9 – The Euthyphro Dilemma – A Salmon of Doubt Podcast

Listen to the Episode Here


Kim Davis… yeah… I know.


She meets a Pope

Fallacy Fun Time

The Sunk Costs Fallacy

The Apologetics Counter

The Euthyphro Dialogue itself

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

8 – The Problem of Divine Hiddenness – A Salmon of Doubt Podcast

Listen to me HERE.


Disabled Man Knocked off Pubic Housing Waiting List on the Basis of Relgion

Religious Hypocrasy and Ashley Madison – Christians deal with it


Fallacy Fun Zone

The Anecdotal Fallacy


Apologetics Counter

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

Schellenberg’s Paper

A Doubtcast on this

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Salmon of Doubt Episode 7 – Kalaam 2 – There is Zero Energy in the Universe

Listen to me HERE.



The Non-Conference happened

Another atheist or secularist blogger or writer murdered in Bangledesh.

Info on Canada’s blasphemy law.

Apologetics Counter

There is zero energy in the universe.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ep. 6 of A Salmon of Doubt – The Problem of Induction

CLICK ME to listen to this episode.

Holy Bible Time

Hoofprints on the Ceiling of Your Mind

The Strange Notions story that Brian is reacting too.

Leviticus 18

Leviticus 19

“My” Old Testament Course


In the News

The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case

A good article on the real story

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry decision

Canadian Teacher Investigated for Tweets About Islam



Philosophy Forrest or Epistemelogical Epicerie

The Problem of Induction


Bayes Theorem

Posted in A Salmon of Doubt | Leave a comment

A Salmon of Doubt Episode 5 – The Problem of Evil.

Click HERE to listen to the show.

An Anectdote

by Matthew Toobee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleships_in_World_War_I (I haven’t watched this link at all, but it is what comes up when one searches for Battleship Myths.)

 The News:

Ontario Divisional Court Upholds the Decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to not credit Chirstian Trinity Western University as a feeder law school.

Apologetics Counter – The A Problem of  Evil

My description of the Argument.

Pretty thorough treatment of the argument and counters here. (We haven’t read this…)

Good fun conversation about the evidential POE.

From whence the argument about god’s delegation of responsibility to angels and so on came.


The Non-Conference

The Atheist Community of Toronto

Posted in A Salmon of Doubt | Leave a comment

A Salmon of Doubt – Episode 4 – The Argument from Scripture

 The News:

Jerry Coyne talk presented by CFI Toronto, about his new book: Faith Versus Fact

The Pope’s Encyclical on Climate Change

Apologetics Counter – The Argument from Scripture

William Lane Craig Debate with Christopher Hitchens

Some Bart Ehrman

Erhman on Reasonable Doubts

Secular Outpost series, the Logic of the Resurrection


The Non-Conference

The Atheist Community of Toronto

Posted in A Salmon of Doubt | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Argument from Evil.

I had planned to post some counter-apologetics here in advance of discussing them on the podcast. Four episodes late, but I am now getting started.

Pure Evil

Pure Evil

Among the most popular reasons cited for atheism is the “Problem of Evil”. Like most positive atheist arguments it is not a complete argument for believing there are no gods. Rather, it is an argument against the essential attributes of some definition of a god. The problem of evil argues that there are inherent contradictions between the attributes of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and the evil and or suffering we seem to observe. Christians typically believe God possesses these attributes, so if he could not, then the God they believe in could not exist. Another kind of god might, but it could not be all-good AND all-powerful.

In its basic, strong and logical form it goes like this:

1) if a god exists, it would be all-good, and would want to stop any unnecessary suffering or evil he could

2) if a god exists he would be powerful enough to stop all unnecessary evil and suffering

3) there is unnecessary evil and suffering

5) therefore no such God exists

There are only a few counters to this argument, the strongest being the skeptical theist response that all the suffering and evil observed is necessary in some way. In others words, god has perfectly good reasons for not stopping evil and suffering from occurring.

For example, a theist might argue that much evil and suffering are due to our own immoral and sinful conduct- wars, crimes, torture, and so on. That allowing humans the freedom to act this way and for the consequences to really manifest, is a greater good than preventing the evil, since it allows for a sensible moral creation with humans having to make meaningful moral choices. I don’t agree with this, but let us grant it for the sake of argument.

This is only a partial response , since not all human suffering is due to human actions. Disease and natural disaster are responsible for a great part, if not the majority of human suffering. Our free will is irrelevant to whether these events occur. So what reason could a god have for not intervening to prevent this suffering? Why do the prayers of most of the parents with children dying of disease go unheeded? I cannot imagine any legitimate reason.

"Mom, Dad, don't touch it, its Pure Evil!"

“Mom, Dad, don’t touch it, its Pure Evil!”

The best reason for theists to propose is “I don’t know, but that doesn’t mean the reasons aren’t there.” This may be true, but it seems out of keeping with the idea that we are born equipped, even partially equipped, to understand and apply objective morality. It would seem to mean that we are ignorant of many important moral facts about the cosmos, in fact we would be ignorant as to why or how some of the worst and seemingly gratuitous suffering is not stopped by one who can stop it, and does not want us to suffer. We should be able to speculate somehow as to why god might not intervene, if indeed there are perfectly good and intelligible reasons not to. This might even result in moral paralysis. Should we intervene to prevent or alleviate suffering? How could we know if doing so prevents this mysterious greater good?

After this analysis the argument survives quite well in its weaker form:

1) if god exists he would be powerful enough to eliminate all evil and suffering.

2) if god exists he would eliminate all evil and suffering unless there were moral reasons not to. Or, if god exists the would be no gratuitous suffering or evil.

3) much suffering and evil appears gratuitous. We can not imagine any reason why god would not intervene to eliminate it.

4) so much suffering and evil seems gratuitous because at least some of it is. If we are created by God with a divinely instituted moral sensibility, we should be able to come up with reasons why God would not intervene even if we can’t verify them.

5) therefore it is unlikely that god exists.

There are a few other, less persuasive counters, such as the speculation that all suffering, even disease and natural disasters, are caused by human sin. This seems to be an incredibly unfair and torturous cosmos, where young children are somehow responsible for their cancer, or worse, they suffer and die because of the wrongs of their ancestors.

Another weak response, in my view, is that the reason god doesn’t intervene is that he doesn’t want to deprive us of the opportunity to do good works of charity and healing in the face of disease and disaster. I don’t think the opportunity for good here outweighs the harm caused by natural disasters like the Haitian earthquake, or the Indonesian Tsunami. Even so, there are plenty of wars and human caused disasters for us to rally together and express these good intentions of relief and healing. We don’t need Altzheimer’s disease to have the opportunity to be good.

Posted in A Salmon of Doubt | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments