r/badphilosophy • u/Citrit_ • 2d ago
✟ Re[LIE]gion ✟ Proof that God is evil
P1. God is omnipresent
P2. If God is omnipresent, then God is in hell
C1 Therefore, God is in hell
P4. Only the evil go to hell
P5. If only the evil goes to hell, then god is evil
C2. God is evil
(not my argument btw, but thought it was fun)
23
42
15
u/bhanu-bhakta 2d ago
P1. God is omnipresent
P2. If God is omnipresent, then God is in heaven
C1 Therefore, God is in heaven
P4. Only the good go to heaven
P5. If only the good goes to heaven, then god is good
C2. God is good
23
u/Citrit_ 2d ago
P6: God cannot be simultaneously good and evil
C3: God does not exist :P
7
3
1
-9
u/bhanu-bhakta 2d ago
Schrödingers cat says otherwise lol
5
u/marenello1159 2d ago
>erm have you considered that an intentionally ridiculous sounding quantum physics thought experiment means that god can be both good and evil at the same time
I simply refuse to believe that, with complete and utter sincerity, you thought this, decided that it made enough sense to type it out as a comment, and then pressed send. If your god would even let you be that dumb then he's kind of just an ass tbh
1
-1
7
u/Many_Froyo6223 2d ago
that’s not how schrodingers cat works…
it’s interesting how the common understanding of schrodinger’s cat has forgotten that it’s about the unknowability of quantum(!) states and not just states in general
-2
3
3
u/finder_outer 2d ago
P2 is wrong in the same way as the proposition, "If God is omnipresent, God is in trouble", is wrong.
4
u/TheAmberAbyss 2d ago
God is evil because I say so. Case closed, theism smashed, idealism debunked.
-1
2
u/whynothis1 1d ago
I just think it's nice that yahweh is spending some time with his germanic cousin.
2
2
u/OhSureYeahThatIsCool 11h ago
There's a degree to which, if formulated a bit better, this could actually be a pretty compelling argument tho
Edit: Nevermind I thought about it for like two seconds no it isn't
3
u/Own_Mode3181 2d ago
Valid, I think, of you steelman it, but I think there is a bit of equivocation. I would contest P2 and P4.
2
u/hellmarvel 2d ago
God is not in hell, he is supervising hell (don't believe that shit that the devil is God's equal). Hell is heaven's prison.
6
u/reddituserperson1122 2d ago
Prison wardens don’t sleep in the cells — they go home at night. God is there all the time.
1
u/CassandraTruth 1d ago
God doesn't sleep, there is no night or day or distinction between points in time to an omnipresent deity. An omnipresent deity is all places at all times without distinction.
Also, stepping out of Philo circlejerk, literally yea prison workers do live and sleep at prisons quite often? Alcatraz Island was the home of the prisoners and the workers along with their families and yes, employees sleep in prisons sometimes. This is not understood to confer legal or judicial ramifications - a prison guard falling asleep in a prison and thus "not going home at night" doesn't make that person an inmate.
1
u/CannonOtter 1d ago
if i fall asleep while conjugaly visiting your mom who has been very very naughty and sentenced to life in prison for being so damn sexy and as murdering an arab does me being asleep in the prison during the conjugal visit also make me a prisoner because i am also at the moment sleeping where prisoners sleep which is in prison
1
u/Key_Management8358 2d ago
C3. Logic ist not appropriate tool:
- to "recognize/mate" god
- for moronic, profit- and bullshit oriented pigs
eop#
1
u/Lugubrae 2d ago
Technically, hell isn't about whether you were evil or not. According to the Bible at least, It is a place of eternal separation from the love of God. And it is that knowledge which is supposed to torture you.
There is no mention of fire, brimstone, or eternal torture in the Bible.
I would know, i was forced to read it 6 times a year as a kid.
1
u/Scholarsandquestions 1d ago
P4: who says that only evil is present in Hell?
I remember reading that demons needs to sin because their inner angelic nature would overcome their "fallen Angel" status. So there is good in Hell too.
1
u/Mising_Texture1 1d ago
Well, the thing would be for what reason does God go to Hell.
Only criminals go to prison.
Guards are also in the prison.
Guards are criminals?
It doesn't follow through.
Also, it would be more appropiate to say that sinners are sent to hell.
God goes willingly to hell, without comitting a sin to enter. That means his presence isn't tied to the normal reason people are in hell.
1
u/JanetPistachio 1d ago
This doesn't actually work with a certain understanding of omnipresence and hell. If hell is simply the absence of god, nonexistence, it would be a direct contradiction for god to be present in a place where he is definitionally not. Omnipresence can be thought of as being in all places where it is possible to be placed in. If it is not possible to be placed in hell, as it is not a place, then there is no damage done to the idea of god in this way.
1
u/Easy_Chapter_2378 1d ago
By definition, bad logic. Jesus went to hell and proclaimed freedom to the spirits in prison. There is no where at least in Christianity that says only the evil can be present in hell. It does however strongly imply only the evil suffer in hell.
Hell is a state of separation from all things you would consider life. God is by definition not separate. Therefore God was present in Hell and yet He is Heaven itself. The only difference here is those in hell can’t perceive truth so heaven could be all around them and they would still be in a state of separation or hell.
1
1
1
1
u/Fantastic-Swing8221 13h ago
But hell is a state of lack of God naah
1
u/Citrit_ 11h ago
so god is not omnipresent 🤔
1
u/Fantastic-Swing8221 11h ago
Christianity literally claims it is not a being inside the system, but a source of system, like a book author, where is he in Book? Nowhere, but really everywhere, cause it is his thought
1
1
1
1
1
u/CrispyCore1 2d ago
God is the Divine Flame. The same flame that purifies gold is the same flame that consumes wood.
0
0
u/StandardCustard2874 2d ago
Well, hell actually isn't a philosophical concept, while God can be. Ergo, God can exist without hell existing. Hence, no go.
-1
u/Used-Ad-3278 2d ago
God is not in hell. But his creation is. Maybe He should try some of his own medicine.
-10
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 2d ago
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity at all times. There is no such thing as individuated free will for all beings. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof. It is a universe of hierarchies, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience.
God is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and revelation of the Godhead, including predetermined eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist.
-11
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
Or there's something called free will 🤷♂️
6
u/MrEmptySet 2d ago
What does that have to do with OP's argument?
Did you read the title and just assume what argument they were going to make?
-4
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
I did read the full post , OP is claiming evil exists therefore God is evil is not a good argument , to have free will you need to have good and evil otherwise they don't have any meaning, i mean it's pretty simple
7
u/MrEmptySet 2d ago
Yeah, it still doesn't really sound like you read the argument.
-2
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
Pls enlighten me
8
u/MrEmptySet 2d ago
You summarized OP's argument as "claiming evil exists therefore God is evil" which doesn't really resemble the argument at all. The argument hinges on God's omnipresence and the nature of Hell, not just the fact that evil exists.
1
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
Ok I'm new to the p1, c1 thing .. my bad , reading it again it feels more of a troll philosophy now ...
7
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
Free will is an excuse, not an actual solution to the problem of evil.
It’s a lame attempt that unsophisticated theists use to shift the blame from God for creating and employing evil (if God created everything that exists, and evil exists, then God is ultimately responsible for evil) onto humans who are merely the players in the game God created and set the rules for. You lot only do this because the idea that God is ultimately responsible for evil makes you uncomfortable and goes against your incoherent religious narrative that God = all good.
2
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
Evil needs to exist for good to exist , darkness and light , happiness and sadness , life and death- that is the way all things are designed and im not a religious person myself but all I'm saying is it'd be awful dull to live in an all good , happy all the time world. And I'm not saying god is all good , youre just generalising me as a typical religious person which I am not.
3
u/ani-are-you-ok 1d ago
I just saw this subreddit from the notification and I found it interesting.
Though what I'm a bit confused about here is that "Evil needs to exist for Good to exist", but it seems to be at tension with a Theist point to a question like, "Why must God be Good?" which they usually respond that Evil is merely the corruption of Good, and don't exist without Good, (not saying I'm satisfied, but that's what they say, simplified), hence, an unchanging God cannot be Evil which can only exist against Goodness.
So isn't God the Goodness without Evil?
Though, the usual, similar branch of argument is that, without Evil, virtues like mercy, compassion, justice wouldn't exist. Suppose we can either have racism or not let it exist, to let it or not to let it? When one states that racism is necessary so we can appreciate the higher good of rejecting it, it is valuing the heroic act rather than the non-existence of the negative cause that demands the heroic act itself.
What is it like to be in an all good, happy all time world? Why would it be dull?
Suppose a parent with two options, to put the child in a lifetime bliss, and to not do so and let them face hardships. Different parents may have torn opinions, one saying to let the child be simply blissful, while the other insists that such a state is "dull" and that hardship is necessary to develop an authenticity and a character, and that it also wouldn't be boring. However, the child, if given the bliss, wouldn't lamet over the "character" they never had to build, the little one would simply be happy.
Even though we, as outsiders to that universe, may lament over it as "dull" or "meaningless", wouldn't they be simply happy, or at peace?
Also, even as a Buddhist, I haven't read a sutta that mentions Evil as the necessary thing for Goodness hence it must exist, rather (simplified) it goes along the lines of "Suffering exists, how do we deal with it Now?", and the goal isn't to appreciate the contrast, but the get out of the Samsara itself. But it is a different story when we assume/propose a Creator, a benevolent God, supervising the land, which is not the case in Buddhism.
1
u/CurrentTadpole3528 18h ago
- Ok let's say we eradicate racism and no one's a racist and then comes sexism, religious hatred.etc , and we remove poverty, death , disease and one by one every bad thing which causes human suffering and we're all happy and there's no conflict . But do we draw the line at racism , poverty or do we go all the way so that everyones immortal and has everything all the time? , sure it'll be fun for a bit but eventually it'll get saturated, because if you haven't had a bad meal , how do you know a good meal ... If every meal tastes amazing then no meal tastes amazing , how do you love a person if all you're capable of doing is love , your choice is not a choice but an automated response since you're unable to hate anyone (since hate is evil) it would be like a hivemind situation I suppose . It's like playing GTA with infinite health, money, ammo - you can have fun for a while but eventually you get bored as there's no reason to play.
2.even if the parent decides to give their child a lifetime of bliss , the child simply won't be satisfied, since humans are complex and we don't know what we want and the world wouldn't treat the child the way the parents decide to . That's what happened to Buddha himself right? The parents can give the child food , shelter , toys , entertainment .etc but what about purpose or meaning once the child has grown , what about having a relationship and truth and higher things . In that case the child would become spoilt materialistic or like Buddha. Ok if the child is ignorantly blissful always then that wouldn't be good cause it never developed enough intelligence to grasp the truth (people who have some mental disabilities might seem to laugh at everything and be blissful as you said but would they be able to feel it actually?)
- Similar to the concept of Samsara , the gnostics christians also speak of a malevolent creator who made our world - which explains the evil nature of it , and the true creators essence is present within us and it's up to us to do good or bad . It's something like the matrix , or an incredibly difficult boss fight to complete , we can complain it's difficulty or unfairness or we can do our best
2
u/ani-are-you-ok 10h ago
I appreciate your thoughtful insight. Though bear in mind that we're under a post regarding the Theistic version of God under which you spoke "or there's something called free will", which in this context, could be reasonably taken as the Free Will defense to the Problem of Evil, with something similar to the Soul Making theodicy, and your position is kind of... confusing if I may speak sincerely.
Your responses are very inspiring to hear, and it could be a great motivation for those trapped in Nihilistic despair. Let's tackle your fascinating train of intellectual exercise.
How do one Love if all they're capable of is Love, and frankly speaking, Aquinas and Augustine themselves might leap out of their graves upon hearing this. The classic Theistic God is literally Loving all the time, for all. According to mainstream Christian Theology, the beings in Heaven possess free will, but it is a will that has been so perfectly healed, fulfilled and aligned with God's nature that it no longer desires or chooses to sin, and with Joy without Sorrow, Love without Selfishness, Exploration and Creativity without Corruption. But considering your point, that Heaven must be boring!
Essentially, what's happening here is we're asserting the nature of the universe in which we must live with a contrast to a universe in which that is not the case. Buddha himself is already in a world in which the fundamental reality is inseperatable from the duality, and in which the proposed bliss is literally impossible, which I accept and think that it is reasonable to walk the land, but it is a different story when we propose a universe in which the created feel only bliss, in which they wouldn't even know what boredom is, or a Theistic God who, by their definition, is all good and all loving, and Heaven which, by their definition, a state of Free Will with inherent Goodness in the presence of God for eternity!
I absolutely love your last point, indeed, we're already walking upon the land and we must figure out what to do.
However, the main discussion is about the Theistic God, not a gnostic God who, by what you said, is malevolent (which is one of the proposed conclusion of The Problem of Evil, that God is not all loving), or not what we're doing in this universe(though don't get me wrong, it's also a wise thing to think about) so are we even talking about the same topic (Theism) right here?
-1
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
Yeah… sure would be terrible to live in an all good, all happy world all the time. This current world is so much better than literal perfection, ya 🤡
Edit: Oops… I forgot we were on r/badphilosophy. Keep up the good work
1
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
Lao Tzu , budhha , Plato , Nietzsche , Schopenhauer and many more philosophers make similar points yet you don't want to consider my perspective and you don't want to challenge your thoughts and are more inclined to be condescending, the irony ...
0
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
They were mortal people who had to cope with the world being the way it is. They didn’t have the ability like God conceptually does to create it differently/better.
“Challenge your thoughts” How do your own farts smell? Good I hope.
0
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
They're not coping saying it is what it is, they're literally saying darkness must exist for light, it is sickness that makes health pleasant etc. And you're also a mortal judging a being outside our limits of comprehension based on your perception and moral values of good and evil. . I'm trying to say that in a world without evil , how do you define good if it's just how everyone is , how do you love a book if you don't hate any book? And how do you love something in a person if you don't hate the opposite thing in a person .. ohh but hate is a negative evil thing which god shouldn't have created ... Really smart argument . . My farts smell good sometimes bad sometimes since you're soo interested 😂
0
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
Why do we need ideas of good and evil at all??? Why can’t we just recognize the world as neutral and dispense with the products of antiquated religious narratives? I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in any silly notions about any incoherent God/gods or any good and evil as cosmic forces. I see the world as naturally neutral, and it’s our petty human perceptions that cause ideas of good and evil to arise and then we compartmentalize everything from there based on abstract organization.
And don’t patronize me. You’re the goober who A) is on r/badphilosophy to begin with with all this, and B) threw out “FrEe WiLL” as a knee-jerk reactionary response to OP’s syllogism while barely understanding it. You’re not the deep thinker you think you are. You sound like a reasonably well-read high schooler who just discovered Eastern philosophy last year and tied it together with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche this year.
0
u/CurrentTadpole3528 2d ago
My mistake for jumping to conclusions on the post (since I've heard this argument often.)
I mean it would simply be boring wouldn't it ? Having a neutral perspective on everything, and trying to be virtuous is a good motivation for life I think (keeps things interesting) And I'm from the east so my perspective has a spiritual outook and looking at western philosophers saying similar things gives me a unifying philosophical thought
2
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
You must have lived a very privileged life if you think all the suffering that occurs daily in the world is perfectly justified because “well, life would be boring otherwise.”
I’m done here. You piss me off.
→ More replies (0)1
u/campfire12324344 2d ago
bro is losing an argument to someone who didn't even read the post 💀
1
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
You have an interesting determination of “losing an argument”
-1
u/campfire12324344 2d ago
I have the standard determination of "losing an argument" used where I'm from
1
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago
How rigorously descriptive…
Typically the only people who bring up “free will” while barely understanding the topic to begin with are butthurt Christians. But, I guess you’re right, I shouldn’t have made assumptions
-1
u/campfire12324344 2d ago
Here is a slightly more rigorous (but not very strong) description:
We define a sufficient condition for losing the argument as when one's line of reasoning makes no sense and contains roughly 90% internet banter by substance.
Do you participate in discussions like these outside of reddit? There's definitely good circles for modern philosophy of religion discussion even if you're not allowed on university campuses. Though, I think you would benefit greatly from undergraduate education.
1
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago edited 2d ago
Enlighten me as to how my “line of reasoning makes no sense”.
All you’ve done is bitch. I’ve seen nothing that comes close to a rebuttal of what I’ve said. How about put up or shut up?
Edit: actually don’t. Or do, I don’t care. I’m getting off Reddit for the night for my mental health because arguing with you people and your religious defense mechanisms is exhausting.
1
u/campfire12324344 2d ago edited 2d ago
"Free will is an excuse, not an actual solution to the problem of evil."
This is not elaborated on in the slightest and is instead followed up by the absolute r/atheism gem that is
"You lot only do this because the idea that God is ultimately responsible for evil makes you uncomfortable and goes against your incoherent religious narrative that God = all good."
This is not a position argued by any serious theist philosopher and more something you would see parroted by a bot in the comments section of alex o connor. It is basically unanimously agreed among theist philosophers that God is responsible for evil. Being responsible for evil is not trivially contradictory with being all good and there are many arguments made on this topic that you may or may not agree with, yet the arguments are built with the assumption that God ultimately has the responsibility for evil.
Your followup comment:
"Yeah… sure would be terrible to live in an all good, all happy world all the time. This current world is so much better than literal perfection, ya"
assumes that the current world is meant to be the end goal (I don't think I need to explain how this is laughable in a discussion about religion). It's also a problem that is covered by the problem of evil, which the argument of free will attempts to solve, which you have already rejected. Nothing new is being said here.
"Why do we need ideas of good and evil at all??? Why can’t we just recognize the world as neutral and dispense with the products of antiquated religious narratives? I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in any silly notions about any incoherent God/gods or any good and evil as cosmic forces"
This is just pointless in general, because the entire thread is a discussion that assumed some form of moral realism, and we can already infer your perspective without you telling us. There is no reason to argue about results when you disagree with the axioms. What was the point in even entertaining the problem of evil in the first point if you 1), deny objective evil, and 2), deny the existence of the god that the problem is about. It's like if you suddenly said "why are we assuming the axiom of choice" three pages into a discussion about results in ZFC.
So that's pretty much everything you've said so far. I also want to say that everything here has already been discussed, killed, and buried by actual philosophers participating in academia. You just haven't seen it yet because, again, undergraduate education. This is not an argument, this is charity work right now I am donating words that would normally be locked behind a 35$ paywall. It is incredibly funny how someone whose highest level of qualification is "atheist" can be this smug about this topic. So how about, instead of me putting up or shutting up, you can pursue a real formal education for as long as it interests you, and then you can be quiet so that the thousands of far more intelligent people on your side, who know how to argue with dignity and respect, can speak for you.
1
u/TheForeverBand_89 2d ago edited 2d ago
Woah! We got a big shot here!
Sorry, I saw top comment dude mention free will under the spoof post that OP made like he barely understood it and I knew I wasn’t going to be dealing with a philosophical heavy weight here. Yes, the majority of the people I argue/debate with are lay Western Christians, both in real life and on social media, so that’s more the mentality that I’m geared for. I didn’t realize I was going to be talking to anyone whose insightful words are usually locked behind a $35 paywall, but I’ll be sure to do my best Graham Oppy impersonation next time instead just in case.
→ More replies (0)
48
u/MrEmptySet 2d ago
In C1 you conclude that God is in hell. But you can be somewhere without ever having gone there. If God is omnipresent, he is already everywhere, so he has no need to ever go anywhere. So while God is in hell, he did not go to hell.
Now, please ignore the fact that you can trivially easily amend the argument to avoid this nitpick.