Another Logical Extension

I didn't want to create a TL;DR situation with my last post, so this is part two of What is our Obligation?.

I think for the people who accept the drowning child scenario I outlined last time, it should be relatively easy to understand a convincing argument based in the Problem of Evil (How could a god that is supposed to omnibenevolent, or at the very least good, be said to exist, alongside the existence of gratuitous evil/suffering?) for how a god/gods likely do not exist. This is different than simply saying, "I don't think there isn't any good evidence to say that a god exists," and is more like saying, "I think the evidence suggests that, in fact, no gods exist."

My argument basically goes like this:

P₁: The Drowning Child Scenario gives us an accurate understanding of our moral obligation relative to suffering/dying human beings in the case where we can easily do something about it.

P₂: If we behave in accordance with what follows from this scenario, we can be said to be behaving morally good.

P₃: Virtually all definitions of Gods include the characteristics of omniscience (all-knowingness), omnibenevolence (all-goodness), and while maybe not omnipotent, at least extremely powerful.

P₄: A God that has these characteristics is, in essence, always walking past a pond with a drowning child, and has no excuse, due to its omniscience and extreme power, not to prevent the horrible gratuitous suffering that is persistent in the world, without sacrificing its omnibenevolent status.

.˙.   At the very least, any person who wants to say a good God exists, is necessarily wrong, unless their God is ignorant of the happenings of the world, or just isn’t strong enough to prevent them. But if that is the case, what is the purpose of calling it a God?

I hope that was clear and concise. Feel free to ask questions or comment about it. I think I'm going to bed now. Good night.

Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.

What is our Obligation?

Imagine one day as you're walking to work, you pass a pond, in which you see a drowning child. You immediately think you should jump in to save her, but then it occurs to you that you're wearing a new pair of shoes that were very expensive. It doesn't take more than a fraction of a second for you to realize that saving the child is unquestionably worth the fact that your shoes will be ruined; not only would it be worth it, but it would be immoral for you not to jump in and save her, since it's a small sacrifice to save the child.

Most people would probably be on board with the statement "If you were in that situation, you would be morally obligated to jump in and save the child." However, if one were to say to them that there is the equivalent of a drowning child whom you could easily help to save, they just happened to be on the other side of the globe, people are much more reluctant to say "of course you would be morally obligated to help". But what is the difference? I think this is something important to consider.

You may correctly guess, that I find this argument compelling, and this has drawn me to donate about 1% of my monthly income to organizations that help try to end absolute poverty. This is money that I certainly will not miss (it's probably the amount I spend on candy or other gratuitous snacks every month, perhaps even less), so I'm not actually sacrificing anything that's even close to a comparable moral significance, to people starving. I urge you to go to www.thelifeyoucansave.com/ to find out more information about what you can do to help

Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.

Pray for Japan

I know most of you have heard a lot about the tragedies in Japan (for good reason), but I'm here to encourage you to actually do something (that you are capable of doing) about it. Part of the reason I'm trying to promote people to be proactive is partly due to the fact that I've seen as a trend on Twitter, and other places on the internet "Pray for Japan". While I'm sure the people that are saying we should pray for Japan are well-intentioned, and probably did something that actually helped along with praying, it's true that praying does nothing but make the person praying feel better. However, it does nothing to actually help the Japanese people affected by the utter devastation of their country. This is why I'm advocating donating to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, or any other reputable group that is helping the victims (human and animal alike) of this tragedy make it through and recover (especially these groups because they are not religiously based so they will not try to convert the people they are trying to help, they simply want to help them). I donated $50 to the Red Cross as a college student, so please, if you can, at least donate the minimum possible amount, which is $10 on most sites. These people are suffering, and you are not, simply because of a misfortune of geography. I thank you and I'm sure the people of Japan do too.



Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.

CRYSTALCASTLES

Fucking awesome trip. Fucking awesome concert. You probably won't be able to tell which arm is mine, but I can tell and that's what matters. At about 0:14 I touch Alice Glass's hand which is awesome as hell, and prior to when this video started rolling, I was fortunate enough to be able to touch her butt haha. I don't remember the person next to me taking video, but obviously that wasn't my primary focus (though it's way awesome that they were). Anyway, enjoy the next 20 seconds and maybe you'll get a glimpse of what I experienced.



Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.

My Future in Filmmaking

I pretty much knew this was possible already, but watching this video was kind of inspiring; it made me feel good about my own future as an independent filmmaker. I don't plan on doing much that is really graphics heavy, but I want to make the best stuff I can without getting bogged down with a lot of people, and this showed me just how feasible it is/was.



Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.