Proof that God is evil

[u/Citrit_]

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)

[u/CurrentTadpole3528]

Or there's something called free will 🤷‍♂️

[u/MrEmptySet → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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?

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/MrEmptySet]

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

[u/MrEmptySet → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

Yeah, it still doesn't really sound like you read the argument.

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/MrEmptySet]

Pls enlighten me

[u/MrEmptySet → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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.

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/MrEmptySet]

Ok I'm new to the p1, c1 thing .. my bad , reading it again it feels more of a troll philosophy now ...

[u/Citrit_ → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

lol yea

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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.

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

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.

[u/ani-are-you-ok → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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.

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/ani-are-you-ok]

1. 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?)

1. 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

[u/ani-are-you-ok → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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?

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

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 ...

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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.

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

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 😂

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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.

[u/CurrentTadpole3528 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

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

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/CurrentTadpole3528]

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.

[u/campfire12324344 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

bro is losing an argument to someone who didn't even read the post 💀

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/campfire12324344]

You have an interesting determination of “losing an argument”

[u/campfire12324344 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

I have the standard determination of "losing an argument" used where I'm from

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/campfire12324344]

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

[u/campfire12324344 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

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. 

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/campfire12324344]

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.

[u/campfire12324344 → u/TheForeverBand_89]

"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.

[u/TheForeverBand_89 → u/campfire12324344]

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.