Re: Arguments Against god... LONG

Joe E. Dees (
Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:55:31 -0500

Date sent:      	Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Terry Donaghe <>
Subject:        	Arguments Against god... LONG
Send reply to:

> Perhaps this is old hat to everyone here. Maybe not.
> When I was in an intro to philosophy class in Mississippi, the class
> was full of Bible Belt Believers most of whom were fundamentalists.
> They took the bible literaly and were consumed in their faith. What
> they were doing in a philosophy class, I'm not sure. I guess they
> thought it would be an "easy A".
> Anyway, the professor brought half the class to tears with the
> following (heavily paraphrased):
> Let's assume God to be the following:
> Omnipotent - all powerful
> Omnibenevolent - all good, incapable of evil
> Omniscient - all knowing
> (The class agrees)
> This argument also assumes the existence of good and bad, which I'm
> not too sure about.
> Now let's picture a baby and a three year old all alone in the middle
> of a dark forrest. Suddenly a wolf leaps out of the shadows and eats
> the infant. The three year old screams and runs away. Can we blame
> the three year old? Of course not, there was nothing he could do. He
> was powerless.
> Now, assume the same situation, but this time instead of a three year
> old, it's a 16 year old boy. Again the wolf leaps out and eats the
> baby. The 16 year old was terrified and frozen in his tracks. Should
> we get mad at the 16 year old? Probably not, but couldn't he have at
> least picked up a stick and tried to scare off the wolf? Maybe, but I
> think most people would give him the benifit of the doubt.
> Now, this time replace the boy with a very strong grown man who knows
> all about wolves. This man is armed with a high powered rifle and
> several pistols. He's been attacked by wolves before and has
> succesfuly fought them all off. He's a bad ass. Again, the wolf
> jumps out and eats the baby right in front of this heavily armed man -
> he had time to shoot, but did nothing. Should we blame him? Hell
> yes! He could and should have saved the baby. We might even say his
> indecision was "bad."
> Now, replace the man with our all powerful, all good, all knowing God.
> The baby gets eaten and God does nothing. Should we blame him? He
> saw the wolf coming and knew what he was going to do and could,
> according to our definition, stop it. Our "God" is also all good, so
> how can he let this happen? Obviously there is something wrong with
> our definition of God. Or perhaps with good. If God isn't all good
> or all powerful or all knowing, is he worthy of our mindless worship?
> I certainly don't claim to be a philosopher or even particularly
> clever, but this argument was probably the single most important thing
> that led me away from my irrational beliefs and "faith."
> I present it here just as my $0.02 worth in the ongoing discussion.

I mention to them that I object to christianity on moral grounds, being opposed to incest. When they inquire what I mean, I reply by asking, "Who were the parents of Adam & Eve's grandchildren?" Joe
> ==
> ----------------------
> Terry Donaghe
> Pancritical Rationalist
> Transhumanist
> Extropian
> Libertarian
> "Live free forever or die, dammit!"
> _________________________________________________________
> Get your free address at