The Rabbit in the Garden: A Skeptical Theist's Tale

[@youssefismael4820]

Oh man, how did you do this for me. I saw this video a year ago once, it was wonderful. But when I tried to see it again using the link, it said it was removed. Since then I have been trying to find it again and never succeeded until today. It was renamed and uploaded again. Ughhh, worth every second of my search.

[@Jaggerbush]

This was great because: topic - delivery - no music - no commercials - no cheesy jokes - perfectly dry.

[@Danyel615]

I didn't get the argument where he said that the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove the negative (lack of compensating good) instead of the theist to prove that there is one. It is exactly the other way. If you want me to believe there is a cure for cancer, you need to show it to me, and not the other way around.

[@huskydragon2000]

It's because arguments against a proposition require a burden of proof. Sometimes people say, "you can't prove negatives!" Which is false and self-defeating. First of all, you can prove "2 + 2= 5" is false by appealing to axioms of arithematic. Second, the proposition "it is not the case that a negative claim can be prove" is a negative claim. So if it's true, then it's false. And by standard rules of logic, a proposition that is both true and false is a contradiction thus irrational to believe. The problem of evil is an example of an argument for atheism. In other words, "it is not the case God exists." So, the atheist has the burden of proof here to show why the existence of evil and God either are logically incompatible (dead argument btw) or probabilistically incompatible (still in the game).

[@richardgomes5420]

@@huskydragon2000 Atheism can be understood simply as "I'm not convinced". Something like this: You say that a man walked on water. I say: "I'm not convinced". You say that a man transformed water in wine. I say "I'm not convinced". You say that the Universe has a cause. I say "I'm not convinced". So, in case you are willing to convince me about your claims, the burden of proof is on your side, always on your side, not mine.

[@Al-ji4gd]

@@richardgomes5420 That's a complete misunderstanding of how these things work. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[@richardgomes5420]

​@@Al-ji4gd Atheism does not make any claims. So, Atheism does not have anything to explain. Religion makes claims. Religion has things to explain. It is that simple! When you make a claim, the burden of proof is yours. When I reject your claim, the "burden of rejection" is mine. I don't have to show proof of a "negative claim", I just have to demonstrate that your "positive claim" is false.

[@Al-ji4gd]

@@richardgomes5420 No wonder you're convinced by bad reasoning when this if your level of argumentation. I guess all those rocks out there are atheists, since they also don't make claims.

[@richardgomes5420]

Atheists do not say that evil exists. Good and evil are about judgement, under a certain set of arbitrary rules and values. Good and evil are relative judgements, not absolute judgements. The example of a cyclone killing thousands of people can be bad for people, but can be good for agriculture. Compensating good: maybe your God is really interested on the well being of lettuce, instead of well being of people. The point is: I can literally invent infinite arguments for compensating good, literally infinite arguments. But I cannot *demonstrate* a single one to be true and/or real.

[@dnlarts]

Hi everyone, What did he mean at 8:26, that thesis is a substantive philosophical matter?

[@brettdison]

Oops, I forgot to add *that* if we are to draw a clear comparison between between the Theist and Atheist, we have to provide that the Atheist doesn't believe that cancer exists, or that a cure is impossible. This is a basic exercise in the use of "substitution" in evaluating the logical merit of an argument: "like" must be substituted with "like". Your comment (though smart and thought provoking -- made me think) lacks the "like for like" quality required for substitution. Honestly, I swear that I am not picking a fight. Mine is a friendly counter argument -- in the best traditions of the discipline. :)

[@richardgomes5420]

Atheists believe in many things, lots of things. I believe in traffic lights, for example. So, if you see me stopping on red... that's because I believe on traffic lights. And I will be there waiting for green for some time, still waiting and waiting, believing that it works properly. However, if I wait too much, I start do disbelieve that particular traffic light, I start to consider that maybe it is faulty. After a certain point, if it didn't turn green, I will simply cross on red, meaning that, at that point, I totally disbelieve that specific traffic light. I also believe that cancer exists, since I can observe it. I cannot say anything about the cure, though... I simply suspend judgement about the cure. The fact that I don't know whether or not the cure of cancer is possible, does not have anything to do with believing on the existence of cancer itself. The point is: This video is full of misrepresentations about how atheists employ critical thinking for evaluation of Reality. I guess you guys do that and find that funny because you guys do not understand how evidence is essential for each step of a rational process of evaluation of Reality. In your world view, the world is full of "magic" all over the place and you guys simply "imagine" some sort of "magic" and simply go ahead without a proper fact check against Reality. I guess you guys find funny when you find someone who stops by and performs fact check at each point.... I guess you find funny or at least curious... then you guys obviously make jokes about that. From our perspective, on the other hand, it is funny to find people who simply swallow "magic" without any fact check, then you guys build an entire castle of cards on top of "magic", and then another castle of cards, and then another, without any fact check against Reality at all.

[@elendil354]

@@richardgomes5420 You are misrepresenting the theists position. And when talking about "fact check" and "evidence" you seem to not understand that empirical evidence can not answer questions that trancend the empirical. Science is the little sister of philosophy. The fundamental facts can only be examined raitonally via philosophy. And if you can not see (or even suspect) that the fact that existance and conciousness exists at all is magical you are suffering from a form of metaphysical blindness.

[@richardgomes5420]

@@elendil354 Theists believe that snakes and mules can talk, because it is written in their book of magic. Theists also believe in angels, zombies, monsters with 7 heads, etc, all extracted from their book of magic. I don't think I'm misrepresenting you guys. Not at all. And it's not my fault. I'm not guilty of confusing mythology with Reality. You guys are. Regarding Philosophy and Science: You would be surprised to learn that Karl Popper, a philosopher, was responsible for organizing and formalizing the Scientific Method, which requires "evidence" and "fact check", which basically means that Philosophy and Science are perfectly aligned in this regard.

[@martinsoto4662]

I want him to hold me

[@nazarruulhaqi4046]

Wow wow, steady XD

[@joshua_finch]

Don't be gay.

[@gonx9906]

a natural disaster cant be evil and an animal killing another animal cant be evil..

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

In this context, a distinction is drawn between moral evils and natural evils. While moral evils are intentionally brought about by an agent or a person, natural evils are instead the result of natural events and processes in the natural world. But if you don't like the use of the word 'evil' here, you can always just substitute it with another word, like 'bad', 'harmful', 'detrimental', 'horrible', 'terrible', 'horrific', etc.

[@peterg418]

But why did you think you had rabbits in the garden in the first place? Burrows? Droppings? Teeth marks on the carrots? You can’t then try to make room for the hiddenness of God or the hiddenness of a complexity. We’re right back to Sagan’s invisible dragon. My wife will ask why I didn’t mow the front lawn, and I will say I might have hit the rabbit. She will say there’s no rabbit there. And then I will say, well, you can’t rule it out.

[@languagegame410]

👌

[@kimmyswan]

It sounds like God is using its creation (us and other non-human animals) as a means to an end? If so, doesn’t this just make God the ultimate consequentialist?

[@MasculineEndings]

The only question is why God doesn't intervene. No theist holds He makes evil directly

[@richardgomes5420]

You are departing from the assumption that there's a god, gods or God (if you prefer in capitals). This premisse was never demonstrated to be true and/or real.

[@kimmyswan]

@@richardgomes5420 I’m not sure I understand. The video is literally a defense FOR the existence of God (or gods) from Skeptical Theism. IF skeptical theism is true, then there is no gratuitous evil. This is an argument AGAINST “the problem of evil” posed by atheists. Skeptical theism suggests that we can never know how the suffering of sentient creatures will ultimately work for good, because God is all knowing and we are not. BUT this is basically the same as the ethical theory of consequentialism, that the ends justify the means and we can almost never know the results of an action.

[@zacharyweaver4417]

That's assuming God doesn't have a hierarchy of value and responsibility relative to his sphere of influence (beings with higher degrees of freedom and consciousness vs those with lower). Theists would argue God does by his nature have those spheres of responsibility in the same way we do in the case of a dog vs a cockroach. This would make him a deontologist.

[@zacharyweaver4417]

By influence i mean degree of communion