The Implications of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Theodicy | Dr. Mika Edmondson

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Day God Overslept (Well, One of Many Days)

It's that old chestnut again: The Problem of Evil. This time a slightly different slant is given by David Madison over at Debunking Christianity. I will again leave his word in black with my responses in red font. Let's see if this slant is any better than any of the others trotted out.


Theodicy, AKA The Litany of Excuses



In March 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, a gunman walked into a school and killed sixteen children and their teacher. Among the many flowers that were left outside the school in thedays following, one bouquet was accompanied by a Teddy Bear with a note tied around its neck: “Wednesday 13 March 1996–the day God overslept.”

I remember when this incident happened. Unfortunately it was not the first time nor the last time such a horrific thing has happened. The annecdotal note and the article under consideration here seem to be making a point that if God was awake and active that gunman would not have killed all those people. The thought assumes that God is obligated to keep bad things from happening to people in general and to us in particular. The Bible never tells us that but many of us people are still quick to make this assumption.

For those raised to believe in a good god who also happens to be all-powerful, such evil is inexplicable. Theologians have given it their best shot—over and over, throughout the millennia—but none of their explanations really satisfy. As one of them, Uta Ranke-Heinemann has admitted, “The question of the origin of evil, of what causes the tears
and deviltries of the world, the question that no
theologian has so far managed to answer, is one that humans have always posed.” (Putting Away Childish Things, p. 62)

People who find the problem of the origin of evil as inexplicable to the point of absurdity should really consider if they understand what the Bible means where it says that God is "good". I think what people really think is that if God is good then it is unthinkable that he would allow anything bad to happen to good people. We think that we ourselves in particular are too good to deserve the bad things in life that befall us  Therefore, of course God should not allow us to suffer. When we see someone else suffer, especially when we think they are innocent, we wonder why it happens and if something like that or worse could happen to us?

Many serious thinkers have concluded from the existence of massive evil andsuffering that there probably isn’t a good god overseeing the Cosmos. Most believers can’t go that far, and reach for other explanations. Hence one mourner in Dunblane chose the metaphor of oversleeping to excuse God’s inattention. This metaphor is milder than Nietzsche’s famous declaration that “God is dead,” but “God overslept” is still just an attempt—tinged with cynicism it seems to me—to come to terms with God’s absence or indifference. Why didn’t God—almighty God who knows if even a sparrow falls to the ground (Matt. 10:29)—jam the gun that day?

Just because something bad happens does not mean that God is not inattentive. It does not mean that God did not know it was going to happen. It does not mean that God did nothing. Obviously the situation could have been far worse and that does mean that God constrained it to make it not as bad. as it could have been. For example, what if the man had succeeded in killing every person at that school that day. I think that was intention. What stopped him? God.  What about the people that was killed? I don't know! I think we should not be afraid to admit that. I don't know why God does what He does in every situation. None of us do. That should be okay. He is sovereign and under no one. This is where trust and faith kick in. We know that God knows what God is doing and he does what is best for everyone in the ultimate sense that will bring God the most glory although I do not understand it all now!

Sounds so simple, doesn’t it? God could have jammed the gun. Why not? But even
many Christians would respond, “Well, the world doesn’t work that way.”Of course not. But why not, if “he’s got the whole world in his hands”? The disconnect between such sentimental religious banalities and the real world can be very jarring. With so much evil and misery on this planet, how is it consoling, let alone true, that “he’s got the whole world in his hands”?

I know people who have experience the "gun jammed" moment. Instances where people were in life threatening situations but God miraculously saved their lives - including having a loaded gun's trigger pulled in their face but God making the gun jam. I say God did it because the gun should have gone off,. God does exactly that kinds of stuff even today. That being said, God does not do that all the time nor are we promised that he would do it all the time. God having "whole world in his hand" is only consoling if you know him!

Many explanations have been offered to account for suffering in our tiny corner of a Cosmos supposedly supervised by a caring and all-powerful god. The result of this major theistic preoccupation can be labeled The Litany of Excuses (although it’s officially called theodicy). Most Christian laypeople can usually round up a few of the standard apologies if asked point-blank why God tolerates so much evil and suffering.

"The Litany of Excuses" appears to presupposes that God has to defend his decisions and ways in terms of what happens to us He is the potter and we are clay. He gets to do what he wants and does not answer to any of us. I hope by "apologes", Madison is using the word in its classical definition as "defenses". God does not need to say "sorry" to anyone for anything. 

But I’ve found that believers balk at any hard thinking that would require serious homework on this issue. They usually don’t grasp how fraught with difficulties the common excuses are. The apologies sound okay only on the surface. Folks who blithely offer two or three excuses for God’s tolerance for suffering and evil usually have not thought deeply enough about the excuses to see how vulnerable they are. For example, those who claim that free will lets God off the hook on a lot of suffering don’t
grasp how free will goes off the rails before it accomplishes much of anything. Nor do they seem to be aware that the standard excuses have been vetted by non-religious philosophers, and commonly found wanting. They seldom—if ever—ask where they can find the exhaustive theodicy literature that is available. I’ve never heard a Christian say, “I’d better read up on this. There must be lots of books on my favorite apology for God. Where can I find them?”

Finally something Madison writes makes sense. The "free will" theodicy is indeed not a good argument  and is not Biblical. It has been 2000 years and plenty of good answers for this.

Secular philosophers understand that the excuses don’t hold water—that’s commonly why they became secular philosophers—and theologians differ as to which are worth clinging to, and offer strained and forced defenses of those that they prefer.

It seems that Madison is coming from an Arminian perspective and I find that theology woefully inadequate for answering the Problem of Evil because all you really have the free will defense that I think that it really sucks, To see see better discussion seen Genesis 50, Romans, Habakkuk, the works of Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, John Piper, RC Sproul, James White, and many others.

David Madison was a pastor in the United Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, was published by Tellectual Press in August 2016.


Keep praying for David Madison

Debunking Christianity: The Day God Overslept (Well, One of Many Days)

Owned - Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

John Lofus has continued his series of blog posts in which he tries to judge God for allowing James Holmes to a massacre and injure innocent people at the premiere of the movie Dark Knight Rises at a movie theater in Aurora,Colorado. His basic contention is that if God is what Christianity says God is, then horrible tragedies should not happen leading him to the conclusion that God does not exist. In this series he tried to argue against why God didn't intervene. Before going through is post, I think it's important to remember that the fact that more people did not die in that theater is due that God did intervene. However God did not intervene in the way many of us think God should have, but we don't have all the facts or know what God's purposes are in this to judge God.


When it comes to the problem of suffering for a good omnipotent God, in my books I argue for the possibility of perpetual miracles from God that alleviate suffering among his creatures. I call it the Perpetual Miracle Objection. David Hume didn't use this exact phrase when he objected that the ordering of the world by general natural laws "seems nowise necessary" for God, but it's the same concept. Link. Let's apply this line of argumentation to what Holmes did and see another preemptive way God could have averted the massacre from happening if he exists and if he cares. 

I think scripture upholds that that God could indeed perform miracles continuously so that no one would ever suffer, but would that be really helpful? I don't think so. For example, what if it was impossible to fall off a cliff, building, or bridge because God perpetually changed physics because it would be impossible to die that way and each time it happens God delivers the person differently. If this were true, how would we be able to do science if we didn't know how nature would respond to what we do?  That's a huge show stopper. 

The other thing why is there a mutually exclusive choice between God being obligated to avert the massacre and the idea that if God does not avert it then he does not care or does not exist? Be real. Why would it follow that if God exist or cares that he should have stopped James Holmes. The choice that God would have a sufficient purpose for allowing is just left aside because Loftus has made up in his finite mind that there is no way that could make sense - something that John Loftus could not even begin to substantiate or explaln because he does not know everything.

Does anyone think God could not have created our world in such a way that some kinds of inventions could never be made? 

Sure God could have created our world so that some kinds of inventions could not be made. 

Nuclear weapons would be the most obvious example. If this universe didn't contain uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-239) they could never be made. If such a universe could not be created or be self-sustaining without uranium and plutonium, then what's the problem for God? He could still perform one or more perpetual miracles after the fact, by making this world appear fine-tuned as it does without them. He could have created this universe as it now is and then later performed several perpetual miracles. What is there about an actually existing fine-tuned universe such that it is preferable over constant divine maintenance with the appearance of being fine-tuned? Is God lazy or something? He could even perpetually keep scientists from discovering how to make these kinds of weapons. But he either didn't think about these possibilities, or he cannot do what is required, or he doesn't care. You pick. 

There is no way that Loftus could know what possibilities God did or did not consider when God created our universe. I think it is really silly to suggest that the universe isn't fine-tuned because weapons grade uranium and plutonium exists. Again we don't know all the purposes for them and I'd argue that they may be very necessary for our very existence. As for the suggestion that God could have prevented scientists from discovering how to make nuclear weapons, I'd argue that God did exactly that. Ever wonder why the Nazis failed to develop the atomic bomb first? I mean given that all the best work in nuclear physics was being done in Germany. Why did they fail? Two major issues. Many of those German scientists were Jews and they went to work for the United States. The other problem was the Nazi scientists overestimated the amount of Uranium-235 needed to sustain an explosive nuclear reaction. They incorrectly concluded that there would be no way to extract enough U-235 for uranium ore to get the amount needed (about 15 kg). However, our scientist figured out how to do it (and it isn't easy) and that is one reason why not just any country can make nuclear weapons. And a plutonium bomb is even more difficult to make. God does indeed know what Gos is doing and we don't.

Weapons, that's what I'm talking about here.




But it was because of the same nuclear technology that made the bomb possible, also made the nuclear power plants possible. 

Let's weigh the advantages of the invention of gunpowder with the disadvantages of the human carnage it has caused. Would we be better off? Would the advantages be worth the human carnage?

And just how would anyone of us begin to judge or weigh that?

Would we be able to have roads, railroads, and bridges without it? Would we be able to mine gold or silver without it? Conversely, would we discover other means to kill large numbers of people just as easily? While these questions deserve more than simplistic answers I don't think there would be anything problematic in living without gunpowder.

 Gee, I wonder how would John Loftus go about proving that that is true.  Being finite and limited, no once could honestly believe that we don't need gunpowder.

 After all, human life flourished without it until it was discovered in the 9th century by the Chinese. The lack of gunpowder would inhibit the rise or modernity but why is that important to a God who merely wants to test our souls for an eternal reward or punishment? 

I wonder why John Loftus cannot see why God would want human beings to gain the technological knowledge that we have reached? Who says that God only wants to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment? God already knows that our souls are only worthy of punishment without God's intervention. The Bible tells us what God's purpose for God's people and it's not test our souls because God already knows how crappy we are. (see Romans 8:28,29). Regardless of whether you agree that it is true or not, you have to agree that God's purpose is not to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment.

This could go for such explosives as C-4 too, perhaps others.

Yes, it does. 

Without gunpowder James Holmes would only have a spear, sword and/or a knife. He would not do as much damage. He would not kill or maim so many people.

Not in a short time, but given that the other people in the theater were not armed, the loss of any life is not any less tragic even if there had been fewer people hurt of killed. It also would not change the thrust of the question for why God allowedJames Holmes to kill anyone. We don't know but what we cannot conclude is that God does not exist or that God does not care, no matter how much you want to assert it.

Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

Related articles

• 'Batman' Shooter James Holmes -- Sent Massacre Plans to Professor BEFORE the Shootings
• Miracle At Aurora Shooting 22 Years in the Making
• Graphic: James Holmes was a man with a plan
• John Loftus (Debunking Christianity) "is done"

Owned: Debunking Christianity: Omniscience Doesn't Exonorate God For The Colorado Movie Massacre

John Loftus is again attempting to use the tragic deaths and injuries from last Friday in Colorado to foolishly attempt to demonstrate  that God cannot exist because of the fact that this terrible event happened. Last time he tried debunk the "Free-Will" defense. This time, he tries to tear down God's omniscience as a theodicy. I don't think his argument works because I don't think that God's omniscience or our free will exonerates God for the actions of James Holmes. I want to be clear I am not claiming that I am owned Loftus but that God already has.

Previously I've suggested some reasonable ways a good God could have stopped James Holmes from firing on innocent people in that Colorado theater without revealing himself, and without abrogating Holmes's free will. Link. But is there another way to exonerate God in what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause? Could God have overriding reasons based in his omniscience for allowing that horrible tragedy to happen? I don't think so at all. While this isn't impossible it's extremely improbable to the point of being virtually impossible.

I still really don't like the free-will defense because we don't have it. We are going to see if Loftus can demonstrate that God cannot have sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering.

Before proceeding there are very important questions concerning whether there is evidence for a personal three-in-one beginningless omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenelovent, omnipresent God who consequently never had a prior moment when he chose his values or his nature, never had a disagreement within the Godhead, never took a risk, never learned any new truths, and so on, and so forth. Questions include why this God created at all, why he set human beings up for a fall into sin, how it's possible for a God/Man to truly be a God/Man, or how this God/Man's death atones for sin, and why God expects people living in a scientific age like ours to believe in miracles in the superstitious past like the resurrection of this God/Man or be thrust into hell. These kinds of questions, if studied in scholarly depth, already diminish the probability that there is a God who needs to be exonerated for allowing the killing spree of Holmes. With no God there is no need to exonerate him.

Answering the above questions or not being able to answer the above questions does not prove or disprove that God exists. The Bible contains some of these answers and for the others, why is it so difficult to understand that God has not chosen to reveal that information to us?  For the sake of this post, Loftus assumes that God does exist in order to show that God's omniscience does not excuse God for allowing James Holmes' shooting spree.

Even granting this kind of God it's hopeless trying to exonerate such a deity based in omniscience. Theists claim we cannot fathom God’s omniscient ways. This is either a blanket statement covering all that we think we know about the ways of an omniscient God (i.e. nothing), or we can know something about the reasonableness of his ways.

I would argue that we neither have the right or ability to judge the reasonableness of God's ways. We have no right to judge God's actions any more than you do for fumigating your house.  Also we only know of God by what he has revealed to us through God's word and his creation.

As a blanket statement we would consequently have no way of knowing that God's ways are reasonable or good ones at all, and if that's true, we would also have no reasonable way of knowing whether we could trust him. 

That is one of the things that very much sets Christianity apart from every other worldview: the promise of a personal relationship with God. God shows you that God is worthy of your trust as your relationship grows. That relationship isn't an equal relationship - we are not God's equals.

But if instead we can know something about God's ways then we should know enough about them to know that they are reasonable and good ones.

Humanity is fallen. Why would you trust your own perceptions and thinking process to judge if God's ways are reasonable?  It's like trying to measure an infinitely straight line with a broken, cracked, and bent ruler.  It doesn't work.

But there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why such a God would allow this tragedy to happen. Not one potential explanation works at all.

Bald assertion. How do you know that?  How can anyone really say that? I don't know why God allowed that or anything really bad to happen.  Sometimes we do find out when we see how things play out. Sometimes we don't find out.  The point is that God has proven to be trustworthy in my own life so I know I can trust God no matter how bad things get or what I feel.

Think otherwise? Then I challenge believers to try. Go ahead. Think. Don't proof-text from the Bible since that's also in question here.

For  Loftus, the Bible is questionable, but not looking at what it says you are saying you don't really want answers to your questions. 

Come up with one reasonable explanation for why God might have allowed this tragedy to happen when there were many reasonable ways he could have stopped it before it happened. Just one. Give it your best shot. 

Bottom line: I have no idea why God allowed James Holmes to kill and hurt so many people. It's also hasn't even been a week yet and we have no idea what will happen in the end. 

The bottom line is that theistic attempts to exonerate God based in his supposed omniscience cut both ways. We’re told God is so omniscient that we can’t understand his purposes, and this is true, we can’t begin to grasp why God allowed Holmes to do what he did if he exists. But if God is as omniscient as claimed, then he should have known how to avert this tragedy before it happened since we do have a good idea how he could’ve done so, especially since by not doing so there will be more people who reject the very faith he so desires people to have in him.

It's because of the purpose that God has  in mind that God allowed the tragedy to take place because of course God could have stopped him. God didn't. Why? I don't know yet, but one day we will know and  because of the good God has been to me in my life, including through my suffering, I know I can trust God.

The Omniscient Escape Clause as I have argued elsewhere, makes one's faith unfalsifiable and forces the skeptic to prove the believer's faith is impossible before he or she will ever consider it to be improbable--an utterly unreasonable standard of proof. 

I think this calls for something at the end. Hmmmm...

Q.E.D.

Loftus failed again to prove anything. Just because something is unfalsifiable does not make something false or true. By admitting that Christianity is unfalsifiable is tantamount to admitting that Christianity is undebunkable. He is admitting that he can only demonstrate that he thinks that Christianity is unreasonably improbable. He fails to prove this and I reject that conclusion.  That's really no where close to showing that Christianity is empirically false.

Debunking Christianity: Omniscience Doesn't Exonorate God For The Colorado Movie Massacre

Faceplant of the Day - Questioning God In the Face of Tragedy

John Loftus really believes that he understands and predicts what an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God would and would not do. Further he thinks that if anything happens or does not happen supporting what he thinks God would do, he concludes that God does not exist.  This is evidenced in the case of the following quote.

Just think, God could have foreseen this tragedy and miraculously averted the iceberg hours before the Titanic came into its path. If he had done this no one would be the wiser! He could have remained hidden if that's his goal. For believers to say God does this from time to time then his so-called "interventions" look indistinguishable from chance. In other words, there is no evidence that he intervenes at all. So having faith that God intervenes even once is exceedingly improbable.

I think the problem here is that Loftus refuses to think. When God intervenes in our lives, he doesn't always let us know that he intervened. The Titanic is an example in that if God had intervened in such a way that the iceberg never met the ship at all then we would not know that God intervened. Yet however, we have all had close call, where imminent harm was about to overtake us, yet it didn't. It's all under God's control. All a part of what He's doing. Sometimes you agree with the results of the intervention and sometimes you wish God had intervened differently. The way you know the difference between God and random chance comes down to Relationship. "Chance" is what you call God when you don't know Him. . 

So where was God when the Titanic sank? God was working out everything after the counsel of his own will.

 ¹¹ In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, - Ephesians 1:11

Where Was God When the Titanic Sank 100 Years Ago?

Related articles

• Experiencing History 100 Years Later Above The Site Of The Titanic Tragedy (philadelphia.cbslocal.com)
• The Titanic: A Lesson For Marriage (theromanticvineyard.com)
• Events mark Titanic's 100th (timesleader.com)
• Events worldwide mark Titanic centenary (myfoxny.com)
• Photographs mark aftermath of Titanic tragedy as survivors reach New York (scotsman.com)

Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections

I have seen a really interesting article about Theodicy from Dr Ken Samples. He wrote

People often ask why a good God would allow human beings to suffer. In fact, the problem of pain and suffering (theodicy) is arguably the greatest challenge to the truth of Christian theism. But if suffering is the only way or perhaps the best way to move people toward ultimate truth and virtue, then God’s goodness is compatible with pain and suffering (this is known as the “greater good” response to theodicy).



Obviously, people can still ask why certain folks suffer when they don’t appear to be the direct beneficiary of the good that can come from sorrow. Or people can ask why there is so much suffering in the world. From a Christian apologetics standpoint there is no one response that explains, let alone solves, all of the problems connected to suffering. But the Christian response that God has dealt decisively with the problem of human suffering and evil through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ appears to be a far greater explanation than other worldviews offer.



The Gospel offers humankind hope and purpose because the Lord Jesus Christ suffered with us and for us. The historic Christian claim to the believer is that the suffering one endures in this life cannot compare with the glory that will be revealed in the next life.

Read the whole thing at:



Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections



Given what I've just gone through watching my sister waste away and finally succumbed to the suffering she courageously endured  from the cancer that attacked her body, this post carried with it a different feel than when I usually think of theodicy. Dr Samples' article is indeed true. My sister lived it and I witnessed it - God is indeed enough.

Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to a series of articles in which Dr. Clay Jones critiques Dr. Bart Ehrman's book on the problems of evil and suffering, entitled "God's Problem". Ehrman really seems to think that the Bible does not offer an adequate theodicy for explaining suffering and evil. I disagree. You can read why Jones disagree by visiting Brian Auten's blog to get the links to Jones' articles.

Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315

Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson

Dr James White has written a great article about judging the morality of God. His article is in response to Roger Olson and other people who deny the sovereignty of God in all matters. Some say they reject reformed theology because they refuse to accept the idea that God is so sovereign that no one can challenge his choice of election to salvation. Dr White does such a great job answering this, but I think that his answer is also great against atheists who think that God owes them an explanation for the things He does and the things He allows. This is an answer to anyone who would try to challenge God and judge the rightness and wrongness of His commands and decrees. This has bearing on how we view and discuss evil and suffering. You don't have a theodicy without thinking of these matters.. Take a look and the link.

Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson

FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #17

Well, Johnny P is back bringing his weekly faceplant with him. I'd thought it would be worth making another post given the many comments Johnny P made and that Ryan Anderson inadvertently attempted some kind of  "tag team" action. Didn't really help but just added to the fail. My comments will be red and italicized for past comments I made being responded to.  Johnny P's "thoughts" will be in black and Ryan Anderson's will be purple..

"Do you have any realization how bankrupt that is?"

Johnny P replies
Argument from Desire.

My desire or your's  or Ryan Anderson? Remember what Anderson's argument was:  If he had been born a Nazi, he agree that Hitler was right and that there is no reason or way to define whether or not Hitler's, or others like his, are right or wrong. Who's making an argument from desire again?

"you'd have no reason above your own predilection to defend your right to exist."

Where do rights exist? What are rights? How do you establish their objective existence condition?

eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/oct/20/human-rights-exist?INTCMP=SRCH

Hmmm...looks like someone figured out enough html to be able to add a hyperlink. Good for Johnny P. See Google is useful. Since the argument was out of Johnny P's grasp, let's make things clearer.  Again, Ryan, Johnny P and others want the freedom to decry and whine about evil and suffering but have no reason to explain why it's bad. How do you know it's bad? Why would it be wrong for someone to walk up to you, kill you, and take everything you have? Hitler did it. Stalin did it. People do it. What? Is it that it's only wrong if someone tried to do it to you?  Why? Anyone else hear the crickets?

"The video defined all the questions you had. The point was that you were supposed to watch the video."

I have watched the video, as I have many of QualiaSoup's vids. I was, however, commenting on you comments. You seem rather good at building straw men.

Why would I restate or argue against points already agreed to and conceded in the video on which I was commenting?  The Straw men are your own, Johnny P.

"If morality is not grounded, then how do you conclude that my meaning of "ought" is wrong?"

Firstly, you have to prove it is grounded, and prove that 'being grounded' makes any sense.

The video conceded that it was. The video ineptly argued that you can have morality without grounding it in God. 

Secondly, it is a non sequitur to say that because it is grounded it develops an ought.

So Johnny P partly disagrees with the video and some philosophers who believe that there are moral outghts. 

Especially since I have already set out the point that you cannot, linguistically speaking, have an intrinsic ought. If is defined by the context, although the apodosis [Johnny P later admits that he used the wrong word here]  is usually hidden / assumed.

So you mean under certain circumstances I'd ought to murder you and take all you have? You sure?  When? I don't think it would ever be right under any circumstances.

"No, you know what I meant. Wait you might be too stupid to know the context of what I meant."

This really shows that you are the stupid one, but try and get away with it by attacking others for being stupid. It's a cheap and disingenuous trick.

So, it's okay to insult me and question my mental faculties, education, and sanity but I can't question yours or express my opinion?  I understand. I disagree but I understand why you would resort to that. Can't blame you. That's all you have.

I raise the point that you need to have the apodosis in order to make sense of a conditional phrase - if...then (ought). I show this by using an example. Yes, most people would make sense of the sentence "You ought to put oil in your car" and this is because they are understanding a hidden apodosis of "If you want your car to work properly".

I'd take for grant it that you would want to be able to substantiate your opinion when there are others who disagree with you. For example, why was it wrong for terrorists to fly airliners into the World Trade Centers in 2001? They didn't think it was wrong, that is why they did it. They were wrong. What makes it correct for you to say that they ought not had done so? I'm still waiting for you or someone to ground their answer in more than your opinion because then you have to explain why your opinion is better than theirs. 

You calling me stupid just shows you don't understand the point.

So you are saying my opinion is wrong? How do you know? Can you demonstrate that I am wrong about your level of intelligence?

That being you cannot have a free-standing ought.

 Assertions, anyone?

There is always an if. Usually, in moral terms, it revolves around happiness.

That is a pathetic place to ground morality. Who's happiness? The oppressor's happiness? The oppressed? How do you expect to quantify that? September 11, 2001 made the terrorists and Jiihadists happy, does that mean the terrorists acted morally?

This is even true for religious types. It can be argued that happiness is derived by getting into heaven or avoiding hell. Thus the oughts have a clear consequentialist dimension.

Ahhh...here is the disconnect,. In Christianity, if you think that it's primarily about  avoiding hell, you don't understand what you are rejecting. While there is a consequential dimension for sure that does not determine "oughts". Somethings ought to be done or not done no matter the context or circumstances.

I'm sure you've considered this all in your wide-ranging and highly in depth opinions on morality.

The real question is are you so far gone that don't see how bankrupt your opinions on morality are because they are certainly opinions divorced from reality. 

Johnny P had said:

"The value of morality is derived by consequence."

To which I had replied

Prove that.

Check the bible. If you can't understand this from the accounts of the Old Testament, then get back to me or do some reading on morality. Oh, and just be careful the next time you tell me, in debate, that all the suffering in the world can be accounted for the fact that we don't know the mind of God and it must be serving a greater good / purpose. Only because, with those views, you and every other Christian admit that God is a moral consequentialist. Prove it? God has ample times.

We are not on God's level. He is the grounding and definition of what is and is not moral. Just because you don't always know why God has acted as He has does not make His action suspect or immoral because you do not know what all the reasons are. You might not like that. You might like to be able to hold God to a standard that you understand given that He is holding us to standard which you try to deny  but agree to much of the time anyway. However, that doesn't work very well does it?  You tend to seem to hate a god that I would definitely say does not exist. Your straw god. It's more than just God asks or commands anything expedient at the time, there really are reasons why God allows or decrees the things he does. Think of Joseph - betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused of attempted rape, imprisoned for years in Egypt, and finally becoming second only to Pharoah, but when he reflected on those experiences he came to the following conclusion.

¹⁸ His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.
 ¹⁹ But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? ²⁰ You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ²¹ So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.- Genesis 50:18-21

"What's really worthless is your analysis because your arguing against the wrong God - one who is like you instead of the God in the Bible."

Oh dear. I couldn't give a shit what god I am arguing against.

If you are not arguing against the God of the Bible, then your arguments are even more worthless here than I thought.

If an entity commits any act for the eventual consequences it derives, then he is carrying out moral consequentialism. Go and research the Trolley Problem - morality 101. It is why Absolute Morality is untenable. While you're at it, look into the Inquiring Murderer as a criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative (ought).

So what? Is Johnny P arguing that  moral consquentialism is wrong or immoral? How does that make God monsterous? What is your point? That does not mean that God cannot tell us what we ought to do or what we ought not to do.

"No, but even you should be able to follow the hyperlinks"

Do you know how long it takes your blog pages to load? It's fricking annoying. It is not my computer. As Ryan says, it is across multiple high performance computers.

Oh, we are back to whining about how slow my blog is on your computer?  Don't like it?  Don't read it. Doesn't help your argument at all.

"This puts a physically illustration to just how much of bankrupt failure yours and Johnny P's arguments really are"

Give it a rest man. You have quite clearly shown that you don't seem to know the first thing about moral philosophy bar listening to Craig debate his appallingly bad Moral Argument which revolves, like his even worse KCA, on faulty or dubious premises.

And yet, Dr William Lane Craig continues to win debates. LOL. Maybe Johnny P should debate him, since he seems to think he can clearly do better. Now that would be funny. Embarrassing for you, but still quite entertaining.

They are logically valid, but unsound arguments. All writers use badgers' guts for pens. Jimmy is a writer. Jimmy uses badgers' guts for pens. Is logically valid, but utter shite.

Now that's a "professional" assessment. Obviously it's wrong because of the premise that all writers use pens, let alone badgers' guts. None of the premises in the Moral Argument or the KCA are nearly as faulty. Go ahead and take your best shot. Better folks than you have tried.

So don't throw mud at people in an attempt to refute them when you need to look more closely at your own reasoning and understanding of the topic.

I haven't thrown mud, your arguments dumb enough without my help.

In case you can't be arsed to read up, I'll do the work for you:

In a giving mood are we? Must be the Christmas season. Watch now how Johnny P, quotes from a source(s) and provides no documentation or authorship for several paragraphs he probably pasted from his  Google searches. 

When debating morality and ethics with Christian theists, scorn is often poured on secular ethicists who adhere to moral disciplines that are not grounded in God. Usually, these moral approaches are consequentialist in nature. In other words, moral actions are defined by the consequences they deliver as opposed to the intrinsic morality of the action itself. The ends justify the means. As an example, such an approach might well be utilitarianism. Though this appears in many guises (for example, act and rule utilitarianism), it basically dictates that a good action is one which derives the most ‘good’, or happiness, as a consequence.

I don't think that it has anything to do with trying to optimize human happiness.  Why don't we see what God says about this: There are several scriptures that deal with this very question, but let's just look at one of them.

⁴ For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace ⁸ that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, ⁹ he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰ to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
 ¹¹ In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹² in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.- Ephesians 1:4-12

This passage explains that God is in sovereign control and that he is acting according to what he has purposed, not according to the happiness of humanity.  More of Johnny P's Straw god.

Theists claim that good acts are good intrinsically, and the basis for this goodness is the nature of God himself. Now, I do not want to get into the vagaries of Divine Command Theories but suffice it to say there are many good arguments against such positions.

What might they be? Would be nice if Johnny P had provided the reference and quotation marks.

What is important to understand, however, is that God is not a moral absolutist; he is, at least extremely often, a moral consequentialist. In other words, God does not (again, at least very commonly) believe that actions are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences or the contexts in which the actions take place, but derive their rightness from their context or consequences.

The Bible does not agree, therefore Christianity does not agree. Text after text in the Bible admonishes humans to do right and shun evil - regardless of convenience or happiness.  No one should become a Christian to make themselves happy. You will be sorely disappointed in the short run. It's about denying what you want and doing the right thing because it's right not because of what you are getting out of it.

The proof for this is unbelievably commonplace. We could start with the sacrifice and death of Jesus.

Jesus voluntarily substituted Himself for us to have the wrath of God poured out on himself for sin. And given that Jesus is God incarnate (Trinitarian doctrine), the objection further fails.

But there are far more obvious acts (or omissions). Take Noah’s flood. The death of all of humanity bar eight, the death of billions of animals and ecosystems, would strike many as being ‘not good’.

No it was just judgement.  Just because God has chosen to give us more grace than God gave them  does not mean that God acted immorally. God is free to punish or extend mercy to whomever God chooses whenever God chooses.

Many could argue that such an action (enacted by God) is intrinsically bad. However, God nevertheless enacted this destruction. Why? Because there was a greater good that would come from it – there has to be or God cannot be labelled all-loving. The end justifies the means. God is being a consequentialist.

God defines and purposes both mean and ends...that's missing from consideration.If the point is that God is acting in the best interest of what He has created to bring glory Himself, I don't see the reason for the objection. You can say you don't like it and/or that you don't trust God to do what is best for you, but if Christianity is correct, it doesn't matter what you or think about what God decides to do or how God decides to do it.

Let’s look at God allowing the 2004 tsunami, allowing the Holocaust, the floods, volcanoes, fires, other tsunamis and every single natural disaster since the beginning of time... In fact, by God allowing every single bit of suffering, every single death, that has ever happened to any human being or animal since the Big Bang (or Genesis Creation) we can see that on every single occasion God has been consequentialist. The consequences of every single piece of suffering must (if God is all loving, powerful enough to have it otherwise and knowledgeable enough to know how to have it otherwise) outweigh the intrinsic ‘badness’ of the action.

And this is bad because? Is the problem that to Johnny P, and this person he plagiarized, it follows that God is not benevolent? Really? The argument is that all of this will lead to the most good and we don't know if the most good could be accomplished any other way, do we? What we do know, God's plan to bring about the greatest good includes some short-term pain and suffering for people now.  So? 

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.- Romans 8:18-21

So either God (or the theist) believes that actions are not intrinsically good or bad, or the consequences of the actions are more important than the intrinsic value of the actions.

 False dilemma.

Thus, even if intrinsic moral values exist as well as consequentialism, it seems that consequentialism trumps intrinsic moral value every time suffering is allowed to happen.

Short-sighted due to limited cognition

Therefore, the next time you get into a debate about morality with a theist and they try to denigrate secular consequentialism, demand that they explain such a criticism in light of God’s ubiquitous reliance on the virtue of consequentialism himself.

Well given that God decrees and orders means and ends, I wouldn't conclude that God is relying on anything else. 

Marcus, if I ever thought you thought my opinion carried any weight, then I would know I was doing something drastically wrong. 

And yet, Ryan, keeps giving his opinion. 

And dummy, Californian = a quality. Vile = a quality.

Californian is a description and not a quality.  "Vile" is a value judgement not just a description. Did you ever take an English class while your were "learning" Kione Greek?

Johnny P; as an atheist, please make sure you cease and desist from using any adjectives ever, if you ever become a theist (or does it specifically have to be the COGIC sect?) you may begin using adjectives again.

Actually you both need to learn how to use adjectives correctly. And for the record, there are many denominiations and sects that have born-again Christians in them, Ryan. Don't get mad because you were never one of them and don't know what you speak of. Jesus still loves both of you.

Thanks to Marcus for the heads up.

You're welcome. Hopefully this helped clear up your confusion.

I know Ryan, it's hilarious in the sheer enormity of his naivety.

Hmmm...so not seeing that making a condemnation while denying objective moral value is not naive? You might have a point. I think inconsistent and stupid is more descriptive, as well completely mistaken.

"you can't honestly and consistently refer to our attitude as "vile" because you have no basis to ground or define what is "vile". You are the one constantly arguing that morality doesn't need an objective basis. "

He is now claiming that language must be objectively grounded!

Nope, I'm saying that the moral value that it's vile to post a boy falling on his face has not basis without an objective standard. Without the standard, it's just your opinion verses my opinion and a waste of time arguing about.

You are not, Ryan, entitled to a personal opinion unless it is verified as sufficiently metaphysically grounded by the Great Arbiter of Language, Marcus. Only he shall decree the veracity of conceptual claims of individuals to ensure they are, in fact, directly correlative to the inspired objective mind of God.

I didn't say that anyone isn't entitled to your personal opinion. I'm saying that without a standard, your opinion is meaningless and no more true than any other conflicting opinion. 

You cannot think or speak, Ryan, unless it is exactly in accordance with the thoughts and words of the Almighty.

Otherwise, your thoughts and speech get you as far a one inflated tire on a car.

And so the crock of crap continues.

So stop posting your inane comments, Johnny P, and the "crock of crap" will discontinue.

Correction: Apologies, on re-reading an earlier post, I used 'apodosis' when I meant 'prostasis'.

Apology accepted. Doesn't improve your arguments, however. 

Also,


As Thomas Wren said in Moral obligations: action, intention, and valuation, writes:

“The moral ought is like technological oughts in that it has to do with means toward an end. These include not only external means, which are tools, and immanent means, which are actions, but also, and just as unavoidably, means one step removed from action and which are moral virtues.

Finally a viable citation. Doesn't rebutt what I already have written above, but nice try. 

The search for justification is, so to speak, a hunting expedition for a “lost prostasis”. This is true of attempts to justify any attempts to justify non-imperative, moral or non-moral; it is also true of attempts to justify non-imperatives that are practical principles or value judgements, since, as we have seen from Hare, the assent to a value-judgement – a judgement in which a practical principle is formulated – entails assent to a correlative imperative.

Without justification, how do you decide that you are doing the correct thing when people's deed contradict your own. For example, when a thief tries to rob you, how  do you justify stopping him, when he believes he's correct in robbing you? Of course this assumes you disagree with him. Or what if someone wanted to kill you. What justification could you offer that one ought not kill you?

Thus nothing said so far counts as a justification for moral imperatives qua imperatives. Such as justification, if it can be given, would provide a prostasis appropriate to the imperative “Be moral”. Or to put it more simply, it would be the answer to the supremely important transmoral metaethical questions, “Why be moral?”

Well why? And how do you know what "moral" is without justification given that not everyone you come in contact with may agree with you?…

Perhaps what is expressed in such sentences by the word “ought” is closer to a descriptive or structural law than to a prescriptive or commanding one.”

(p. 83-94)

Descriptive? So there is no need to justify protecting the weak? What about persecuting and oppressing the weak? We must not just ask "Why be moral?" but also "Why not be immmoral?" I find nothing in Ryan Anderson's or Johnny P's worldviews and subjective opinions to answer such question, yet they cling to moral values and deny the binding of them. Most definitely another faceplant.

What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #16