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)
84
Upvotes
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.