"Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, though both the indestructible element and the trust may remain permanently hidden from him. One of the ways in which this hiddenness can express itself is through faith in a personal god."

franz kafka

Os políticos que se dizem de esquerda, por ser o bom sítio de se ser político, estão sempre a afirmar que são de esquerda, não vá a gente esquecer-se ou julgar que mudaram de poiso. Mas dito isso, não é preciso ter de explicar de que sítio são os actos que a necessidade política os vai obrigando a praticar. Como os de direita, aliás, que é um lugar mais espinhoso. O que importa é dizerem onde instalaram a sua reputação, na ideia de que o nome é que dá a realidade às coisas. E se antes disso nos explicassem o que é isso de ser de esquerda ou de direita? Nós trabalhamos com papéis que não sabemos se têm cobertura, como no faz-de-conta infantil. Mas o que é curioso é que o comércio político funciona à mesma com os cheques sem cobertura. E ninguém tira a limpo esse abuso de confiança, para as cadeias existirem. Mas o homem é um ser fictício em todo o seu ser. E é precisa a morte para ele enfim ser verdadeiro.

Vergílio Ferreira, in ' Pensar'

Galactic cannibalism refers to the process by which a large galaxy, through tidal gravitational interactions with a companion, merges with that companion, resulting in a larger, often irregular galaxy.

The most common result of the gravitational merger of two or more galaxies is an irregular galaxy of one form or another, although elliptical galaxies may also result.

It has been suggested that galactic cannibalism is currently occurring between the Milky Way and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Streams of gravitationally-attracted hydrogen arcing from these dwarf galaxies to the Milky Way is taken as evidence for this theory.

Logical problem of evil

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent. (premise - or true by definition of the word 'God')
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise - or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise - or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
7.1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways which do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
7.2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
7.3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, or he is not both omnipotent and all-benevolent or there is a reason why He does not act immediately.

Evidential problem of evil

1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the existence of a god (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
3. Therefore, no god exists.

Argument from evil natural laws

1. A god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.
2. If a god exists, then there exist no instances of an ultimately evil natural law.
3. The laws of predation are ultimately evil.
4. There are instances of the laws of predation.
5. Therefore, no god exists.

Moral argument from evil

1. The most rational theists know (i.e. roughly speaking, have a justified, true belief) that God exists.
2. If a god exists, then there is objective justification for every actual instance of evil (even if no-one intervenes to prevent that evil).
2.1. For any possible world W, if a god exists in W, then every instance of evil in W is objectively justified.
2.2 If a god exists, then there is an objective justification for every actual instance of evil, (including those evils where there is a witness).
3. Some members of the class of most rational theists (as defined above) are theists who know (2).
4. Some of the most rational theists (namely, those who know 2) know that there is objective justification for any actual instance of evil, justification that will occur even if no onlooker intervenes to stop or prevent that evil.
5. If human person P knows that there is objective justification for evil E, and that this justification will occur even if P does not intervene to stop or prevent E, then P is morally justified in allowing E to occur.
6. Some of the most rational theists (namely, those who know 2) are morally justified in allowing any actual evil to occur. (from 4 and 5)
7. If the most rational theists know that a god exists, then some of those theists (namely, those who know 2) are morally justified in allowing any evil to occur. (from 1 to 6)
8. Even the most rational theists (including those who know 2) are not morally justified in allowing just any evil to occur.
9. Even the most rational theists do not know that a god exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. If the most rational theists do not know that a god exists, then no theist knows that a god exists.
11. No theist knows that a god exists. (from 9 and 10)
12. For any given theist, that theist's belief that a god exists is either false or unjustified.
13. If a god exists, then some theists are justified in believing that a god exists.
14. If a god exists, then no theist has a false belief that a god exists.
15. If a god exists, then some theists know (i.e., have a justified, true belief) that God exists. (from 13 and 14)
16. It is not the case that some theists know (i.e., have a justified and true belief) that a god exists. (from 12)
17. No god exists. (from 15 and 16)

Inductive argument from evil

1. All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators. (Premise)
2. The universe is a created entity. (Premise)
3. The universe contains evil. (Premise)
4. Evil is the result of the actions of a fallible creator(s) or is not the result of any creator(s). (From 1, 2 and 3 by predictive inference)
5. If god created the universe, then he is fallible. (From 4)
6. Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist. (From 5)

Argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure

1. Consider the following observations:

.Moral agents experiencing pain or pleasure we know to be biologically useful.
.Sentient beings that are not moral agents experiencing pain or pleasure that we know to be biologically useful.
.Sentient beings experiencing pain or pleasure that we do not know to be biologically useful.

2. The observations in 1 are more probably the result of natural law than a god.
3. Therefore, probably no god exists.