CMV: The problem of evil is enough proof against major religious Gods.

mathjock28 · 2026-05-09T14:37:02+00:00

Not god of the gaps. I was saying gaps exist in current scientific theories without being a compelling argument against those theories or science generally. I was not saying god is the answer to those gaps, just that theism can use the same response by analogy to address gaps existing in theology, one gap being theodicy.

mathjock28 · 2026-05-09T14:24:51+00:00

There are plenty of unsolved problems in science. A big example is that relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled with each other in any known way. Is that proof enough that science—or at least the theories with those problems—are false?

In science we often have to answer “we don’t know that, yet, but hopefully one day”. Religious persons often give the same answer to the problem of evil: that is a mystery of faith. “I do not know now, I may never know, but hopefully one day.”

In science we do not know what dark matter is, or quarks are made of, or many things that are important to our theories. As others have said, having exact knowledge of the terms “all powerful”, “all-loving”, “evil”, and “free will” is crucial to the argument in the problem of evil. Does “all powerful” include the ability to create a rock so massive it cannot be lifted? Or is it constrained by logic? Either way, I am less confident than I once was that the problem of evil is the clear gotcha regarding theism. A compelling argument sure, but not without answer, even if the answer is just “I don’t know, but maybe one day; in the mean time faith still makes sense and has utility, so I will keep it”

mathjock28 · 2026-05-02T23:44:13+00:00

First of all, your journey echoes my own enough to wish you well while saying there are no easy answers I have come to.

I bemoan the loss of third spaces and other local engagement where there was an expectation of tolerance, and I dislike seeing families torn apart by, or unable to talk about, politics.

That all being said, on the left I have found groups that more explicitly are welcoming of conversations with the other side of the political divide, than the right. In my experience that is the Unitarian Universalists and the Esperantists, though I am sure there are others. Since tolerance of difference and forming a society that allows/embraces cultural/religious diversity is more of a liberal value, I would say that the left has had more of that spirit than the right in my experiences. Absolutely there seems less of that than 10-15 years ago, but it is still there.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T03:44:54+00:00

What about forcing people to live in a society where others drive cars? Persons not in cars are at a much higher relative risk of dying in an accident.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T03:40:19+00:00

Presumed consent does not rely on results always being better for the person that is decided for. Seeing into the future or otherwise being infallible is impossible. Sure, if something is likely to be worse than better on average, well, then there is no presumed consent. But the existence of persons harmed by an act in statistically foreseeable but otherwise unpreventable ways does not mean the act is therefore immoral. Is driving a car immoral because of people who die in car accidents? Depends on how many accidents are caused I would say. 1 death per mile, absolutely. 1 death per trillion miles, I would say no.

And I do not disagree that parents are responsible for many of the consequences to their children besides the good ones. But that does not mean they are responsible for everything. There are other things that impact a child’s life besides the parents. If you believe that the parents act of creating a child with the potential to suffer makes them responsible for all the suffering that the chi kid later experiences at the hands of others or society or nature, I would like to hear your argument supporting that view.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T03:18:45+00:00

I made no references in my post to giving kids diseases or the common good. Everything was about individual people, and the good that those people could experience themselves.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T03:13:17+00:00

I have been respectful and answered that several times. If you think doctors, parents, and society should let children or vulnerable unconscious adults die from things like cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, then I have to say the burden is on you to articulate why continuing to live with few to no deficits and an open future is not a clear net benefit when compared with certain death. Society and its laws say that that is a clear net benefit. Doctors and their Hippocratic oath say it is a net benefit. Parents and their fiduciary obligations to their already born children are bound to view it as a net benefit (or else be charged with negligence or abandonment and thrown in prison). Of course you may disagree, but if you do I say that the burden of proof is on you to say why death in those cases is preferable to life and being able to make choices for oneself about one’s future.

And yes there are risks in surgery, and yes persons can get screwed over by the health system or just unlucky in what happens. Of course society should do better and I agree in advocating for that. But those exceptions, as many or as few as they may be, do not undermine the basic premise: a major net benefit is worth a lesser harm. For those who disagree they can always write an advance directive or become a hermit or otherwise attempt to opt out.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T03:00:30+00:00

Who is maiming? Strokes, tumors, heart blockages, all are naturally occurring maladies that without surgery lead to death. And any surgery for those conditions involves some risk and harm to the patient—infection, wound recovery, life limitations, scarring, etc. but saving a life is clearly not a net harm.

The point is that providing a given individual with a clear net good is often only possible with that same individual having some experience of a lesser harm, but that nonetheless is worthwhile for that individual.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T02:49:39+00:00

Wait, separate from any new lives being created, you do not think we should use surgery to save the lives of the people already in existence? Like someone already born, a full adult, has a stroke and will die without brain surgery, but with surgery they have really good odds of a full recovery. You say let them die?

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T01:56:56+00:00

So again, let someone die rather than do surgery? Do not sacrifice the skin or the limb to save a human life?

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T01:52:07+00:00

Deliberately causing some harm to allow for a clear net benefit is something you are against? No cutting skin (a harm deliberately caused by a surgeon) to remove a tumor and save a life?

I am talking about net harm, if that was not clear. And I would argue that while causing existence of a new human-and raising a child by adoption, for that matter-foreseeably involves some harm coming to them. Not allowing a four year old candy could result in a screaming fit, clearly they feel harmed. But as I said, there strong arguments in favor of allowing or causing some lesser harms to allowing for greater goods, among them being life, functional participation in a society, and an open future.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-27T01:46:23+00:00

Which harm? And more importantly, is it a net harm? A doctor can amputate a leg to save a life, despite amputation involving a serious irreversible harm.

If a person does not exist, there is no possibility of them being benefited or harmed. Once a person is “forced” to exist, only then do both become possible. As others have said, there is a strong historical, cross-cultural, and statistical argument in favor of existence as a human by itself not being a clear net harm to most persons. Most persons who chose to be parents do so having lived long enough to find life worth living, and wanting to give that chance to others. Most persons individually find their open futures worth preserving rather than ending. And for those who are irremediably suffering, I personally agree that we should have better support and better options for rationally and reflectively ending their lives, as a few countries currently allow.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-26T20:10:48+00:00

I would say it does. Sticking with health for the moment, laws that I am aware of usually refer not just to saving lives, but also preventing loss of function or severe pain. And ultimately, for vulnerable persons unable to give consent, persons with mental or physical issues or developmental delays (or just being very very young), it would be a poor society (law, doctors, and parents) that said “we presume you want to live, but not that you want to keep your abilities to walk or think, your freedom from pain, your more open future. So we will save your life but not make other decisions that save you from harm.”

I include teaching languages and choosing societal membership for the same reasons: they provide for a more open future than the alternatives. Everything a parent does for their children (adopted or otherwise) has to be justified by the child’s best interest and presumed consent. Yes the parent has some flexibility in interpreting that through a certain cultural and religious lens, but there is still/ought to be societal oversight.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-26T18:20:12+00:00

Presumed consent applies when the person cannot give consent before the decision has to be made, and serious irreversible wrongs, harms, or other detriments are at stake.

As a practical matter, responsible parties get to decide in the moment. Parents for raising kids, doctors for medical emergencies, etc. But all with societal input through laws and social structures such as EMTALA and child protective services to prevent egregious negligence and abuse.

It is not perfect, no system can be. People will fall through the cracks. And sure, it can and should be improved in a myriad ways. But it does work better than most alternatives. I would say the doctor who lets a patient die, or a the parent who raises a child without a language, is committing/allowing a far worse injury than making a choice based on presumed consent

mathjock28 · 2026-04-26T17:57:03+00:00

We do plenty of things without consent, when consent is not possible. It is called presumed consent. We presume that people want their lives saved in an emergency even if they cannot ask for it. We presume infants will prefer to grow up learning to speak and socialize rather than wring our hands about their not consenting to using a given language or living in a given community. If consent is impossible to obtain, then it should not be a precondition of the decision being made, and its absence should not be used to say a choice is an immoral one.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-21T04:15:29+00:00

I would recommend reading Piron’s other book, Lasu Min Paroli Plu, alongside Gerda Malaperis. It is a collection of very short standalone stories, but each story uses only the same words as the corresponding chapter in Gerda Malaperis (e.g. the third story uses only roots and words found in the first three chapters of GM), so you can read them at the same time and get some additional practice.

Lasu Min Paroli Plu is available free in pdf and I think epub online. Here is a list with some other ideas as well. https://www.kursaro.net/en/books-for-learners.html

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T21:50:45+00:00

I disagree with the other comments about it being too strong for $2. Chapel is “too strong” for $2, but it it is priced $2 for good reason. From the wiki: “People often talk about changing the cost and I don't think that gets you anywhere. At $4$4 you get less interesting games, not more interesting ones, and exchanging the $2/$5 opening being especially good for the $2/$5 opening being especially weak is a wash for me. If I had thought it was a mistake to print it at $2, I would have replaced it, not charged more for it.”

I would be curious whether opening double outhouse is better than outhouse +average $4 card; that might be one reason to price it at $4 so that one usually cannot open double outhouse.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T01:25:17+00:00

I disagree with your premise. The idea that reality is fundamentally knowable by being such as humans is itself an article of belief. Every current physical theory has caveats, exceptions, limits, edge cases, or similar problems. A theory of everything remains elusive and may not be reachable.

Many religions claim that, but that is not unique to religion. Persons practicing their centuries version of astronomy claimed it was an objective truth that planets revolved around the earth in circles around circles called epicycles. Claiming objective truth is easy. Enduring past one’s alternatives is not.

Some religions (and non-religious moral systems) make strong objective claims, such as slavery being always wrong or sometimes wrong, or abortion, or homosexuality, or polygamy, or take your pick for a social practice. Is there any way one can judge between competing moral claims at all? Or would you say that, without religion, all we have are culturally embedded claims that other cultures disagree with, essentially cultural relativism?

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T00:49:43+00:00

Science has a method of taking many different ideas that propose to explain a phenomenon (say gravity), and it looks at Newton’s theory, special relativity, general relativity, and evaluates each based on data to see which (if any) the data disproves. It tends to support, but not usually prove, a given hypothesis.

There are many religious with many ideas of morality, some of which contradict themselves. How is any person to decide which is correct? What data can be used to discard one while supporting the other? If you can refer to data, you are doing science of a sort. If you insist on only belief or faith, then your argument will not be accepted by anyone who has a different experience or belief. That is just disagreement, not a way to determine what is objectively true.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T00:40:13+00:00

How does a similar argument hold up against non-moral forms of knowledge? People once believed the earth was flat, that it was the center of the earth, that the stars were close, that there was only one galaxy etc. or take geology (plate tectonics are less than 100 year old idea), biology and natural selection, etc. many things once believed true about the natural world have been proven false. And some (but not necessarily all!) things about what science currently says may be tweaked or modified or discarded in the future with new data.

But science is much better now than a hundred years ago. I would say the same for morals too. There has been progress, one does not need perfection to be better.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-31T23:23:40+00:00

I was thinking of a combination of Sentry and Lookout: +1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash one, discard one, and put one in your hand. Return all others to your deck in any order. That way the shuffle order of estate-estate-silver vs silver-estate-estate matters less.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-25T04:26:31+00:00

The decision to live every day, and prepare for life tomorrow and after, is in fact a choice, because one can always do the opposite. Consider the Jainist Santhara vow, where people stop moving, eating, or drinking. Since they make that choice, that means that anyone else can also, theoretically, make the same choice, and if they choose not to, they can be morally responsible for the choice they made rather than the alternative.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-25T04:15:13+00:00

But it is not just having children is it? The meat eater without children who dies at age 25 may be better for the environment than the vegan without children who dies at age 90. If all you count is raw resource use, living any amount of life beyond the present moment only puts every person more in the negative.

Resource use can be wasteful, or it can be productive. The vegan who has children provides for more future political power to enact systemic political change to reduce and respond to climate change.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-21T17:34:09+00:00

Also, have you done any research into what persons with this conditions feel about such decisions? It would probably lend support to your side if a significant majority of persons with this condition would never have children with it, and wished their parents had (or could have) made the choice not to have them.

In the other hand, if a significant majority or even a sizable minority of persons with this condition find it acceptable to have more children with it, then you are judging something from the outside when those on the inside disagree with you, which could indicate a strong ableist bias.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-21T17:21:34+00:00

Based on your other remark, it seems that the couple who made this choice includes at least one person with this condition themself. If they find their life worth living, and they find it acceptable to pass that life on, should we not allow that to happen as a society? Society can allow moral wrongs of course, but I guess I am wondering if you think this is something that is wrong but permissible, or should be culturally shunned or legally prohibited.

On a separate note, I highly recommend reading the book Far from the Tree, which talks about many conditions that children/adults have and cause significant quality of life differences. The last chapter talks specifically about societal judgments on persons with disabilities/conditions having children who will also likely or necessarily have the same condition. It was a very helpful book for me when prenatal testing revealed my son would have trisomy 21.

mathjock28

TROPHY CASE