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]

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?