Alan Chambers: Ex-Gay Extraordinaire

Today NPR's "Day to Day" aired a short interview with Exodus International president Alan Chambers. Exodus International's mission is to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. The organization's founder, Michael Bussey, fell in love with another male counselor and now condemns all de-gaying programs. Oops.

As for Alan Chambers, he's not only the president: he's also a member. He says he's a completely reformed "ex-gay." Does he still feel the occasional lust for members of the same sex? Yes, he says, but "that's just being a human being." No, that's just being gay. Being human covers having sexual urges, but if those urges are for members of the same sex, then you are at least partially gay. Similarly, adults who are not currently sexually active still have sexual orientations.

Chambers goes on to say that EI is there for people who "chose to decide something different than what the world says is best for their life." He "categorically" denies that "the world is anti-homosexual." I guess his world doesn't include countries like Algeria, Mozambique or Zimbabwe, where simply being homosexual is illegal. Rather, Chambers said that in this society, "homosexuality is celebrated, it's something that is taught in the schools as good." Where do you live? San Francisco? Only in the '60s or current times? In the middle of a Gay Pride parade? I guess that as an anti-gay activist he likes to pretend to be the bottom dog... I mean underdog.

Read on...

Read off...

The "Problem of Evil" in Context of my Proofs

The proofs in the previous post assert that Phil and Judy should not exist if there is suffering in the world. This argument is similar to the philosophical Problem of Evil. The distinction is that evil is usually linked to some sort of intention, whereas suffering - physical, mental and emotional pain - has no such link. Reading Daggerclaw’s comments, it is apparent that a more direct discussion of the Problem of Evil, or in this case, suffering, is in order. I’m addressing the usual justifications for evil, but as justifications for suffering, and in the context of the existence of Phil or Judy.

• Evil is an illusion - what we perceive to be evil is not really evil.
  
  This argument usually posits that what we see as evil is not actually evil because bad things can have good long-term effects and because natural evils like hurricanes and disease are not connected to nefarious intentions. This argument really doesn’t work for suffering. Suffering does not have to have intentions. It doesn’t matter if suffering has good long-term effects. It's still suffering, so this argument has no impact on my proofs.
  
  Perhaps the reader wishes to pursue the stance that all suffering really is an illusion. Perhaps our entire lives are no more than illusions. Nonetheless, the idea that Phil or Judy would deceive us into believing we are suffering is still inconsistent with the notion of omnibenevolence.



• God cannot be judged because God is infinitely wiser/more complex than us.
  
  A lowly being like myself can think of a way for an Abrahamic god like Judy to achieve what it wants without the use of any suffering (Proof II part 3). Thus, I find it ridiculous to believe that a such a god would have a goal that it, in its infinite wisdom, cannot achieve without the use of Holocaust-scale suffering.



• Suffering for the greater good
  
  This is basically the same as the previous. What could a god possibly want that it can’t get without Holocaust-scale suffering? Such an idea is inconsistent with an omniscient, omnipotent god.



• Evil exists to test humanity
  
  Judy/Phil already know what we will do, so testing is unnecessary.



• Free will
  
  The system constructed in Proof II part 3 circumvents the need for free will to create suffering. Even with free will, Judy already knows what people will do, what they will choose, etc., and who would go to heaven if they were to live on Earth. Thus, she creates the heaven-bound souls in heaven. Funny how free will doesn’t create suffering in heaven…



• Suffering for the purpose of building character
  
  Phil/Judy can create souls with built-in character, making character-building suffering unnecessary.



• Evil is the lack of God’s compassion
  
  If there is ever a lack of Phil/Judy’s compassion, it is because Phil/Judy wanted it to be so. Thus, by removing its compassion, Phil/Judy is still responsible all evil in the world. Thus, Phil/Judy is responsible for suffering.

I think a lot of these justifications were formulated with the unstated assumption that God had to create a physical world like the Earth. However, there is no basis for that assumption. Without it, we have Proof I in which no souls are created and Proof II in which no physical world is created. Any questions?

Read on...

Read off...

Proofs that Gods DNE

I wish to prove that the philosopher's god does not exist. To avoid confusion, I will call that god Phil. Define Phil as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and the creator of the universe. This is consistent with the Merriam Webster definition. Proof I:

1. Assume Phil exists.
2. An omnibenevolent entity dislikes suffering.
3. There is suffering in this universe.
4. An omnipotent being does not have to do anything it would not want to do.
5. From 2 and 3 we have that Phil does not like the suffering in this universe.
6. From 4 we have that Phil did not have to create any universe with suffering.
7. An omniscient entity would know the results of all of its actions before taking them.
8. Thus, from 5 and 7, Phil would not want to create this universe.
9. From 6 and 8, Phil would not create this universe.
10. This universe exists.
11. 9 and 10 form a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption must be wrong. Phil does not exist.

Discussion I: If an omnibenevolent god were to create a universe, it would not want there to be suffering in it. If it were omnipotent, it would have the power to create a universe without suffering, and if it were omniscient, it would know how to do this. But since the universe we live in contains suffering, Phil would not have created it. Since I defined Phil as the creator of the universe, my only assumption - that Phil exists - must be wrong.

Next I'll take on a god that has the same ultimate goal as that of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Define Judy as having the same traits as Phil, with the addition that Judy has created a heaven, and Judy wants to populate it with people who would chose to do certain things in their lives, i.e. worship and obey Judy.

Proof II:

1. Assume Judy exists.
2. As shown in Proof I step 9, Judy would not wish to create a universe with suffering if she could avoid it.
3. Judy could populate heaven as follows:
   • create a computer model of the universe. (Judy creates an unimaginably powerful computer, and Judy writes an incomprehensibly complex simulation program.)
   • simulate the souls and lives in the program.
   • use the model to find out which souls would meet all criteria to go to heaven.
   • create only the souls that would go to heaven.
   • skip living. Place souls in heaven exactly as they would be as if they had lived.
   In this way, heaven is populated exactly as if this universe had existed, but without the creation of real suffering.
4. From 3 we see that Judy can have what she wants without creating suffering, and we know she doesn't want suffering from 2.
5. From 4, Judy would not create this universe.
6. This universe exists.
7. 5 and 6 form a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption must be wrong. Judy does not exist.

Discussion II: It should be evident that an all-knowing and all-powerful god could create the model in step 3, complete with simulated souls. I am asserting that free will could be simulated by an omnipotent, omniscient being. Unless someone has some very special definitions of souls or free will, there should be no argument on those points. I am not saying that the step 3 model is the only way Judy could accomplish her goal. It doesn't have to be. All I need to do is show that Judy could have what she wants without creating human suffering. Since she is benevolent, she would choose simulated suffering over actual suffering. Thus, she wouldn't create this universe. The ungrounded assumption in this discussion is that Judy exists, and since we found a contradiction, it means that that assumption must be wrong. Judy does not exist.

If you still believe in a god by the end of these two proofs, then either (1) they haven't sunk in yet, (2) you don't believe them because you don't understand logic, (3) you don't think they apply to your god, or (4) see below. If (3) is the case, then your god cannot have all four of the traits: omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, creator of the universe. It can have some of these, but not all four. If you think your god has these traits, but didn't do what was described in Proof II step 3 because of some special limitations/circumstances/whims, then these limitations mean your god isn't omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or your god didn't create the universe.

On the other hand, if (2) is the case, then I highly recommend that you learn logic. It is indispensable if things like the existence of god or problem-solving interest you. If you don't know which of these three categories you fit into, it's probably a mix of (1) and (2). Take a break, read up on logic, and then go back over these proofs in a few days.

(4) I have complete confidence in the truth and validity of these arguments. If you take issue with any of the premises or the logical steps, and you can demonstrate that you know the difference between truth and validity, then I encourage you to leave a comment.

You can also see a discussion of these proofs here.

Read on...

Read off...