The Problem of Evil According to Mackie and the Efficacy of The Effigy

The problem of evil is the focus for J.L. Mackie in his 1955 essay entitled; Evil and Omnipotence. From the beginning of Mackie's arguement, reason is something that is suspended to sustain belief. I find it comical and at times alarming that "Dr." William Lane Craig has a platform (ie. website) with the url of "Reasonable Faith" claiming to add credibility to faith using the tools of reason. Hijacking reason is a concept that comes to mind to describe this strategy. At what point do we or can we as a society discourage this plagerism and misappropriation of truth for the advancement of dogma? Traditionally, arguements for the existence of god have been dismissed out of hand by enlightened thinkers and followers of science. Mackie tightened this approach in a concise, swift refutation. It's suprising to me that this is still being rehashed. #nomorerehashing.

Take the idiom, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," meaning something is more valuable if you posess it versus have the potential of posessing it. Possessing may not be the best word choice here but easily substituted for consumed, realized, experienced, et cetera. Within this idiom a residue of possession remains. I wonder if Anselm's ontological arguement for the existence of god has a similar possessive sentiment. Examine this perspective...

If god is the greatest thing that the human mind can imagine how does a real version make it better? It could be better, but it doesn't have to be. Right? I am not going to speculate any further I am just trying to make the point that a real version of the greatest thing humans can imagine isn't necessarily better than only possessing an ideal version thereof. The pursuit of the absolute may be platonically endemic to human nature but let's not get ahead of ourselves and make the assumption that a real version of this ideal is in some way better.

The absolute, unequivical hinge point for Anselm's arguement is a trap that many philosophers fall victim to. In attempting to discover the whole truth magically transforms into a rabbit hole. Down we go! Why is there agreement that the existence of an ideal is better than an ideal on its own? What if, in all instances the realization of an ideal is less ideal than the ideal itself? This is often the case so why is the perspective not articulated by the philosophers of past and present. I could be wrong. Perhaps The Magic of Reality^[1] has already been explored by others and not just Richard Dawkins. Sadly (or rightfully so) Dawkins shows we know what is true in reality. This makes any traditional interpretation irrelevant to the discussion. Out of hand, so to speak the ontological arguement is dismissed. Now I want to make an important philosophical bridge between Anselm ontological arguement for the existence of god and reality. Intuitively a proverb "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," which means that having something, even if it is a lesser quantity, is better than taking the chance of losing it in order to attain something else that seems more desirable.

Scenario - Pick a diety, any diety. They float down from the heavens and annouce to the world that they are the embodyment of omnipotent, omnibonevolet and all powerful. If this happens on a friday, what happens on monday? Are there systemic changes? Is there a restructuring of sorts? Is there equality for every living entity and perfect blissful grace or status quo as usual? In which way would this entity be better? In which way worse? I imagine many instances where this could be worse, if you actually try and think of a world where an almighty presence was "self-evident" then I think in every instance either the world as you know it ceases to exist or no such world is possible. This is my arguement, thanks to Anselm as to why god does Not exist.

The problem of evil dismantles religious beliefs due to the lack rational support and contradictorary claims. If god exists she is a psychopath or "he" is a psychopath for all the patriarchal conspiricy theoriest out there. What is pseudo-logic, which is a contradiction in term. At a fundamental level logic is binary in its patterns. Flaws in these patterns breakdown at a fundamental level revealing catastrophic failures in logic worthy of repeating grade 5. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? Watch this video and tell me how many misleading, misinterpretations of science actually surface. You may have to watch this ridiculously long "documentary" on the origins of the universe as purely evil. Perhaps it really is a work of god.

My comment, showing up from planksip®, is, "A video like this should be charged with social negligence. Misleading the public with slanderous misinterpretations of science. I know it's not quite a crime against humanity but perhaps it should be. Where are the YouTube police when you need them?". I made this comment on June 30th, 2018 and check periodically if anyone removed it. Ideally I would like YouTube to regulate this kind of nonsensical regurgitation of intelligence.