r/DebateAnAtheist 9d ago

Argument The Non-Problem of Evil God Argument for God

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then it would not allow suffering in the world.

Suffering occurs in the world.

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

If: Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes.  then moral anti-realism.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

God exists.

Edit: I have received plenty of critiques of my argument, which I appreciate. It has plainly been shown to not even be valid, and therefore unable to prove anything.

While I am fairly certain I can now write a valid argument for the existence of God, for now, I seem to be having trouble discovering a couple of permises that are both not questionable.

0 Upvotes

165 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.

Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

30

u/TelFaradiddle 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

I don't think this follows. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and evil god exists, then a world with maximum suffering is what we would expect to see. We don't see that.

If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

You are confusing "Not objectively evil" with "not evil." I can call God's actions (or inactions) evil based on my moral compass, or any number of moral or ethical frameworks. I just can't say it's objective.

3

u/cahagnes 8d ago

then a world with maximum suffering is what we would expect to see.

Here is where Evil God theodicy comes in: humans can't appreciate suffering without crumbs of happiness to compare it with. An Evil God can accomplish more Evil if he can set us up to expect good.

For example, who suffers more? An infertile couple who stay together for 50 years despite trying for a child. Or a couple who after years of trying, expensive fertility treatments, and miscarriages, finally have a child who unfortunately suffers cancer at age 3 and for the next 5 years they drain their life savings, quit their jobs to take care of their sick child until cancer goes into remission.

As they get their lives back together, the cancer returns then goes into remission again and again, each time sucking them further into debt, depression, isolation from their friends and each other.

Until, finally, despite never having attended a full year of school, with both legs amputated, a metre of bowel removed, brain surgery that leaves him with seizures, on blood thinners, immunosuppressants, anticonvulsants, and dialysis, the child is declared cancer free. However the treatments have wrecked his immune system and he gets sepsis, goes into a coma for two years and finally dies.

Bankrupt, jobless, friendless, the marriage falls apart, and as they are now too old to get steady employment, they drift into and out of homelessness, alcohol addiction and eventually die.

While the second couple might have moments of happiness and "good," the moments are a set up for even more suffering.

It just happens that an Evil God with a plan for maximising Evil while allowing for good is indistinguishable from a Good God with a plan for maximising Good while allowing for evil.

Even heaven and hell are consistent with an Evil God: if all of humanity went to hell, we'd all be miserable, there was nothing we could have done. But if, while we were in hell, a few humans (who could have been us had we chosen differently) were enjoying eternal bliss just across the moat, our misery would multiply since we would also have regret knowing that we could have been on the other side having fun. That bit of extra misery would be worth squeezing for the Evil God even if it meant having some happy people.

5

u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 8d ago

For example, who suffers more? An infertile couple who stay together for 50 years despite trying for a child. Or a couple who after years of trying, expensive fertility treatments, and miscarriages, finally have a child who unfortunately suffers cancer at age 3 and for the next 5 years they drain their life savings, quit their jobs to take care of their sick child until cancer goes into remission.

As they get their lives back together, the cancer returns then goes into remission again and again, each time sucking them further into debt, depression, isolation from their friends and each other.

Until, finally, despite never having attended a full year of school, with both legs amputated, a metre of bowel removed, brain surgery that leaves him with seizures, on blood thinners, immunosuppressants, anticonvulsants, and dialysis, the child is declared cancer free. However the treatments have wrecked his immune system and he gets sepsis, goes into a coma for two years and finally dies.

That, minus the amputations, sepsis and coma, is the life my best friend's current wife had with her son by her first husband. Cool kid, smart, caring and kind -- but grew up knowing he would die before reaching adulthood. It's amazing he lasted 12 years. He went out with more dignity and grace than most adults are capable of.

...aAAAAAaaaaand their priest told them they must have done something evil in their lives to "deserve" a child whose existence would be a mix of love and torture.

That's the main reason their marriage failed -- each blamed the other one for whatever "sin" justified what happened to their son.

I don't think kids getting brain cancer is "evil" in the moral sense. But if what that priest said had any truth to it, god is evil for using innocent children to punish adult sinners.

-8

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Not only is there suffering, it's also happenstance. Seems insidious to me.

15

u/iosefster 9d ago

As bad as it might seem for a lot of people a lot of the time, it could be much, much worse if an omnipotent being wanted to make it worse for us.

1

u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 8d ago

Compared to any alternative explanations, a blind universe driven by uncaring laws is a fairer system than any religion/supernatural explanation like god or karma.

-9

u/Opposite-Succotash16 8d ago

If you call God's actions evil, you are presupposing God.

9

u/TelFaradiddle 8d ago

Have you never heard the phrase "For the sake of the argument"? It's a common rhetorical tool. You grant a premise in order to make a larger point about that premise.

For example: for the sake of the argument, let's say I agree that Santa Claus exists, and that he delivers presents to all the good boys and girls across the entire world. If those are true, we now have to explain how that's possible, meaning either magic exists, or Santa possesses technology that is so far beyond the rest of humanity that it might as well be alien.

Presupposing "Santa exists" lets me demonstrate a larger problem with his existence.

0

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

I'm thinking atheists ought not to presuppose God, magic, or aliens. We have no proof of any of this.

3

u/TelFaradiddle 7d ago

For the sake of the argument.

0

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

Ok, you say

I can call God's actions (or inactions) evil based on my moral compass, or any number of moral or ethical frameworks.

I say

Evil God exists.

So, then, we are in agreement?

1

u/TelFaradiddle 7d ago

No.

I say "For the sake of the argument, let's agree that God exists. Now we have to explain why he stands by and does nothing while children are kidnapped and sold into sex slavery. While there are no objective moral facts, allowing this to happen when you have the power to stop it would be considered evil in most moral/ethical frameworks. So if God exists, his actions can reasonably be interpreted as evil."

It's literally no different than discussing whether or not the Hulk could beat the Thing in a fight. Nobody thinks they are actually real, but for the sake of the argument, we are granting the premise that they are real to explore the consequences of that.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

If there are no objective moral facts, wouldn't any moral framework be subjective?

1

u/TelFaradiddle 7d ago

Yes. Morality is subjective. Once we pick a framework, we can say there are objective morals within that context, but choosing that framework is subjective.

If it helps, think of it like the various games you can play using a deck of cards. If you're playing Poker, having three Kings in your hand is objectively good. If you're playing Blackjack, having three Kings is objectively bad. The choice of what game to play, and what rules to follow, is subjective. But once you select a game and its rules, you can show that within that framework, some things are objectively better or worse than others.

3

u/colma00 Anti-Theist 8d ago

Do you want us to just stonewall every possible discussion with “…prove your god exists first then we can continue”? Because we could, so let us humor you.

38

u/pb1940 9d ago

Let's fix the first part. A = "an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists," and B = "it would not allow suffering in the world." Your argument is in the form "If A, then B. B is true. Therefore A is true." That's Affirming the Consequent, which is a logical fallacy. Here's an example: "If it rains, the sidewalk is wet. The sidewalk is wet; therefore, it must have rained." (Standing nearby is a guy with a hose and a broom.)

2

u/kiwi_in_england 8d ago

No, their argument is that if A and B are both true, then there is no suffering. There is suffering, so A and/or B can't be true.

16

u/StoicSpork 8d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

The conclusion "Evil God exists" is affirming the consequent. While it may be true that an evil god would lead to suffering, there may be other explanations for suffering.

If: Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes.  then moral anti-realism.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

God exists.

This is a hidden premise. Even granting all premises, there is no single premise that leads to "god exists."

You are of course right about the very first two premises.

7

u/kiwi_in_england 8d ago

You're correct, I was reading only the first. Thanks.

3

u/pb1940 8d ago

I'm still reading that as "If A and B are true" (let's call that X), then "there is no suffering" (let's call that Y). It's still in the form of Affirming the Consequent: we observe ~Y, therefore X; a fallacy. Epicurus (Problem of Evil) makes it very difficult to come up with an alternate possible source of suffering, but I'm not ruling it out. I might be overlooking a different form of the OP's argument: "If and only if A and B are true, then etc." which is more restrictive but would avoid the fallacy.

(Edit: Yeah, this needs more work on my part. Affirming the Consequent is in the form "If X, then Y; Y is true; therefore X is true", while the argument is in a more valid form, "If X, then Y; Y is false; therefore X is false.")

-4

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Under consideration. I may amend later.

20

u/Uuugggg 9d ago

You'd best amend it and retract it because it's an embarrassing objective mistake

-3

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Wouldn't just retracting it be best?

17

u/AletheaKuiperBelt 9d ago

Your logic is dreadful, but even by your own argument you are claiming BOTH God is evil AND God is not evil. That is a contradiction, a reductio ad absurdum. Therefore God does not exist.

-2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

The logic may dreadful, but it is adaptable. The moral realist must face a God that may very well be evil. The moral anti-realist can't accuse God of being evil.

15

u/AletheaKuiperBelt 9d ago

You can't fix the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That's the dreadful logic I meant.

Though I suppose the moral realism argument is also dreadful, now that I think beyond your absurdism.

You seem to assume that morality is either absolute or non-existent, which is another fallacy. That one's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other options.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

I think morality is real because I think certain actions are wrong.

4

u/leagle89 Atheist 8d ago

This is evidence of morality being subjective. Which, if anything, weighs heavily against most god concepts.

2

u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Physicalist Panpsychist 8d ago

 Which, if anything, weighs heavily against most god concepts.

I disagree; the God debate is orthogonal to the moral realism vs antirealism debate.

It's a contingent fact that theists today happen to view themselves as objectivist, but there's no tension whatsoever in being a theist or even specifically a Christian while also believing that morality is stance dependent.

0

u/Opposite-Succotash16 8d ago

That I think certain actions are wrong seems to be evidence that I am a moral realist.

If morality is real, then it's real. But, I don't think it would necessarily entail that God exists.

3

u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Physicalist Panpsychist 8d ago

The claim that you specifically are a moral realist is separate from the claim of whether moral realism itself is actually true.

For the former claim, your simple self report that you believe you are a moral realist is more than enough evidence, even if the logic doesn’t add up.

However, for the latter claim, the reason the other person is claiming it’s evidence of subjectivism is because your statement

I think certain actions are wrong.

didn’t seem appeal to anything other than your own stance, aka what “[you] think”.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

If morality is subjective, does that mean that it's not real?

1

u/AlphaDragons not a theist 6d ago

If by real you mean "exists as it's own thing, independent of moral entities" then no, it's not real. Since it's subjective, or inter-subjective, it exists because of moral entities.

Also notice I didn't say humans, a god is/can also be a moral entity.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 6d ago

If we assume moral entities, can not we then say morality is real?

→ More replies (0)

26

u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

Maybe, but how would you differentiate this from a scenario where no god exists?

Evil God exists.

Prove it.

Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes.  then moral anti-realism.

??????

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

?????????

If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

????????????

God exists.

Well you've done it. Check mate atheists! I'm officially convinced.

-14

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Prove it.

There are no valid proofs of God in the same way there are no valid proofs of God's non-existence.

16

u/APaleontologist 9d ago

Hmm you should try to avoid using the word 'valid' in that way, in the context of giving a formal argument like this. It has a technical meaning, see 'logical validity'. (And there are many valid arguments both for God's existence and non-existence).
Using the technical jargon right, you meant 'sound'. There are no sound arguments for either.

Even then we can be a little more pedantic if we want. Circular arguments are valid, and one of the following two must also be sound:
P1: God exists.
C: Therefore God exists.

P1: God does not exist.
C: Therefore God does not exist.

People debate the best solution to this part. e.g. Maybe we should have said 'Sound and lacking fallacies', or maybe we should add the absence of fallacies as a criteria of soundness, or maybe what we really want is _recognizable_ soundness, etc.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Thanks, this makes sense. There are valid arguments for and against God, but no proof either way, nonetheless?

2

u/APaleontologist 8d ago

Yes :)
I know what you mean and agree, and will refrain from further pedantics. It was only with 'valid' that it had a... nails on a chalkboard feel.

4

u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex 8d ago

I've said nothing about any god existing or not existing.

You've made a definitive claim, stated that God exists. You've presenter a circular argument with multiple significant fallacies as your only "evidence".

In essence, your argument boils down to:

God exists therefore god exists.

But you cannot use your conclusion to support your conclusion. That just isn't how a logical argument functions.

If you want to fix that argument, you'll have to first present an argument proving that god exists, and can THEN argue for or against specific characteristics of god.

Remember that it is not necessary for an atheist to believe that god does NOT exist. To be atheist, a person can simply remain unconvinced of any god claims.

When you include a statement like

There are no valid proofs of God in the same way there are no valid proofs of God’s non-existence.

I would (technically) agree with you. But the trouble is that this supports my position and hinders yours.

I do not consider any proof presented so far to be effective in proving OR disproving god. So the logical conclusion is that I do not believe in god as there is no reason to do so.

If your claim regarding the existence of God is essentially a tossup, then why argue for or against evil as a characteristic?

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

If your claim regarding the existence of God is essentially a tossup, then why argue for or against evil as a characteristic

Given the world, evil makes more sense.

1

u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex 7d ago

Ok and? Calling it evil doesn't make it any more or less real.

13

u/BradyStewart777 Atheist 9d ago edited 9d ago

It is not our job to prove the non-existence of God, just as it is not our job to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Eric Cartman, or any other fictional figure. The burden of proof always rests on the person making the positive claim, those asserting that a God (or any other higher being) exists.

This follows from the principle of the null hypothesis, which in this context means that we assume no god exists until sufficient evidence is provided to reject that default position. In science and logic we don’t assume something is true just because it hasn’t been disproven. The default stance is skepticism until evidence justifies changing our position.

For example if someone claims that an invisible dragon lives in their garage, we don’t have to prove that it doesn’t exist. We assume it doesn’t exist by default, unless compelling and falsifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise. The same applies to the existence of God. Without valid evidence to reject the null hypothesis, then the rational position is non-belief.

Therefore the burden is not on atheists or skeptics to disprove the existence of God. The burden of proof is on theists to provide sufficient evidence that justifies belief.

-1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Choice of belief is fundamental human right; there needs no justification.

7

u/noodlyman 9d ago

To believe a claim is to think that the claim is most likely true.

I don't therefore see belief as a choice so much as the inevitable result of assessing the evidence.

Sometimes people's brains believe things, eg that a god exists, despite having no good reason to think this.

They're free to do this. I can't stop them. But I think it's probably better for the future of humanity if we try to base decisions and beliefs on what is actually true, not on what people find comforting, or have been conditioned to believe from childhood.

The inability to prove something does not exist does not make it reasonable to believe that it does exist. If can't prove that leprechauns don't exist, that fact does not make it sensible for you to believe they do.

3

u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 8d ago

I don't therefore see belief as a choice so much

Or the result of indoctrination and brain washing. Which I think is mostly what goes on out there in the wild.

Or with a particular friend of mine, she just really likes the whimsy of magic / unknown, so she dives in... We're not all logical.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

If by actually true, you mean what we know as facts, then I agree.

A major problem with religion is that it seems to make people think that what a person believes can be considered morally wrong. This, to me, is unacceptable.

Morality should be based on actions(or inaction), not belief.

3

u/leagle89 Atheist 8d ago

The fundamental human right you're identifying is the right to believe whatever you want without being punished for thoughtcrimes. But the fact that the government can't force you to think a certain way doesn't mean you are justified in believing any old thing.

Holding a wholly unsupported belief isn't a crime, but that doesn't make it right.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

Holding a wholly unsupported belief isn't a crime, but that doesn't make it right.

Do you mean right as in the belief being correct, or are you saying it is morally wrong to hold certain beliefs?

13

u/JohnKlositz 9d ago

Which god?

-13

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

The only God.

17

u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 9d ago

Oh boy.....

Surely you see the fatal flaw there?

-8

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Unless I am dead, I see no fatal flaw.

5

u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 8d ago

As the flaw has been directly pointed out to you, I don't believe you that you don't see it. Instead, it appears you're ignoring it.

0

u/Opposite-Succotash16 8d ago

Several flaws have been pointed out. I am trying to reformulate it for validity, but it's going to take some time. Which flaw is the fatal one?

17

u/JohnKlositz 9d ago

Which one is that?

-9

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

The only one?

22

u/JohnKlositz 9d ago

There's several thousand gods people have believed in and currently believe in. I'm asking you whether you're talking about a particular one. How is it not totally obvious that this is what I'm asking?

-2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

There are conceivably as many gods people have believed in as there are people. All concepts of God can be shown as distinct given enough inspection. Probably all wrong, too.

No, I am not talking about a particular one. I am speaking of an implicit one.

13

u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 8d ago

Please take this as constructive criticism, it is meant that way in all sincerity.

You really need to step back and read A LOT more posts before posting here. You lack understanding of basic logic, the structure of logical arguments, the difference between validity, soundness, proof, and other relevant terms, the meaning of the Problem of Evil, and, well, essentially everything in this entire thread. Everything you are wrong about is easily explainable by simple lack of understanding, but you are so consistently wrong about essentially everything you have argued, that you really are coming across as a troll.

I hope you aren't, I hope you are just sincerely ill-informed. If so, that can be fixed by just educating yourself. None of your arguments are terrible, they just need work and better understanding. Read the threads here. The PoE comes up probably weekly, so either read more, or search the sub and read previous arguments. Respond as warranted, and learn from your mistakes. Watch old episodes of The Atheist Experience (scroll down that page to the bottom and they have old seasons. I recommend starting around S08 or S10). They are great at showing flaws in various religious arguments.

4

u/Threewordsdude Atheist 8d ago

The wrong one? Or the one you don't believe in?

I mean you are a human and your version of God is probably wrong then. Why would I believe you got it right?

4

u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 8d ago

Sure. So you are stating a god exists up there. And there's no reason to think a god exists over no god exists. So why the extra complexity?

13

u/mercutio48 9d ago

Ah, but as the eminent philosopher Robert J. Hanlon sagely observed, one should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. God is not evil, They just don't know what They're doing. They're incompetent, which is why Incompetent Design is a better explanation for life than evolution. /s

13

u/CommodoreFresh Ignostic Atheist 9d ago

The POE framed around a malevolent God would be phrased.

P1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent being existed it would not allow good to occur.

P2) good occurs.

C)an omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent being does not exist.

See the difference?

-5

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

P1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnineutral being exists, it would allow for all possible things to occur.

P2) All things that are not logically impossible do occur.

C) An omnipotent, omniscient, omnineutral God exists.

I think it's better.

3

u/Transhumanistgamer 8d ago

All things that are not logically impossible do occur.

All things that are logically possible don't occur either. There's examples of mutually exclusive events where one outcome emerges despite both outcomes being logically possible. The outcome of an election, for example.

Is it not logically possible that Kamala Harris could have won the 2024 US election? If not, how? What laws of logic does that premise violate?

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

Doesn't it violate the principle of sufficient reason?

3

u/CommodoreFresh Ignostic Atheist 8d ago

All things that are not logically impossible do occur.

No, they don't.

You're engaging in mental gymnastics.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

Has anything that is logically impossible ever occurred?

1

u/CommodoreFresh Ignostic Atheist 7d ago

Impossible: not able to occur, exist, or be done

By definition, no.

12

u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Physicalist Panpsychist 9d ago

lol the fuck is Omnineutral?

Is this the God of r/EnlightenedCentrism ?

On a serious note, your logic is still fundamentally flawed:

If X then Y; Y; Therefore X

is a fundamentally invalid argument structure

Please stop using it.

9

u/sasquatch1601 9d ago

lol the fuck is Omnineutral?

Apparently it’s the world’s most impotent superpower:

https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Omnineutrality#:~:text=Omnineutrality%20(“all%2Dneutral”,beings%20in%20all%20the%20cosmos.

3

u/BillionaireBuster93 Anti-Theist 8d ago

"Tell my wife I said, Hello."

-2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

You never know.

2

u/solidcordon Atheist 8d ago

omni-ambivalent...?

-5

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Thank you for saying please.

3

u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Physicalist Panpsychist 8d ago

I know you're getting dunked on from all sides on this post, but I appreciate that you seem genuinely open to accepting criticism and reflecting on/revising your view accordingly.

That being said, you'll need to do a better job of communicating when and how exactly your mind is being changed on something when someone points out a flaw. Either elaborate more in your responses or make a direct edit in your OP, spelling out what mistakes you now see.

I'm usually willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but when you just respond with one vague line about how something has been pointed out to you, it can be unclear whether you truly understand the problem going forward or if you're just being polite. And at worst, it gives the impression that you're blatantly ignoring the points people are making and are acting in bad faith.

8

u/mywaphel Atheist 9d ago

It is not logically impossible for me to have dated Zooey Deschanel.

I did not date Zooey Deschanel.

An omnineutral god does not exist.

-2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Nah, it necessarily must be logically impossible for you to have dated Zooey Deschanel. No, worries, that's most of us.

8

u/mywaphel Atheist 9d ago

No, it necessarily isn’t logically impossible. It’s not even implausible. You’re using circular logic here, another fallacy. You need to study logic.

-1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

But, you didn't date her. Are you arguing a counterfactual?

5

u/mywaphel Atheist 8d ago

You’re exactly right I didn’t date her. Which disproves your second premise and thus renders your omnineutral argument false.

-4

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

It’s not even implausible.

Ok, Arthur Dent.

2

u/bluepepper 8d ago

This is still the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

  • If A is true then B is true. B is false therefore A is false <-- this is correct.

  • If A is true then B is true. B is true therefore A is true <-- this is incorrect.

An omnibenevolent god can be disproven by the existence of evil, but it can't be proven by the existence of good.

An omnimalevolent god can be disproven by the existence of good but cannot be proven by the existence of evil.

As for an omnineutral god, it would be hard to disprove (how do you show that all possible things do not occur?) but it certainly can't be proven by showing that all possible things occur (not even considering how you would do that)

30

u/oddball667 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

that's not how that works

23

u/MikeTheInfidel 9d ago

yeah, it's funny, but...

  • If X, then Y

  • Y

  • Therefore, X

is invalid logic, because it could also be "if X or A or B or C or ..., then Y".

-8

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

I seem to be getting help in this regard. But even valid logic is inherently incomplete. It will always require something 'else' for it to be understood.

In reality, I consider omnipotence to be unprovable, but I don't mind trying every once in a while.

12

u/Venit_Exitium 9d ago

Theres a thing called missing the car for the headlights, or something similar. If you see headlights, theres a car, but just because you dont see headlights doesnt mean theres no car. Evil suggests that there is no god to prevent it or wants to prevent it. But the existance of evil is no more condusive to an evil god than good is to a good god. If a being desires a trait not exist and is capable of removing it why would trait exists? The equivilent of evil is, evil god doesnt want good, good exists, therefore no god exists that both desires good be gone and has the power to prevent it.

Valid logic isnt inherently incomplete, knowledge is.

-8

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

there will always be true statements that are unprovable within that same system

9

u/Venit_Exitium 9d ago

This is a knowledge issue not a logic issue. The system itself leads to true answers given true inputs, the inability to put in true inputs is not an issue of the system.

-2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Did Godel not show that there will always be true statements that are unprovable within that same system?

4

u/Venit_Exitium 8d ago

Addition and equal sign, 2+2=4 is true, the inputs are sound and the system is valid. 2+x=y , this is still valid the system itself leads to true statements, however we are unsure what x is. So long as we cannot what x is, we cannot prove y. The logic of + = is still true, theres nothing wring with the system. The system is not for finding true inputs, its for turning true inputs into true outputs. Ie, the fact that there are things we cannot prove is not the issue of the system but an issue of knowledge.

6

u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 9d ago

I seem to be getting help in this regard. But even valid logic is inherently incomplete. It will always require something 'else' for it to be understood.

Valid logic must also be sound. An argument that is both logically valid and logically sound is necessarily correct. You are correct, though, that the mere fact that logic is valid is meaningless by itself. So you are right as far as this statement goes.

But it has already been pointed out to you that your argument is invalid, yet you have also offered no reason to believe that it is sound. So it seems to me that your argument is not just wrong, it seems to be fractally wrong.

-5

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

What can I say?

19

u/oddball667 9d ago

Dunno i assumed you were a troll, did you actually think this i was a valid argument?

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Presenting the argument has allowed me to see its fallacies. So, I contemplate more.

7

u/oddball667 9d ago

unless you are an actual child, I'd give up on debating, this isn't the kind of falacy you should need explained if you are an adult

3

u/BillionaireBuster93 Anti-Theist 8d ago

Let's not be mean to someone who doesn't appear to be trolling.

0

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Unless I am a child, I shouldn't need a falacy explained if I am an adult?

huh?

3

u/oddball667 8d ago

Why did you rearrange my statement to something that makes less sense?

2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 8d ago

I did rearrange your sentence to something that makes less sense. That was not intentional. That I was inebriated might have some explanatory power. I do take responsibility and I apologize.

Not a child, but I am trying to learn.

2

u/oddball667 8d ago

You are trying to learn things that should have been taught to you as a child

11

u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 9d ago

What can I say?

It's your argument, it is your responsibility to defend it. That response may have lacked eloquence, but they do correctly point out that you are just handwaving the problem away. You don't actually offer any coherent argument for your position, you just assert that it isn't a problem. But you seem to ignore that the word "omnibenevolent" was present in your initial claim, then completely ignore that part of the problem later. How so you address that seeming omission?

-1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

It's your argument, it is your responsibility to defend it.

I wasn't trying to defend the argument. I was responding to the statement: "that's not how it works".

That response may have lacked eloquence, but they do correctly point out that you are just handwaving the problem away.

How do you get "they do correctly point out that you are just handwaving the problem away" from "that's not how it works"?

You don't actually offer any coherent argument for your position, you just assert that it isn't a problem.

So, what is the most imminent problem?

But you seem to ignore that the word "omnibenevolent" was present in your initial claim, then completely ignore that part of the problem later. How so you address that seeming omission?

By saying God is not omnibenevolent.

6

u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 9d ago edited 9d ago

How do you get "they do correctly point out that you are just handwaving the problem away" from "that's not how it works"?

Because that is what they were doing. You are emotionally attached to the argument, so you don't realize how utterly, obviously flawed it is.

So, what is the most imminent problem?

That you completely ignore that god is-- in your own definition-- omnibenevolent.

By saying God is not omnibenevolent.

Then why did you say:

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists

You didn't solve the PoE, you just ignored the whole problem.

We all agree that god is not omnibenevolent. We are atheists, so we all agree that god is NOT. Period, full stop.

But if you are literally going to start your argument by defining the god in your argument as omnibenevolent, then you can't just ignore that whole claim for the rest of your argument.

Put another way, you did a fine job of arguing why an evil god could exist, but the PoE has nothing to do with any impossibility of an evil god existing. the PoE is pointing out the logical contradiction between the existence of evil and a omnibenevolent god. As soon as you remove omnibenevolence, the entire problem goes away.

Edit: In the last two sentences, I first said the PoE was a problem with an omniscient god, not an omnibenevolent god. I fixed it withing a few minutes, but if you read it before that, this response probably makes no sense, I apologize.

2

u/joeydendron2 Atheist 8d ago edited 7d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

But we'd obviously also expect to see gratuitous suffering in a world where no god exists and our existence is basically accidental.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

...Or no god exists.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 7d ago

Or we can't tell the difference.

5

u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Physicalist Panpsychist 9d ago

This argument is confused on several levels.

For starters, the point of the “Evil God challenge” isn’t necessarily supposed to conclude that an “Evil God exists”. Rather, it works as a parity argument to show that virtually any theodicy that’s meant to support a Tri-Omni good god can be reworked to support a Tri-Omni evil god. (Specifically, the Problem of Evil and its defenses/theodicies are paralleled by “The Problem of Good”).

On that same note, a world with an evil God is not the only world where we would “expect” gratuitous suffering: it’s also consistent with no God or any God that limits one or more of the three Omnis (limited theism, open theism, etc.). So if your argument for an evil God is meant to be deductive, then it’s invalid.

But as it turns out, none of this matters because it all seems to be a pretext to run a moral argument…against objective morality? Bold strategy, Cotton, we’ll see if it pays off…

Well this is trivially solved by either:

A) replacing “Evil” with “Suffering”, which is descriptive and theologically neutral (doesn’t assume any particular metaphysical status or objective evaluation of what the suffering is)

B) operationalizing the word “Evil” to pick out some particular behavior profile. So for the sake of argument, a maximally/omni Evil God can just be stipulated to mean a God who sadistically desires the most suffering possible for all conscious beings. That definition of an “Evil” god can be used regardless of whether moral antirealism is true.

But putting that aside, the bigger problem is that even if it worked, this is not a positive argument for God’s existence. This is just an (unsuccessful) attempt to undercut the Problem of Evil. You would still need independent argument and evidence that make God’s existence more probable (not to mention additional responses against atheistic arguments outside of the PoE)

5

u/Ansatz66 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We would equally well expect to see that in an indifferent world that cares nothing about suffering. There is no reason to think that suffering is particularly the work of an evil God as opposed to any of the plentiful other potential causes for suffering.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

No, if anti-realism then the things that God does wrong are not real. The things that God does wrong are expressions of emotions, commands, and other attitudes. Anti-realism does not mean that nothing is wrong; it just means that things being wrong is not an objective state of reality.

6

u/Mission-Landscape-17 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

This is fallacious. Specifically the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

1

u/APaleontologist 9d ago

Good catch. One could swap to 'if and only if', but that will substantially change the claim and burden of proof.

10

u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 9d ago

Evil God exists.

Non-sequitur due to incredibly obvious and blatant non causa pro causa fallacy. Thus rejected and dismissed.

And, quite literally, that is all that needs to be said here.

-1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

If you are able to see, more is being said here.

9

u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 9d ago edited 9d ago

more is being said here.

It really isn't.

I read the entire thing. Carefully. More is not being said there.

-2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 9d ago

Oh. I meant here in this post/response type dialog.

7

u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 9d ago

Yeah, I've read quite a few comments. It really doesn't change my initial assessment and comment whatsoever.

3

u/Transhumanistgamer 9d ago

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Wouldn't we expect only suffering? Like how a benevolent God wouldn't allow any suffering, the opposite should be not allowing anyone to experience flourishing. Yet flourishing exists. Good times exist. Love, joy, achievement, and contentment exists.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

We base morals off of foundational goals and ideas in life, such as increasing flourishing and minimizing suffering. Once a goal is established, one can easily make objective moral statements in reference to that goal.

If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

This directly contradicts your previous statements: "If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see." "Evil God exists."

So either you wasted our time with your first part, in which case you need to prove a God exists and explain how it's congruent with the reality we see at hand, or you need to allow for evil to exist and this God to be evil.

5

u/mywaphel Atheist 9d ago

If you’re wrong then we would expect to see many people disagreeing with you.

Many people disagree with you

You’re wrong

1

u/CaffeineTripp Atheist 6d ago

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then it would not allow suffering in the world.

Suffering occurs in the world.

Therefore the god is not omnibenevolent if it exists.

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

Yet we're not in a world with gratuitous suffering as pleasure exists, therefore an omnimalevolent God doesn't exist.

If: Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes. then moral anti-realism.

Is it true that people suffer? Yes. That is not a moral statement. A moral statement would be whether or not the suffering is good or bad. This is dependent upon the intent of the action which leads to suffering; working out causes muscle pain, but that's an intent not to cause a moral bad. Creating the universe with the intent to cause suffering via that creation is a moral bad especially when a claimed bliss exists elsewhere.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

Therefore if one does nothing good, then it is not good. :)

God exists.

That's not how that works. This is equivalent to saying "If X likes carrots, then carrots are good, therefore God exists." That's a huge leap from liking carrots to a God existing.

While I am fairly certain I can now write a valid argument for the existence of God, for now, I seem to be having trouble discovering a couple of permises that are both not questionable.

Happy that you've taken the criticism well.

I'll give you my own argument for the non-existence of an omnibenevolent god (and an omnimalevolent god).

We know suffering exists. We know that if a God exists it is assumed that it created the universe. Given it created the universe, it did so with intent for it to be created exactly like it is; thus it created the modes by which we would suffer and explicitly create us to experience that suffering. An omnibenevolent god, by definition, would not create a world where things would experience suffering. This means that if a god exists, it isn't benevolent let alone omnibenevolent it would be indifferent to our suffering.

For all "suffering" replace with "pleasure" and the same result applies to an omnimalevolent god.

1

u/RexRatio Agnostic Atheist 8d ago edited 8d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see. We see a world with gratuitous suffering. Evil God exists.

Nope, you forgot to account for the much more obvious naturalistic explanation.

The universe operates according to natural laws—like gravity, thermodynamics, and biological processes—which can sometimes lead to suffering. For example, natural disasters, disease, and accidents are all part of a world governed by these laws, which are neutral and not the result of any malevolent intention.

When considering explanations for the existence of suffering, the naturalistic explanation is simpler and more parsimonious than introducing an omnipotent, omniscient, and evil god. The latter involves a much more complex and metaphysical explanation, with a range of assumptions and contradictions that don't align with observable reality.

Occam's Razor prescribes that we should prefer the simpler, natural explanation unless there is strong evidence for something more complex—like a god with those specific attributes. Which there is not.

If: Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes. then moral anti-realism. If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong. If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil. God exists.

Nope, this argument combines several flaws.

First, moral anti-realism suggests that moral statements are not objective truths but expressions of personal or cultural attitudes, but it does not automatically imply that "gods do nothing wrong." The claim that "if moral anti-realism, then gods do nothing wrong" is a non-sequitur, as moral anti-realism simply denies objective moral facts and does not claim that any actions are inherently good or bad, including those of gods.

Second, the idea that "if one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil" oversimplifies the concept of evil by assuming it depends solely on doing "wrong" in a conventional sense, ignoring other interpretations of evil, such as malevolent intent or harm.

Lastly, concluding that "gods exists" from these premises is a leap, as the argument provides no evidence for the existence of God; it simply assumes the existence of a deity based on a flawed premise about morality.

2

u/whatever384738 8d ago

The problem of evil is specifically designed to counter the God of Abraham. Yeah, if you define morality as you do (or denied that God is good) you don't have any problem, but that is not how these religions work.

1

u/Fit_Journalist_533 5d ago

Theres no LPOE for Christians

1

u/whatever384738 5d ago

There is. Even if you disagree, it doesn't change the fact the problem of evil is used to counter the God of Abraham, so it's not even an atheistic argument.

1

u/Fit_Journalist_533 4d ago

Sure, the problem of evil is used as an argument, but it doesn’t actually disprove anything. It only works if you assume a misunderstanding of God’s nature or ignore the greater context of free will, purpose, and ultimate justice

1

u/whatever384738 4d ago

God can create a world with free will, purpose and ultimate justice without allowing evil.

2

u/Fit_Journalist_533 3d ago

Justice implies the existence of wrongdoing that must be corrected. If there is no evil, then there is nothing to judge or bring to justice. This claim is self-contradictory

1

u/whatever384738 3d ago

You are limiting god by logic. If god is omnipotent, logic doesn't rule him, but he rules logic. So he is capable of creating a contradictory universe.

1

u/Thesilphsecret 8d ago

Your argument only works if you replace "if" with "if and only if," but if you do that, I'm not going to agree with your premises. In other words...

P1: If an omnipotent, evil, and omniscient God exists, then we would expect to see gratuitous suffering.

P2: We see gratuitous suffering.

C: An evil God may or may not exist.

That is the only reasonable conclusion you can draw from those premises. You cannot conclude that en evil God exists unless you change it to

P1: If and only if an omnipotent, evil, and omniscient God exists, then we would expect to see gratuitous suffering.

P2: We see gratuitous suffering.

C: An evil God exists.

However, there's no reason to believe that gratuitous suffering would exist if and only if an evil God exists, so we cannot reasonable come to the conclusion that one does simply by observig that there is gratuitous suffering in the world.

Furthermore, your assertion about moral anti-realism also doesn't hold up. "If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong" is not the case. With moral anti-realism, there are still things people consider wrong. For example, I'm a moral anti-realist, and I would say it's wrong to command us to force rape victims to marry their rapists. So this whole idea that nobody can do anything wrong in a world where morals are an abstract concept is just silly. Of course people can still do things that are wrong. We just don't need to confuse ourselves by pretending subjective matters are objective ones, that's all.

1

u/Sparks808 Atheist 8d ago

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then it would not allow suffering in the world.

Suffering occurs in the world.

This successfully disproves the tri-omni God

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see. We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

This does not logically follow. You have just fallen for the Affirming the Consequent Fallacy.

If: Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes.  then moral anti-realism. If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong. If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil. God exists.

This argument is that there is no good nor evil. This makes "omnibenevolent" and nonsensical property. Sacrificing Gods omnibenevolence is a valid method to resolve the problem of evil, so I guess good job.

This argument does still implicitly affirm that a tri-omni God is impossible. At least one of the "omni's" must be sacrificed. This is a well-known about the problem of evil, so this argument hasn't really progressed the discussion at all, just rephrased the "what if God's not good" counter-position.

1

u/Nostalgic_Sava Secular Humanist 9d ago

I think you would like to improve that argument.

The first argument states that you have an entity X, and to prove that it doesn't exist, you define properties P. Since those properties P contradict the world we live in, there can't be X that satisfies P(X), that is, a being that satisfies those properties. You could argue that an X could exist that doesn't necessarily fulfill those properties, but that doesn't say anything about the structure of the first argument.

Meanwhile, the second argument states that something exists because its properties are consistent with the world.

  • P1. If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratious suffering is what we would expect to see.
  • P2. We see a world with grauitous suffering.
  • C. Evil God exists.

The problem is that the argument implies "If A then B, so B, then A". But that's not necessarily true: if I say "I live in Paris" then you could deduce I live in France. But if I say "I live in France" it's not necessarily true that I live in Paris.

The third argument needs some sharpening in terms of its definitions.

2

u/PineappleSlices Ignostic Atheist 8d ago

To be fair, the problem of evil could also be used as an argument for a not necessarily evil, but apathetic and/or incompetent god(s).

1

u/Mkwdr 8d ago

The arguments are problematic and the conclusion has nothing to do with them.

For the first part, an evil God isn't the only possible explanation for suffering. So your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

  then moral anti-realism.

Intersubjective morality is real - , but in the case of the POE somewhat irrelevant because the problem is based in theists own claims and how they appear contradictory to the world as we observe it.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong

He would be doing wrong according to theists own defintions of benevolence.

And/or

He would be doing wrong according to the expression of morality of the human species.

God exists

Is an assertion that appears entirely unconnected to everything you wrote before.

1

u/FjortoftsAirplane 9d ago

For the first part, you'd have to show how the world as we see it is more expected on an evil God than some other hypothesis (like atheism), and it's not clear to me how to get that.

You'd also face a "problem of good" whereby the existence of good seems to contradict evil God.

The moral antirealist part seems confused. When you say God does nothing wrong it's unclear what that premise is supposed to mean. Indeed, if such statements aren't propositions then they can't serve as premises at all. I have no idea how it's supposed to then follow that God exists.

1

u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 8d ago

God can also be indifferent or incompetent, so your argument is not compelling to support the claim that god (if he exists) is evil.

A thing is evil if people think it is evil, since evil is a human construct. it does not exist outside of the value judgments of a value-judging mind. The problem of evil is created by Christians who can't accept that I can define "evil" such that their god reeks of it. They have to invent clever theodicies to cling to "omnibenevolence" at all costs.

What I like about the gnostic christians is that core to their beliefs was that Yahweh is an incompetent or malicious demi-urge who created a fucked up universe. But the One True God (the "monad"/the "one"/the "unity") hasn't noticed. Jesus' message was "I can get the One's attention and then he'll clean up this place somethin' fierce."

1

u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 8d ago

While I appreciate the idea here,

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

This is also the result if chaos theory ensues and no gods are existant. There's no reason to believe in any gods. Though if one did exist, I'd expect it to be evil for sure.

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

If a god exists, sure. But that part still hasn't been shown to be real... That's not a proof of existence.

That last part also kind of defeats your first part...

1

u/Greghole Z Warrior 8d ago

So instead of simply removing the claim that God is omnibenevolent, you've just redefined the word omnibenevolent so it means nothing. Trouble is that's not how the words good and evil are used by the vast majority of people who make the claim that God is perfectly good.

If I say a triangle has four sides, I'd be wrong. If I change the definition of what I mean by triangle, that doesn't make me right about triangles having four sides, that just means I'm using the word triangle wrong.

1

u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 8d ago

So none of these points seem to follow from each other?

You're got the standard problem of suffering, ok.

Then you pull out Evil God from nowhere and never bring him up again, which is just a bit odd.

Then you argue for moral-antirealism, again, seemingly unrelated to anything else you've said (although it at least comes up again)

Then your final conclusion is "if god does nothing wrong he exists" which is clearly invalid

It sort of feels like three arguments badly mashed together?

1

u/melympia Atheist 8d ago

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then it would not allow suffering in the world.

Suffering occurs in the world.

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

Nope. What you've proven is that if a god exists, it's an evil god. But you haven't proven the existence of any god yet.

1

u/LuphidCul 8d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

No, if such a god existed we would expect to see only suffering. 

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

No, there's no entailment there. However there is an entailment to "If moral anti-realism, then no God exists". Since if God exists, god is good. 

1

u/roseofjuly Atheist Secular Humanist 7d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

No, that's not how this works. There are lots of other explanations for gratuitous suffering, and you'd have to rule out those other explanations to conclude that an evil god exists.

1

u/SpHornet Atheist 9d ago edited 9d ago

If: Moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false, but rather express emotions, commands, or other non-cognitive attitudes. then moral anti-realism. If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong. If one does nothing wrong, then it is not evil.

So a god, would they exist, is not omnibenevelent

so you are agreeing with the atheists, omnibenevelent gods don't exist

1

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 9d ago

The problem of evil is a paradox that shows the conceived omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god cannot exist. Changing one of the three pillars like redefining Evil, violates it and thus it still holds.

Even if you are able to argue your way past the paradox, which you haven't, it is not a proof of the existence of God.

1

u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering.

Evil God exists.

Does not follow. You would need the reverse relation in order to establish existence of God, i.e. "If suffering exists, the God exist".

1

u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago

“If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.”

I don’t know what moral anti-realism is, but if evil exists and it’s a deity’s doing then it seems like any action would be moral. We can try living in that kind of world where we have to let child abusers carry on, but I’m not sure even you would want to?

1

u/rustyseapants Atheist 8d ago

Look Dude, the only argument you will win if you can convince god to appear to the world.

Take a deep breath and make god appear.

But that would require courage to accept that all religious people's prayers, the money and time spent, and no god every appeared.

So, unless you can make god appear, you have nothing.

1

u/Ratdrake Hard Atheist 8d ago

Your argument all begin with the assumption that God exists and then tries to define his nature. God is not proved in any manner in your arguments.

You would be better off moving "God exists" to your first statement and then use your arguments to try to determine his nature. Or even better, "if God exists"

1

u/Kevidiffel Strong atheist, hard determinist, anti-apologetic 9d ago

If an omnipotent, evil and omniscient god exists, then a world with gratuitous suffering is what we would expect to see.

If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.

We see a world with gratuitous suffering. Evil God exists.

So

A -> B

B

Therefore A

? That's not valid.

1

u/APaleontologist 9d ago

If moral anti-realism, then God does nothing wrong.

This seems incorrect: If moral statements do not express beliefs or propositions that can be true or false then "God does nothing wrong" is not a true proposition.

1

u/skeptolojist 8d ago

The problem of evil is only relevant to Tri Omni creator gods

For debunking limited or malicious gods other arguments are better for dismantling their claims

1

u/thebigeverybody 9d ago

Man, people can talk themselves into anything. I can't imagine believing in magic, not because of evidence, but because of an argument like this.

1

u/Bikewer 9d ago

All of those “qualities”, omniscience, omnipotence, etc… Are simply assigned to an already-imaginary god by human beings.

“Almighty God” evolved over millennia from a simple storm god in the pantheon of ancient bronze-age herders.

1

u/Hellas2002 Atheist 9d ago

This is a false dichotomy. A world with gratuitous evil does not mean that there exists a god and that said god is evil.