The Problem of Evil Explained

The problem of evil vaporizes any possible argument for a God who is both omnipotent and benevolent. Namely, if suffering is real, then the supreme being must be the author and master of such evil.

last updated 2015/8/05

 – by @GodsAutopsyCom

The Problem of Evil – Epicurus (341- 270 b.c.):

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


If you’re hearing this argument for the first time and you’re a monotheist, then you must at least concede that your god is both good and evil. That God is the arbiter of all pain, pleasure and suffering. The master of the world’s suffering can not be called ‘good‘ or ‘just‘ by any thinking person. God in the Bible is vengeful, full of wrath, jealous and capricious; many Christians agree.

Even the Christian Bible calls its god the author of evil:

Bible: Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) – “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Bible: Amos 3:6 (KJV) – “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (see biblegateway.com)

We have never been able to verify the use of prayer or conscious thought to influence the laws or properties of nature. Similarly, no one has ever been proven to use prayer, conscious thought or wishful thinking to persuade a god to bend the laws of nature in favor of themselves. So it stands to reason that until someone can demonstrate a god having broken the laws of nature, laws he supposedly dictate, then there is no reason to believe.

Remember, evidence is not personal or emotional. Evidence is testable, demonstrable and repeatable. That’s how science is done, and that’s why most serious scientists are atheists.

“…church collapses. Did you see the one in Sicily recently? The facade fell on 65 grandmothers at a special Mass. Was that evil? Was that God? If He’s up there, He just loves it. Typhoid and swans–it all comes from the same place.”

–Hannibal Lecter

Now, more evil brought to you by Yahweh, Allah or whoever:
Approved by Yahweh
Approved by Yahweh
Approved by Yahweh
Approved by Yahweh
Approved by Yahweh
Approved by Yahweh

Again, whenever I use the word ‘evil’, I use it in the colloquial sense, not the metaphysical or theological way.

merchandise from God’s Autopsy

Skeptic and atheist tees | hoodies | iphone and galaxy covers | ipad covers | mugs | posters | cards | scarves | leggings | tote bags | pillows | duvet covers and more..

number of visits trackinstall tracking code

Share Button

Earth Day and Climate Change

John Oliver poops out reasons why we should all stop arguing about the cause of climate change, just because…IT’S BLOODY OBVIOUS…

eric-ga – by @GodsAutopsyCom
“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” John Oliver and Edward Snowden. Oliver makes awkward jokes about the NSA stealing pictures of his balls.

John Oliver is an incredibly smug and annoying character, but that’s not the reason I’m writing about him now. On the matter of climate change, which we used to call global warming, what do we really find after examining the claims with skepticism and objectivity? I was very surprised to go from ‘duh, it’s obvious! cars, trucks, gas, oh my!!’ to searching for some hard evidence that will put any denier to shame. What am I missing, were is that crucial evidence hiding so I can stop thinking about this?

Of course, I believe data that says Earth’s climate is rising, but if you’re the least bit skeptical about the cause, namely if climate change is mostly natural or mostly human influenced, you are to be labeled a heretic, a kook, or dare I say it, a right-winger! I’m obviously not a right-winger, conservative or science denier, I just know that correlation does not mean causation. Even if you get lucky, correlation still does not mean causation! Just because the climate is rising, doesn’t mean that we know exactly why. What’s disturbing is that everyone seems to want to argue in this fashion. I’m no climate scientist, or scientist in any regard, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen scientists pontificate like priests, demanding that we just accept the ‘facts’, and stop asking questions. They’re almost demanding that we stop blaspheming the holy revelations.

I’m not saying there is a giant conspiracy funded by liberal politicians, but as I’ve heard it said somewhere, if you only fund scientists who agree with you, those scientists are going to keep finding the results you want, results that those scientists may have a bias toward interpreting.

Of course, I believe that humans are contributing to climate in some way, but I haven’t drawn any conclusions as to the degree in which we have. It could be that some of the information from talks and debates have gone over my head. Either way, leave a comment below if you want to enlighten me.


John Oliver violently flings fallacy after fallacy the axiom of human-provoked global warming or climate change.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate (HBO)

Argument 1: Our ability to drastically effect climate change is a cold hard fact tantamount to the existence of ‘owls’ or ‘hats’.

Argument 2: Recent heat waves and a picture of a polar bear on a sheet of ice. Sea surface temperatures have risen 1° F since 1880. Some glaciers are melting.

Argument 3: Argument from majority fallacy.

Argument 4: Argument from authority fallacy.

Argument 5: Anyone who questions the level of man made influence on climate change is a ‘climate change denier’. Or straw man.

Argument 6: This is a debate that we ‘shouldn’t really be having…in the first place’.

Wow, you sure showed everyone, didn’t you John!

even polar bears are sick of your bullshit

These kinds of arguments make me dissatisfied. We should all be skeptics, and not just about the things that seem counter-intuitive to us, we should re-think axioms at all times. I will, of course, be biased in favor of whatever the science leads me to.


Here are some debates that have slowed me from forming a rigid opinion thus far. Thanks for reading and tell me what you think. And Happy Earth Day !!

I Have Added More Climate Change Videos in This Playlist: “Is Anthropogenic Climate Change”


 advertisement 

equality, equal sign
Equality – stickers | tote bags | studio pouches | travel mugs | iPhone cases | samsung galaxy cases | throw pillows | t-shirts | hoodies & more …

number of visits trackinstall tracking code

Share Button

Duck Dynasty Star and the Slaughtered Raped Atheists

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s thought experiment gone wrong. 

eric-ga – by @GodsAutopsyCom 


Phil Robertson is probably not as insane as he sounds in the video below, just a bad philosopher perhaps. At a prayer breakfast in Florida, Phil attempts a reductio ad absurdum argument for the immorality of secularism and atheism. He wants to say that an atheist can’t logically possess morals because the atheist has no objective moral standard to base them on (as provided in the Bible). Yet, Phil’s straw atheist family couldn’t plausibly exist, if they did, they most likely wouldn’t have survived long enough for Phil’s invaders to break into their home and commit these crimes (if you cared about absolutely nothing, you’d routinely walk into streets, never checking for traffic). You see, if the atheist parents didn’t care about life and well-being, they wouldn’t have bothered getting married in the first place, and they wouldn’t have ever bothered feeding or raising their children.

It seems that Phil is being intellectually dishonest; he can’t imagine morality without a god, so somehow no one else can possess morality without his god having authored it (where’s the free will in this model?). Is he saying that all atheists are either lying about their non-belief or lying to themselves? I wouldn’t be surprised. I’ve heard this argument before: the argument that morality and the feeling of a spiritual presence is apparent to us all. It’s the assumption there’s a god-shaped hole carved into all our hearts. If this were true, that we just know right from wrong, how would you explain the world’s extant contradictory religions with contradicting moral codes?

See Phil’s clip below: 

Phil Robertson: “Maybe if you just buy enough healthcare insurance, that’a keep you out of the ground. I don’t think so… save you money… You got a six-foot hole waiting on you if you have all the healthcare you can buy. You say, ‘is it going to keep me out of the ground?’ No sir. It’s a problem, and you know something, you can’t solve it.

“Just like you can’t see in your sin problem. Oh, I-I mean, I don’t know, this conscience thing. I mean, we just dreamed it up! There’s no right, there’s no wrong. There’s no good, there’s no evil. I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them. And they take his wife and they decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this?! There’s no right or wrong, now is it, dude?’ Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him, say, ‘wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this? But, you’re the one who says there’s no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong. So, we’re just having fun! We’re sick in the head! Have a nice day.’

“If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.'”


What Christians don’t understand is that the Universe doesn’t need purpose, it doesn’t need objective rights, wrongs or moral standards to exist. The Universe exists simply because it can. If objects, animals and humans exist, we can still have laws and morals constructed by society to keep us in line. Secular Humanists such as myself base our morals on what contributes to human well-being. The Bible, however, is a terrible source for morals, and is in no way a source for objective moral standards.

A reductio is only valid when it’s logically possible.

See: #10 – Where Do You Get Your Morals?

eric-ga – by @GodsAutopsyCom – godsautopsy@gmail.com 

number of visits trackinstall tracking code

BIBLE FACTS stickers from GodsAutopsy.com
Share Button