LSAT Kung Fu Blog / God And Pot And LSAT Flaws

God And Pot And LSAT Flaws

This device is to be used only with tobacco products.

This device is to be used only with tobacco products.

So I was thinking about the problem of evil. And by this I do not mean the problematic fact that evil is sometimes done to people and/or animals and/or the only habitable planet in our solar system, nor am I referring to the problems caused to me personally by evil, such as being mugged, having my stereo stolen from my car, or having to wait in a very long line.

(And what's happening here is that I hope you come for the free LSAT prep and stay for the tangential meanderings, or vice versa. Either way, we're talking about getting ready for LSAT test day and we're talking about how LSAT flaws relate to you).

So, what I’m talking about here is the problem that the existence of evil poses to the theoretical underpinning for the existence of God; at least for the Western conception of him/her.

And I noticed a striking similarity between this problem of evil and the lack of any authoritative studies on the effects upon LSAT score of being, like, totally out of your mind on the "Cha Cha Salsa" (or the “diggity dank,” or the “Jamaican red hair,” or “the oregano,” if you will), while taking the test.

First, the evil problem. In brief, the thinking runs like this: God is supposed to be loving toward us human folk, but that human-philia doesn’t seem to be compatible with evil. Evil seems to exist—I mean, have you been to a Wal-Mart?—and that’s problematic at least partly because it seems to countermand any evidence of God’s goodness, as in, “Yeah, God seems good and all, but have you seen the lines at Wal-Mart? God can’t really exist!”

In other words, at least part of the problem of evil is that it negates some of the evidence for God’s goodness, and hence also for God’s existence.

This is the part that I was thinking about.


Even if I stipulate that evil’s existence negates goodness, then all we’re left with–concerning God, anyway—is a lack of evidence.

This is the thing, though; absence of evidence concerning God does not constitute evidence of God’s absence. This part of the argument is exactly the same as trying to argue that since no one has yet proved smoking some “Indiana Hay” just before you take your LSAT is bad for your score, then enjoying some “bambalacha” before rolling into your test center must be good for your score.

Same argument, and same problem: just because nobody’s proved that a thing is bad doesn’t mean it’s good. Just because nobody’s proved that a thing exists doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

An absence of evidence—on any topic!—is just that: an absence. It isn’t evidence of anything, and if we start acting like it is, then we’re committing a logical fallacy, and we should avoid that.



P.S. In this post, I acknowledge the idea of God and the idea of the “bammy weed.” However, you should notice that I neither endorsed nor opposed the belief in and/or use of either. If you think I’d do a thing like that, you’ve got to lay off the Cha Cha Salsa.