection is an example of the philosophical error of regional solipsism. Just because the importance of a particular region of the country is not very high does not mean that all stories told about by the natives of that part of the country are untrue. Perhaps Sasquatch hides in the Pacific Northwest to shroud his awesomeness, because otherwise his glory would be too great for mortal eyes to behold in a more relevant portion of the country.