WOTMQ: Morally Sufficient Reasons
Hey Gang!!!
I'm back up and running at full speed. I prayed to Hitch and he healed me. It's a miracle!
If you haven't been paying attention to the Christian philosophers working on apologetics — and really, why would you? That's what you pay me for! They're still trying to come up with something... anything to deal with the now 2,400 year old challenge to the concept of a Tri-Omni god/God known as "The Problem of Evil" first articulated by Epicurus.
The latest bit of bullshit is to argue that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, and for permitting it in the quantity and scale we find here in our universe. Of course, they don't claim to have knowledge of these reasons, nor have they even theorized what they might be. Which is a real problem.
Thanks for all your continued (and hopefully, continuing) support. Enjoy!!! B
Comments (4)
I like to imagine asking the "God has sufficient reasons" person to first admit that God certainly *looks* like a Bronze Age monster, since any of us, if given the power, would've ended slavery, would never have demanded genocide, and so on. Only then can we proceed to the Christian hypothesis that God had his reasons.
Derp, Cameron! No, questions aren't arguments, they are questions, a spark to formulate hypotheses. And then the real fun begins: seeking reliable, verifiable, concrete, empirical evidence that answers the question. "Is burning fossil fuels causing climate change?" Good question. And the evidence gathered by scientists for decades provide the definitive answer: yes, it does! So for you, Cameron, here's another question: "Does Gawd exist?" You obviously hypothesize that she does. When and if you have reliable, verifiable, concrete, empirical evidence to answer the question, be sure to let us know. Until then, I suggest you STFU.
Part 2 of this 1 part series is even better that part 1. You hit all the things I was already thinking about Cameron and the prayer-ignoring, non-de-amputee-izing, self-contradicting sack of dix he worships. As far as questions not being arguments goes, he may well be correct. I know that the only question (that's not an argument) he ever needs to ask as an apologist is "Do you think it might be possible that ___ really happened?" A well-considered, grudging affirmative, no matter how remote the odds, response is all he needs to declare his wild claim to be true. Example: Cam: "Don't you think it's possible that (insert miracle claim here) could have happened?" Anybody who has read the bible without wearing their pink-tinted Jesus reading glasses: "I guess it could be _possible_ but I don't see..." Cam: "Well, that's all I needed to hear. If it has even an infinitesimally remote possibility of happening, that means it absolutely happened. It proves that miracles are real, and atheists eat poop." I love your videos, Brian. Always funny and always insightful. Don't ever change.
Ditto WTF fellow #CRITICALthinking hero Irisarc said! ;]