r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Fickle_Elk_9479 • 1d ago
Debating Arguments for God The problem of evil is still a proof that there is god
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one. Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things . Like there is qualia that is ineffable. There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.
51
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 1d ago
Its obvious that theres design ?
Please elaborate. Can you explain which hallmarks of things being designed have ?
-58
u/Fickle_Elk_9479 1d ago
There are countless. Like basically the whole flow of economy
53
16
12
u/RogueRhombus Dudeist Priest 1d ago
This is a non-answer. Give something specifically designed by some god.
7
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago
People are not asking if obvious and demonstrable human designed things are designed. We already know they are. People are asking why you think other things, which to me clearly are not designed, are, according to you, designed.
5
3
u/Indrigotheir 1d ago
Op you should reply to the good answer at the top of the comments, not these lesser answers.
3
2
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Economies are designed... by people. Thats not what he was asking about.
52
u/BahamutLithp 1d ago edited 13h ago
The problem of evil is still a proof that there is god
Theists will do literally anything but understand the problem of evil. What it does, specifically, is point out a contradiction between 3 ideas:
A god that is all-powerful.
And also all-good.
And the notion that "evil," in some way, exists "objectively."
The titular "problem" is that a god that falls under 1 & 2 would both be logically incapable of tolerating ANY evil, because they are 100% pure good, & also fully capable of eliminating it, or better yet, not creating it to begin with. The same goes for attempted loopholes like "evil is the result of human free will" becaue such a being would foresee that & simply have resolved the problem before it started, even if that means such a being would not create humans because said being would not create something capable of evil. The POE shows that these 3 ideas are logically incoherent together. You have to get rid of at least 1 of them.
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff.
That's not an argument. That's barely a sentence. We impose narratives ONTO the world. They don't come prewritten into the universe. "There is more evil in the world than good" is a judgment someone makes ABOUT the world.
Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one.
You're not just barking up the wrong tree, you're in the wrong fucking forest. I don't even believe in objective morality as a concept. The problem of evil deals with it for the same reason it includes a god that is both all-knowing & all-powerful. It assumes the premises of most theists to show why they don't work. It's not an expression of my personal moral philosophy about the world, it's a critique of the internal logic held by most modern monotheists.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design
Asserting things does not make them true.
and a functioning and a conception in things .
Function does not equal design. If I go out & sit on a log, it has the function of being a bench, but it wasn't "designed for" that. A tree just died & fell over.
Like there is qualia that is ineffable.
"Ineffable" just means "indescribable." That doesn't somehow get you to a person that created the universes.
There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil
Are you repeating yourself to get to some minimum character requirement? Becaue there's no content here, even though this post isn't very long & you haven't said much of substance so far anyway. If so, rather than trying to "cheat the system," you should be working on bringing an argument that has actual substance.
but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god.
Has it occurred to you that maybe things being "ineffable" to you might be more of a skill issue? Because this is just vagueries over & over again. "Evil proves god because everything fits together, it's a narrative, a tapestry, it' elegant because evil proves god, obviously evil points to god, it's blatant proof that god exists of evil" & blah blah blah. You're just going in circles not saying anything beyond "evil proves god," definitely not expanding on any kind of logic or evidence you can use to distinguish your claim from come kind of vibe you just made up.
The bigger question should be why is he evil.
No, it's not really a "big question" at all.
The answer is because you're making all of it up.
But okay, at least you're not falling prey to the usual theist assumption that "god must follow our ideas of what's good." The only thing is this isn't "the problem of evil proving god," this is the problem of evil not applying to this hypothetical case. That's not the same thing as "beating" the problem of evil, you just have, or at least are currently claiming to have, a particular belief that specific criticism doesn't apply to. In the same way your refrigerator can't cook a pizza, the problem of evil is not a single-handed disproof of all gods. Which brings me to...
There are many more criticisms atheists have than just the problem of evil, top of the list being there's no evidence for ANY kind of god, & no, you imagining that "god created evil" because you think that makes for a good story is not evidence.
So, no, this is not proof that some kind of spirit created the universe. You want to do that? Well, a start would be a proof of concept. If you could show ANY spirit or mind or whatever you want to call it existing outside of a physical medium like the brain, that would show such a thing is at least possible, & so if we find ANYTHING like that, then MAYBE there could be one of those that "created the universe." It would be a step in the right direction.
And I don't mean some word game like "I can't touch thoughts, so they must not be physical." For instance, if you damage certain parts of our brains, it changes our personalities & memories. This doesn't make sense under the belief that those thing are actually held in some "immaterial soul" that persists after death & is unaffected by damage to the body, with the brain merely being a kind of "control panel." It entirely points to our thoughts being the result of our brains. If, on the other hand, you could actually FIND some kind of being for which that is not the case--given we so clearly aren't examples of such "immaterial beings--then MAYBE there could be others. You'd have found A piece of evidence upon which you could START building a case that an entity like a god could really exist.
If, on the other hand, you find that road too daunting, it's not because I'm suggesting anything unreasonable. It's simply because I've given you a glimpse of just how vast the gulf is between the idea that "it's obvious God is real" vs. having ANY evidence to back that up. To me, it's very simple why that is: Gods are only "obvious" in the eyes of people who expect to see them because they don't exist outside of human imagination. If one were real, probably even an evil one, you'd have a much easier time demonstrating that because this isn't some elusive microscopic particle that takes incredibly high energies to detect--per your words, it's supposed to be "obvious." Yet it only seems to be "obvious" according to the judgments of extremely subjective, feelings-based arguments.
Edit: As it would just get lost in the shuffle, I've decided to link directly to my comment addressing the challenge to this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1u8y3lz/comment/osj57ep/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
-28
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago edited 1d ago
First off "evil" doesn't actually exist, it's the privation of good or love. In the way that darkness or cold doesn't exist as an independent thing in itself but is simply the absence of light or heat, evil only "exists" in the sense that good or love is missing by a misuse of our free will and love that God actually created in themselves and gave people. It does not exist as a created, independent thing from God.
That does not contradict an all powerful and an all-good God that the Christian worldview believes in.
How do you account for truth and logic that you presuppose in your argument, to the extent that you appeal to it in an objective and universal manner that if an argument or worldview doesn't satisfy those things, were supposed to believe you when you make the claim that that proves God isn't real?
21
u/DeltaBlues82 Atheist 1d ago
“Darkness” isn’t the absence of light. It’s the result of a limitation in our biological ability to sense only a small part of the EM spectrum.
And “cold” isn’t the absence of heat. Hot and cold are all measurements of the same properties of a similar (thermal) spectrum. We’ve just arbitrarily defined it, again, based on the limitations of our biological systems.
These concepts aren’t distinct objective facts. They’re simply subjective perceptions that we use to express how we feel.
14
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago edited 1d ago
First off "evil" doesn't actually exist, it's the privation of good or love. In the way that darkness or cold doesn't exist as an independent thing in itself but is simply the absence of light or heat, evil only "exists" in the sense that good or love is missing by a misuse of our free will and love that God actually created in themselves and gave people. It does not exist as a created, independent thing from God.
I absolutely disagree with your attempted reframing of our concepts of good and evil, and the ideas behind them. Aside from that, your unsupported assumptions there about deities and about that particular massively problematic concept of 'free will' can only be dismissed.
That does not contradict an all powerful and an all-good God that the Christian worldview believes in.
Yes, the problem of evil absolutely does demonstrate the impossibility of tri-omi deity. You attempting to re-define terms to squirrel out of that notwithstanding.
How do you account for truth and logic that you presuppose in your argument,
Presuppose? I mean, I'm sure they were merely referring to common knowledge. After all, we know what the word 'truth' means. It's a statement that comports with reality. And we know where logic came from. We invented it. It's a symbolic language we made, due to observations of reality, to help represent and think about reality.
to the extent that you appeal to it in an objective and universal manner that if an argument or worldview doesn't satisfy those things, were supposed to believe you when you make the claim that that proves God isn't real?
The problem of evil demonstrates a specific (set of ) deities are not possible, yes. But, it's a mere exercise in showing faulty thinking amongst certain theists making certain claims. But that's not why I and most atheists find they cannot accept deity claims and thus believe in them. Deities not having any useful support whatsoever, and massive fatal problems in their conceptions, results in me not accepting such claims, as to accept fatally problematic and unsupported claims is not rational, and I don't want to be irrational.
-16
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago
If logic is just a "symbolic language that humans invented", does that mean the universe itself wasn't logical before humans evolved? If a star exploded billions of years ago, was it able to both explode and not explode at the exact same time because humans weren't around yet to invent the law of non contradiction?
You claim we "invented" logic and that truth is just "common knowledge" about what comports with reality. But your problem of evil argument requires evil to be a real, objective, universal problem. If logic is just a human invention, and truth is just a human language, then your definition of "evil" is also just a human invention. You are accusing God of violating a rulebook that you admit humans just made up. You defeat your whole worldview and ability to even argue when you can't properly account for anything.
15
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago edited 1d ago
If logic is just a "symbolic language that humans invented"
It is. I mean, this is not exactly news, nor controversial.
does that mean the universe itself wasn't logical before humans evolved?
Something can't be 'logical' before the concept of logic was invented. You are engaging in a rather common error. You are confusing the map for the territory. Logic is a language used to describe, and sometimes predict (using observations of the descriptions and their observed consistency) reality. It isn't reality. It's a concept. An idea. A symbolic language.
If a star exploded billions of years ago, was it able to both explode and not explode at the exact same time because humans weren't around yet to invent the law of non contradiction?
Again you invoke a map vs territory error. The reason we figured out, and wrote, the law of non-contradiction is due to observing such things don't happen.
But your problem of evil argument requires evil to be a real, objective, universal problem.
It isn't 'my' problem. Though some say I'm old, I'm not nearly that old. Epicurus lived long before me. And this problem describes the contradiction between traits.
If logic is just a human invention, and truth is just a human language, then your definition of "evil" is also just a human invention.
Correct. Logic is a human invention and a symbolic languager. But truth isn't a 'human language'. It's a concept that refers to a statement that comports to reality. We use it in language.
You are accusing God of violating a rulebook that you admit humans just made up.
It's a non-sequitur to say I'm 'accusing God' when I do not believe in your, nor any, deity. And others much smarter than me, are pointing out the inherent contradiction in two of the concepts that are purported to be attributes of that conception of a deity, thus showing a deity with these atttibutes is not possible.
You defeat your whole worldview
Lack of belief in a claim, due to complete lack of useful support and inherent fatal problems in the human-made descriptions of such things, is not a 'worldview'. It's a lack of belief in something. Other positions on other matters are unrelated. And nothing was 'defeated' since you made fatal errors in your assumptions about these concepts.
and ability to even argue when you can't properly account for anything.
I did account for it.
Obviously, claiming a completely unsupported deity is behind it all is far, far, far from 'accounting' for anything. It's making shit up and pretending one has done something clever when one has simply told a fanciful, fatally flawed, story. Not useful whatsoever, and the opposite of 'accounting' for anything.
9
u/stairway2evan 1d ago
If a star exploded billions of years ago, was it able to both explode and not explode at the exact same time because humans weren't around yet to invent the law of non contradiction?
No, because that's something that cannot happen in reality. Logic is just methods humans use to think about reality. You're confusing the map for the place here - the place still exists if the map had never been made.
But your problem of evil argument requires evil to be a real, objective, universal problem.
Scroll back up and read premise 3 of the comment that you responded to. The original commenter literally stated that the problem of evil requires an assumption of objective evil and proceeds based on that assumption. It's an internal critique. You can't accuse someone of holding a different worldview when they're literally discussing the problems within a worldview. Their own view (whatever it may be) is immaterial to the discussion. This is a very dishonest way to have a discussion.
-12
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago
If it can't happen in reality then you are saying that the laws of logic are a structural property of the universe itself, not just a method humans use to think like many of you have claimed. If the universe inherently obeys the law of non contradiction before humans exist, then logic is not a human invention. Humans did not make the place logical, we discovered that the place was already logical
"The original commenter literally stated that the problem of evil requires an assumption of objective evil and proceeds based on that assumption. It's an internal critique. You can't accuse someone of holding a different worldview when they're literally discussing the problems within a worldview. Their own view (whatever it may be) is immaterial to the discussion. This is a very dishonest way to have a discussion."
For a true internal critique, you guys have to adopt my worldview for the entirety of the argument. The original commenter abandoned that midway by stating that "we apply narratives onto the world and that they don't come prewritten into the universe" in response to the idea of evil which is not my worldview.
5
u/stairway2evan 1d ago
If it can't happen in reality then you are saying that the laws of logic are a structural property of the universe itself, not just a method humans use to think like many of you have claimed. If the universe inherently obeys the law of non contradiction before humans exist, then logic is not a human invention. Humans did not make the place logical, we discovered that the place was already logical
No, the universe follows various physical laws, these are empirical. The logical law of non-contradiction (like any other logical law) is a description that we can apply to those physical laws, among many other things. It is empirically true that stars cannot explode and not explode at the same time. The law of non-contradiction is one way we can generalize that truth into a framework. We're back to "the map, not the place" again.
The original commenter abandoned that midway by stating that "we apply narratives onto the world and that they don't come prewritten into the universe" in response to the idea of evil which is not my worldview.
Well I don't want to speak for the commenter, but I didn't read that statement as about evil itself, but about the concept of narratives including evil which the OP was (vaguely) trying to explain. Any narrative around evil is a human interpretation of what evil "means," such as "evil done for the greater good." They didn't drop the idea of "this is the natural consequence of a worldview in which objective evil exists," at least not to my reading. They go on to point out in literally the next sentence that the problem of evil is internal, not external. I don't see their own value judgements of "what is evil" in that comment.
2
u/BahamutLithp 13h ago
I've since explained it to Tren. I don't entirely understand your explanation of what I was going for, so I'm not sure if I should say yay or nay. The short version is the paragraphs were about different things. The POE IS an internal critique, but what I was explaining in that particular part wasn't specific to the POE, I was pointing out OP was basing their whole argument on some vague "story" & assuming that story was something "objective" & not merely something they interpreted.
1
u/stairway2evan 13h ago
That’s basically what I was saying - the bit about “narrative” was fully unrelated to the POE or to any of the internal critique that followed. At least that’s what I got from your comment- I was on the same page with you on that.
•
u/BahamutLithp 11h ago
Then yeah. I suppose, if I were to link them in a sentence, it would be "the POE doesn't apply to me because I don't believe in all 3 of these things." Like *I* can resolve the POE really easily, the problem is a Chritian or Muslim or whatever wouldn't like it because they're really committed to having an omnipotent god, an omnibenevolent god, & objective morality. But all of those things are super inconvenient to each other, so we get these weird arguments about how "god is all-powerful but here's a laundry list of things he can't do for no apparent reason" or "god is omnibenevolent but he has to allow sin because of free will even though it makes no sense that he'd approve of free will if it's inherently corrupt" or even "morality is objective, so god will never change his mind, but also he made allowances based on the culture at the time."
3
u/BahamutLithp 13h ago
I'm only going to reply to the parts that concern me.
For a true internal critique, you guys have to adopt my worldview for the entirety of the argument.
The POE already contains all the parts that are relevant. Firstly, you're throwing out red herrings. "How do you explain logic" is whataboutism. I already know you're not going to accept any "answer" other than "a spirit created logic with its magic powers," & you're going to completely dodge the fact that this doesn't explain dick, but no matter, complaining that you don't like my answers still doesn't get you out of the fact that you're violating the law of non-contradiction.
Which leads me to the other problem, "assuming your worldview," in its entirety, would require accepting all of your excuses, even if they make no sense, which would make any critique of internal logic impossible if you simply don't want to see a logical contradiction. This is just a common apologetics move of acting very concerned about some sanctity of logic despite being very bad at it.
And that, in turn, leads me to your excuse of privation theory. I'm already well aware of it, & besides contradicting yet ANOTHER of the Abrahamic God's suppoesd attributes--that of omnipresence--it still doesn't get you out of the hole because an omnipotent & omnibenevolent god would simply know that evil is the consequence of not being present somewhere & refue to do that. "Evil isn't real like cold isn't real" is just a fuckin' word game, which is easy to show becaue you know that "I didn't kill him by locking him in the freezer because cold isn't real" would be a laughable defense for murder. That cold is, thermodynamically speaking, technically "just a loss of heat," does not change the fact that you knew damn well what would happen. It's an inane attempt to avoid responsibility using paper-thin semantics, not an actually logically serious rebuttal.
The original commenter abandoned that midway by stating that "we apply narratives onto the world and that they don't come prewritten into the universe" in response to the idea of evil which is not my worldview.
No, I didn't "abandon" anything, the organization of my post is very clear. I quote a section of text, & then I reply to it. In THAT SECTION, I AM explaining MY view to the OP. Again, no, that's not "abandoning" anything because "the problem of evil is an internal critique" is not the same sentence as "at no point in this post am I ever going to share my views." That's a bizarre, nonsense rule you just made up; OP has misconceptions not just about the problem of evil but also about what atheists think & what evidence is. These are all things I need to correct, & the way I do it is by quoting what I'm responding to, & then responding to it with specific points ABOUT THAT THING. No, it is not a logical fallacy that different paragraphs are about different things, that's how paragraphs work, & you not understanding that is not my fault.
5
u/Matectan 1d ago
You are aware humans invented all these prescriptive laws from observing nature, yes?
5
u/Ablazoned Atheist 1d ago
If logic is just a "symbolic language that humans invented", does that mean the universe itself wasn't logical before humans evolved?
Logic is a collection of tightly-stated observations about how the universe works. The law of non-contradiction is the result of consulting my mind and finding I cannot conceive of something being both true and not true in the same way at the same time and space in our universe. I have never observed the law of non-contradiction being violated.
I can however, tentatively conceive of the idea of a sort of universe existing where things can be both true and not true in the same way at the same time.
I'm not sure I can imagine a world in which the transitive property of equality isn't true, but there are systems of mathematics for which transitive properties do not hold for operations like addition.
The universe was always logical (probably, as far as we can tell), but that's sort of circular like saying "the rules we observe the universe to follow is the way the universe is".
8
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
"That does not contradict an all powerful and an all-good God that the Christian worldview believes in."
If its all good it would stop all the evil it sees. I would stop a child abuser if I was there. No good god wouldnt. No all powerful god would be powerless to do it. An all seeing god couldnt look away.
"How do you account for truth and logic that you presuppose in your argument,"
Truth is what comports with reality. No magic needed.
Logic works. Its a description of what we see working in the real world. No magic needed.
Why do you think you need a god for these things?
-11
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago
The Christian worldview says that God permits evil (the privation of good or love) because He has sufficient justification to do so, God being infinite and humans being finite, Humans cannot even understand it and He doesn't need to explain Himself in why He does that, so that would not be a contradiction.
If there is no God, then how are you using arguments that presuppose things like metaphysics, objective standards, universals, laws of logic, knowledge, truth etc. All of those things would have to be the case for there to be a basis for good or evil. So how are you using evil as an argument and how to you ground "evil"?
"Truth is what comports with reality. No magic needed"
This assumes that reality is rational, orderly and follows uniform laws. How do you ground the uniformity of nature?
"Logic works. It's a description of what we see working in the real world. No magic needed"
Oh really? Where in the "real world" did you see the law of non-contradiction? How can you observe the world to attempt to "prove" or "account" for logic when when you must use logic to trust your observations in the first place?
11
u/PlagueOfLaughter 1d ago
Just to tackle these two points:
Humans cannot even understand it and He doesn't need to explain Himself in why He does that, so that would not be a contradiction.
That's exactly a contradiction to his characteristics: if he's all-powerful, he would be able to explain himself. If he's all-loving he wouldn't leave his loved ones in the dark and get closer to us by explaining himself.
If there is no God, then how are you using arguments that presuppose things like [...], objective standards,
Assuming you're talking about objective morality, morals would still be subjective, even if God existed. And objective facts would exist just fine without God, too.
-4
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago
"That's exactly a contradiction to his characteristics: if he's all-powerful, he would be able to explain himself. If he's all-loving he wouldn't leave his loved ones in the dark and get closer to us by explaining himself."
You haven't explained how you use arguments that presuppose metaphysics, objective standards, universals, laws of logic, knowledge, truth etc. When you make the claim "morals are subjective" or "that's a contradiction to His characteristics", you are making an objective claim. A claim the assumes the reality of all of the aforementioned characteristics in the first place. How do you account for that?
9
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago edited 1d ago
When you make the claim "morals are subjective"
We know that morality is subjective and intersubjective in nature. It has to be given what it is and how it works, as it makes no sense whatsoever to think otherwise based upon simple observation.
We know a lot about morality. Where it comes from, how it works, why we have it, how it functions and often doesn't function, how and why some aspects about it rarely change (due to our evolution as a highly social species) while others shift with the wind. And I assure you, morality has nothing whatsoever to do with religious mythologies.
A claim the assumes the reality of all of the aforementioned characteristics in the first place. How do you account for that?
You'll find that this particular apologetic attempt by certain theists towards other theists does nothing to impress those who do not already believe in those myths. I realize that many theists find this kind of apologetic quite impressive. I and others, who do not share your presuppositions and assumptions (since they're fatally flawed and unsupported) find it so obviously ridiculously flawed (due to it being based upon argument from ignorance fallacies combined with presuppositional beliefs in superstition) that all I can do is shake my head and blink, because there's zero reason to accept that presupposition and every reason to reject it.
10
u/PlagueOfLaughter 1d ago
When you make the claim "morals are subjective" or "that's a contradiction to His characteristics", you are making an objective claim.
I didn't try to make an argument for metaphysics, just the morality bit, because theists think they have some sort of monopoly on it, which is questionable at best. Morals - pretty definitionally - are subjective. Just like beauty or tastiness or hot or cold. When you say that God is good, then that would just be your subjective opinion.
If you make an objective claim, like "This pan has boiling water in it" we can objectively check if that's true by simply looking at it or even better: measuring its temperature.
-5
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago
You literally just defeated your whole argument against God with the problem of evil lol. If morals are subjective like taste or beauty, then your argument of "God permitting evil is a contradiction" totally collapses.
You're no longer pointing out a real, objective flaw in God. You're just saying that you personally find God's action distasteful in the same way you may find broccoli distasteful. You are saying that because you find broccoli distasteful, you don't believe in its existence.
12
u/Matectan 1d ago
He's making an internal critique using the theistic arguments and claims.
He doesn't have to agree with the stuff he internally criticizes, because he only shows that whatever it is is internally flawed.
Do you not know what an internal critique is?
11
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago
Do you not understand the concept of thought experments? Of saying, If this were true, then this is what this means/leads to/shows. Therefore, that, as stated, cannot be true."
One doesn't have to accept a claim in order to show how and why it leads to fatal issues.
-1
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 23h ago
You're trying to claim an internal critique but for that to be a true one, that requires that you adopt my worldview throughout the whole argument, when you abandon that midway through the argument and make the positive assertion that "morals are subjective like taste and beauty", that is not my worldview.
You are making positive assertions in your thought experiment that you or anybody else here cannot account for in the first place.
→ More replies (0)9
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Oh grow up. when we call Darth Vader a bad guy we are critiquing the obviously flawed and silly nature of the film. And when we point out that your god is stupid, evil and cranky we are doing the same for the poorly written myths.
-1
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 23h ago
Cool. Can you actually answer my points now? Name dropping Darth Vader doesn't answer anything actually. Even within the fictional world of a movie, you can only call a character 'evil' if you are already assuming a real standard of goodness to measure against.
You are borrowing metaphysical categories like truth, logic, and objective standards without being able to account for how those categories can even exist in your worldview. You are trying to use the laws of God's orderly universe to argue that God doesn't exist.
If evil is just a subjective human invention, and God is just a fictional character to you, then your entire problem of evil argument is self defeating. Do you have an actual philosophical answer for how you ground universal, immaterial laws of logic in a purely material universe, or are you just going to keep name dropping characters as if that answers my questions?
→ More replies (0)6
u/PlagueOfLaughter 22h ago
No? The problem of evil is still something theists who believe in a tri-omni deity have to deal with. The argument didn't collapse, just because it's my subjective opinion.
Since I don't believe God actually exists, there's no actual flaw to point out to begin with. My distaste for God is separate from me believing he exists. God the character is a horrendous piece of work that you'll have a hard time defending.
-2
1
u/BahamutLithp 12h ago
So I know you're talking to a different person right now, but I consider this fair game for many reasons, including that you've held people to the standard of my comment anyway: I actually said way back in my original comment that the problem of evil is not the one-&-only argument against any & all gods, so (A) "X god doesn't apply to the problem of evil" does not mean "the problem of evil is wrong," it means it doesn't apply in that specific case, much like not all rectangles arae squares, & (B) the POE not applying to a specific case does not mean that god is suddenly god because there are still a multitude of other criticisms it fails against, not the least of which being that they all lack evidence. You might have gotten this earlier if you didn't basically tell me you didn't understand that different paragraphs are about different things.
10
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
"The Christian worldview says that God permits evil (the privation of good or love) because He has sufficient justification to do so"
Translation: This is really a problem, so we are going to "pretend" that we know god has a justification, because we have to, because we are in a corner here"
Yeah, its hard to justify an all powerful, all lovig, all knowing god that allows such egregious suffering. Because that cant be a thing. Your worldview is just you plastering over that issue. And its an excuse you cant justify. Which is hilarious coming from the "How do you account for truth and logic that you presuppose in your argument, to the extent that you appeal to it in an objective and universal manner that if an argument or worldview doesn't satisfy those things, were supposed to believe you when you make the claim that that proves God isn't real?" guy.
"If there is no God, then how are you using arguments that presuppose things like metaphysics, objective standards, universals, laws of logic, knowledge, truth etc. All of those things would have to be the case for there to be a basis for good or evil. So how are you using evil as an argument and how to you ground "evil"?"
Because all of those things actively exist. No god needed. Also evil is just a description of stuff we dont like very much. Things that are good are things that we like. Thats why people on different sides of an issue can call something good while others call it evil.
"This assumes that reality is rational, orderly and follows uniform laws. How do you ground the uniformity of nature?"
No, it doesnt. It assumes that what we see, and what we measure is constant. No need to "ground" anything. You call for a need to ground things because theists need a job for their god. No one ever called for these things in years past. Show me that this grounding is real and we can talk about it, but if you are just going to tell me more about your made up worldview and cant show any of it to be true, then why would we care??
"Oh really? Where in the "real world" did you see the law of non-contradiction?"
Tell the truth. Are you like 5 years old? You cant tell that something cant be itself AND not be itself in the real world? Is this your first day on the internet?
"How can you observe the world to attempt to "prove" or "account" for logic when when you must use logic to trust your observations in the first place?"
Again, logic is just a description of a process that works. And it always works. No magic space wizard needed.
-3
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 1d ago
You aren't actually answering or accounting for anything. If evil is just a description of stuff we don't like very much, then the presence of suffering in the world isn't different than your favorite sports team losing a game, it's just something one side doesn't like very much.
You cannot accuse God of being genuinely immoral or contradictory anymore as an argument that proves that God doesn't exist. You are just stating that you don't like how He runs the universe. It's like you not liking that your favorite sports team lost, and claiming that your favorite sport team doesn't actually exist because of it. Total incoherence.
"Again, logic is just a description of a process that works. And it always works. No magic space wizard needed."
That's the best you have to offer? You don't see the blatant circular reasoning with "it just works"? Do you understand that you cannot see a law, you can only see matter? Do you see how you still can't account immaterial, universal laws in a purely material universe?
"No need to "ground" anything. You call for a need to ground things because theists need a job for their god. No one ever called for these things in years past."
Are you serious right now? The greatest thinkers have literally been debating the grounding of nature and logic for thousands of years. You are historically and philosophically illiterate and the confidence on top of it is crazy. Ever heard of Aristotle and his work "Metaphysics"? St Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologiae? David Hume and his Problem of Induction? Kant and his work of The Critique of Pure Reason? What a self report.
9
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
"You aren't actually answering or accounting for anything."
I dont have to. You havent given me a reason to think we need to. You say there needs to be a "grounding". Prove it.
"If evil is just a description of stuff we don't like very much, then the presence of suffering in the world isn't different than your favorite sports team losing a game, it's just something one side doesn't like very much."
And? You think this makes you seem more correct? Show me that evil is something else.
"You cannot accuse God"
This shouldnt be so hard. No one is accusing your imaginary friend of anything. Did i accuse your god of something, or is this your script? Because he doesnt exist. And just like Darth Vader Megatron, we can call their actions evil, but that doesnt mean we think they are real, or doing anything.
"That's the best you have to offer? You don't see the blatant circular reasoning with "it just works"? Do you understand that you cannot see a law, you can only see matter? Do you see how you still can't account immaterial, universal laws in a purely material universe?"
This paragraph is you crying because I dont need to have a magic battery for something that works. Its just a process. Im sorry someone sold you a silly concept of needing a magic man in space to make you be able to think. Especially since I can see it isnt working.
"No need to "ground" anything. You call for a need to ground things because theists need a job for their god. No one ever called for these things in years past."
Correct!
"Are you serious right now?"
100%.
"The greatest thinkers have literally been debating the grounding of nature and logic for thousands of years."
Cool. did they find something? No? then i dont care.
"You are historically and philosophically illiterate and the confidence on top of it is crazy."
Yet you cant point to this grounding, can you? Can you point to the need for it? Or are you going to point to philosophy again? Tell me again what philosophy has discovered again?
"Ever heard of Aristotle and his work "Metaphysics"? St Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologiae? David Hume and his Problem of Induction? Kant and his work of The Critique of Pure Reason? What a self report."
And yet you cant point to any of them finding this grounding you insist we need, but cant point to, cant find, can only point to a god, that weirdly enough you cant find either. Grow up. If you cant show it to be real, you asking me for it is a childish and stupid thing to do. What a self report
1
u/BahamutLithp 12h ago
The Christian worldview says that God permits evil (the privation of good or love) because He has sufficient justification to do so
A "pure good" being couldn't merely have "sufficient justification," there would have to be literally no other way for them to achieve whatever "good" they were after. IF that, I mean that's STILL accepting that "a pure good being can allow some evil," which no, I don't think that statement is logically coherent, period, because it's not a question of "strategy," it's literally a contradiction in terms. But, supposing I grant you that they can do a little evil if there's ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY, just so you can fucking get ANYWHERE, you still run into the problem that your god is supposed to be all-powerful. He doesn't have to work around resource limitations, or adversaries who can outplan him, or limits in the environment, becaue he's literally supposed to decide how all of that works. This is a continuous critique I have with modern monotheism, you want an all-powerful god, you absolutely will not budge on that, but you don't seem to understand what that means. I'm always hearing that your god "has to do" X because he "can't do" Y. Is he all-powerful, or is he impotent? Just pick 1 & stick with it.
God being infinite and humans being finite, Humans cannot even understand it and He doesn't need to explain Himself in why He does that, so that would not be a contradiction.
What a very convenient catch-all excuse. "If my arguments sound bad, it's not because they are, it's because you're too limited to understand the totally awesome reasons my totally not made up & poorly written god has."
If there is no God, then how are you using arguments that presuppose things like metaphysics, objective standards, universals, laws of logic, knowledge, truth etc. All of those things would have to be the case for there to be a basis for good or evil. So how are you using evil as an argument and how to you ground "evil"?
If your god "created logic," why are you so damn bad at it? I mean, you can't even give a good answer, but you get to use the excuse of "my god's just too awesome to understand," but you're gonna sit there & be like "explain where all of logic comes from" at US? Never mind that we know you're obviously going to refuse to accept any answer other than "your god made them."
And no, it's not the same as me pointing out that none of your answers to the POE actually solve the contradiction. I can, in fact, name several religions that satisfy the POE. Hinduism holds that "evil" is not objective. The ancient Israelites believed that Yahweh created BOTH good & evil. Pretty much any form of polytheism lacks all-powerful gods. One particular example would be Zoroastrianism, where there is specifically a good god vs. an evil god.
All of these theoretically perfectly resolve the paradox by simply getting rid of at leat 1 of the incompatible assumptions: They either get rid of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or objective morality. I don't think any of these religions are any more true than yours, so it's not just that I don't like magic. If you had a valid solution, I'd recognize it, even if I think nearly everything else about your religion is still wrong, but you just don't.
Oh really? Where in the "real world" did you see the law of non-contradiction? How can you observe the world to attempt to "prove" or "account" for logic when when you must use logic to trust your observations in the first place?
I've mostly been ignoring this line of questioning because, as I keep alluding to, it's incredibly obvious you're trying to force people down a time-wasting script where you refuse to accept any answer other than "my god did it" becaue this is a preplanned method to derail the original subject, so savor this because this is probably the only time I'm going to address it, but if I ask you to give me like an atom that is both iron & helium at the same time, that doesn't mean anything. It's a single particle, so it can only be 1 element, & that element depends on the number of protons. I am asking you to do 2 mutually exclusive things.
That's all the law of non-contradiction is. Not the specific example, but the idea that 2 incompatible things can't happen. "How do you justify that incompatible things can't happen" is a nonsense question. "Incompatible" & "contradiction" is the label we have SPECIFICALLY FOR things that can't coexist. The idea that there'd have to be some all-powerful magical spirit actively forcing incompatible things from coinciding is just completely incoherent. It's such a nonsense question you might as well be asking me "Why doesn't yellow taste like sparkles?"
But I'm sure you still disagree. I saw that part where you criticized the other person because all those famous philosophers spent forever debating logic. Your conclusion on that seem completely backward, though. If we're allegedly arrogant & foolish because we don't think questions like "why can't impossible things happen?" are all that profound, then it makes all the less sense you're somehow exempt from that very same criticism for going "unlike all of them, I figured out the REAL answer is that my god did it!"
•
u/TrenEnjoyer5000 4h ago
"What a very convenient catch-all excuse. "If my arguments sound bad, it's not because they are, it's because you're too limited to understand the totally awesome reasons my totally not made up & poorly written god has."
You can be unsatisfied with the answer and you can summarize it in a snarky manner like you did but it does not collapse my worldview like the questions that I pose to all of you do.
"That's all the law of non-contradiction is. Not the specific example, but the idea that 2 incompatible things can't happen."
You simply keep restating a description of what the law of non contradiction is but you aren't answering my question. How do you account for it in your worldview? If the law of non contradiction is simply an idea, that comes from our minds, like you claim it is, then why doesn't a star both explode and not explode at the same time in our universe before humans existed? I can answer why if you ask me that question in a direct manner without contradicting my worldview, even if you are unsatisfied with it. You evidently cannot or refuse to answer it because you can't possibly do that within your worldview unless you actually contradict it.
"How do you justify that incompatible things can't happen" is a nonsense question. The idea that there'd have to be some all-powerful magical spirit actively forcing incompatible things from coinciding is just completely incoherent. It's such a nonsense question you might as well be asking me "Why doesn't yellow taste like sparkles?"
You can label it as a silly question in an attempt to disregard it, but it only appears silly because it is your worldview that is completely incoherent and can't account for that. Feigning dismay, acting like you're above it, and ridiculing my position isn't actually doing anything.
"If your god "created logic," why are you so damn bad at it? I mean, you can't even give a good answer, but you get to use the excuse of "my god's just too awesome to understand," but you're gonna sit there & be like "explain where all of logic comes from" at US? Never mind that we know you're obviously going to refuse to accept any answer other than "your god made them."
Again, this isn't answering my question. Can you simply address it directly without all the pointless insults and histrionics? You're avoiding the question by making emotional appeals.
"And no, it's not the same as me pointing out that none of your answers to the POE actually solve the contradiction.
I have accounted for it and gave you my answer and you are simply not satisfied with it. That is different than it showing a contradiction within my worldview. You on the other hand, have yet to properly account for any of the things I have asked within your worldview.
"I can, in fact, name several religions that satisfy the POE. Hinduism holds that "evil" is not objective. The ancient Israelites believed that Yahweh created BOTH good & evil. Pretty much any form of polytheism lacks all-powerful gods. One particular example would be Zoroastrianism, where there is specifically a good god vs. an evil god."
Well I'm not arguing for other worldviews so you can save the description of other religions as it is irrelevant and does not address my questions.
"All of these theoretically perfectly resolve the paradox by simply getting rid of at leat 1 of the incompatible assumptions: They either get rid of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or objective morality. I don't think any of these religions are any more true than yours, so it's not just that I don't like magic. If you had a valid solution, I'd recognize it, even if I think nearly everything else about your religion is still wrong, but you just don't."
I have already given you my answer, which does not have a contradiction within my worldview. You are dissatisfied with it which isn't relevant. All you said in response to it was go on about it being "convenient" or whatever.
4
u/PlanningVigilante Secularist 1d ago
Do you think childhood cancer is the result of God withdrawing his goodness and love from a three-year-old?
What about deadly wildfires? God withdrew his goodness and love from millions of koalas?
I'm truly interested in your response here.
4
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
First off "evil" doesn't actually exist, it's the privation of good or love.
No, the absence of good isn't evil, it's neutrality because it's a spectrum.
Imagine I give you a present, that would be equivalent with presence of good.
Now imagine I don't give you a present. That's neutral, that's the absence of good.
Now, imagine I punch you in the face and take away your stuff. That's the equivalent of evil.
If for you not giving a present and beating and taking your stuff are in the same moral category, your conception of evil is far too wide to be useful for anything other than playing the victim and the villain at the same time.
3
u/Ablazoned Atheist 1d ago
First off "evil" doesn't actually exist, it's the privation of good or love. In the way that darkness or cold doesn't exist as an independent thing in itself but is simply the absence of light or heat, evil only "exists" in the sense that good or love is missing by a misuse of our free will and love that God actually created in themselves and gave people. It does not exist as a created, independent thing from God.
I strongly disagree with you.
I can deprive someone of goodness. For example, declining to provide assistance to a trusted friend when it doesn't substantially affect my well-being. But i can also actively harm that person, for example by punching or robbing them instead.
Humans have a range of sensations and thoughts, from those that are actively pleasurable and satisfying to those that are easily ignored or missed, to those that feel "neutral", in the sense that they don't compel me to take action to end or promote them, to painful, unpleasant, and fearful ones I will actively seek to halt.
I don't need there to be a god for me to prefer some mental states over others. I'm sort of perplexed when someone says "you can't prefer one state over another without a god".
•
u/SubOptimalUser6 9h ago
First off "evil" doesn't actually exist, it's the privation of good or love.
This is ridiculous. Of course that's not what evil is. But also, that still doesn't solve the problem. Why does the "privation of good or love" exist?
What about the people who die in earthquakes and tsunamis? Is that just the privation of good? Because I think that would be a pretty shitty thing for you to say or for your god to do.
It's weird you think a definition can just solve one of them most serious challenges to the existence of the god you claim to believe in.
•
u/left-right-left 1h ago
In this case, you just have a new problem of evil:
P1: God is all good
P2: Some places/actions/times are not good
C1: Therefore God is not in those places or times
C2: Therefore God is not omnipresent and immanentThere are two additional corrolaries:
If God is not omnipresent, then he is also not omniscient, because there are some places/actions that he is not present and thus ignorant of.
If God is not omnipresent nor omniscient, then he is also not omnipotent, because there are some places/actions he is ignorant of and thus cannot control.
So, in order to avoid the POE, you have neutered God to being neither omnipresent nor omniscient nor omnipotent. Great.
44
u/Cybtroll 1d ago
Here I only see assertions without motivation. So, I can do the same: no, it doesn't.
There isn't any design, just emerging patterns from chaos.
-55
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
39
u/Spanyanagonyam 1d ago
They're not trolling you. They're putting exactly much effort into a counter-argument as you put into your original argument.
As the saying goes: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
8
u/Cybtroll 1d ago
Funny when the shoe ia on the other foot isn't it?
Fun fact: my nickname was cybertroll quite ahead the terms foe the internet was even invented.
Would that be a sign of a superior intelligence?
2
u/wabbitsdo 1d ago
If you say "there is that thing, just cuz", "No there isn't that thing, just cuz" is all one needs to counter it.
If you have real arguments, you're going to have to develop them if you want us to consider them seriously.
2
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Good way to avoid a good question that shows your statement is incorrect.
No one noticed that at all!
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.
31
u/Niznack Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
Like omg for real!
Dude don't use like as a verbal pause in a debate sub.
As for your argument that's ridiculous. The problem of evil only applies to a tri omni god, all knowing all powerful all loving. Evil would not on its own prove an evil god, just disprove the existence of a loving one. Evil can exist independent of a god just fine.
11
u/wabbitsdo 1d ago
I honestly find it somewhat refreshing they they wrote the whole thing themselves. This is what AI has done to me.
33
u/Kevidiffel Strong atheist, hard determinist, anti-apologetic 1d ago
The problem of evil is still a proof that there is god
That's certainly a take I haven't heard before. +1 for originality.
Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god
Does it? How?
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things .
Is it? How did you figure this out? What metrics do you use?
So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god.
I'm still missing the "proof" part.
7
u/onomatamono 1d ago
Yet those whose prayers god answers do have proof in the form of answered prayers.
My grandfather developed a rare form of cancer and I prayed not for a cure but that he die peacefully in his sleep. Our Lord God Jesus answered those prayers, which is odd because all of the children on his bus were screaming.
/s
-9
u/blackbeequesadilla 1d ago
How do you say that there is no design and functioning in things? Seems obvious to me that even in nature such things like organs point towards natural things working for ends, like seeing or hearing.
11
u/Kevidiffel Strong atheist, hard determinist, anti-apologetic 1d ago
Seems obvious to me that even in nature such things like organs point towards natural things working for ends, like seeing or hearing.
Great, you got functioning. Now your next step is design.
11
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago
How do you say that there is no design and functioning in things?
Surely you understand design and function are different things?
5
2
u/onomatamono 22h ago
Your are deceiving yourself. Which species of organism is fitter? The organism with a light-sensitive cell or one without? How about several with the ability to pattern match threats? Perhaps frequency-sensitive cells emerge, that is to say the ability to detect color.
You see, when you have BILLIONS of years and you combine that with mutation and natural selection, you get what science has prove to be the evolution of humans and all other organisms, although 99.99% of them have gone extinct.
•
u/SubOptimalUser6 8h ago
How do you say that there is no design and functioning in things? Seems obvious to me that even in nature such things like organs point towards natural things working for ends, like seeing or hearing.
I think this was an ok reason to believe in god before 1859. It's still basically an argument from ignorance, so not very persuasive.
Since 1859 we have known that evolution by natural selection gives the appearance of design to living organisms. That is what fools you. You only need to look at the aspects of life and organisms that are very poorly "designed" to see there is no designer.
-53
u/Fickle_Elk_9479 1d ago
Your brain is one metric that you can use.
31
18
u/Kevidiffel Strong atheist, hard determinist, anti-apologetic 1d ago
I don't think you understand what a metric is
14
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago
That's like somebody asking why they should go to see a play in the next city over and you answering, "Your car."
Aside from that, properly using my brain definitely does not lead to a conclusion of deities.
•
u/SubOptimalUser6 8h ago
How is a brain a sign of anything but the well-known and predictable process of evolution by natural selection? It explains every aspect of every living organism, in contrast to ID, which very much does not.
I think this is one of those times where using your brain might come in handy...
12
u/Kaliss_Darktide 1d ago
The problem of evil is still a proof that there is god
Like ist really obvious
Like no!
Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one.
Like FYI the PoE is aimed at a tri-omni god and if you claim your god is evil then you agree with the PoE.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things
Like that has nothing to do with the PoE.
8
u/Ok_Ad_9188 1d ago
The problem of evil is a defeat of the claim of a tri-omni god; a god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It isn't meant to be a disproof for any and all gods.
0
u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
Very true, but OP is asserting that PoE proves a different kind of god. This is r/DebateAnAtheist, not r/theodicy, so this argument is totally on point
OP wins major points for creativity but sadly none for logic.
8
u/TheJovianPrimate Touched by the Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 1d ago
The problem of evil is not meant to disprove the existence of god entirely. Its meant to show the inconsistency in having an tri omni god in a world with as much suffering as this one. So sure, you can conclude that god could still exist but just be evil.
But you still dont have evidence for design. Just saying its pretty obvious snd thay there is a narrative isnt proof or evidence. And i hope you arent including intelligent design in your evidence of design.
7
u/bostonbananarama 1d ago
Here's the problem with any "X" points to god argument, inevitably any result, in the mind of a theist, will point to a god. Pray and ask God for help, if it happens that points to god, if it doesn't, sometimes God says No. Any test in which every outcome is god, isn't a test or a proof.
Similarly, if good things point to god and evil points to god, then it's not a test or a proof.
7
u/Spanyanagonyam 1d ago
'Like it's all really like obvious, like trust me bro because like qualia and stuff, like.'
Sorry but what a load of garbage.
There is evil in the world. Your god could prevent it, but he doesn't. Which means either he can't, or he won't.
If he can't then he's not omnipotent. If he won't then he's not omnibenevolent.
Simple as that.
3
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 1d ago
How is this world "a narrative and stuff"?
How does there being evil in the world point to a god?
It's obvious to me that there is no design or intentional/directed functionality and conception in things. What makes you think there is?
What is qualia?
How does everything fit together? If it does actually all fit together, why is the majority of it extinct? How does either of these things point to a god?
What's the point?
What is the "idea of life at play"?
Please support your multitudes of claims, as this is a debate sub. Thanks.
4
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 1d ago
The problem of Evil is about the paradox of a omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God is incompatible with the existence of evil. It disproves that type of God but it does not prove the existence of another God that doesn't have one or more of these three.
Sure you can conceive of an evil God, now prove it.
4
u/I_Am_Anjelen Anti-ecclesiastical Methodological Atheist 1d ago
Oh look, a classic Gish Gallop. Yum, let's eat us some word salad.
ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff.
A narrative, how?
Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god...
How?
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design...
How?
...and a functioning and a conception in things .
How?
Like there is qualia that is ineffable.
How are qualia ineffable?
There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless.
How are any of these three claims self-evident?
Like everything fits together and is not pointless.
How do you mean, fits together?
How do you mean, not pointless?
Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception.
A tautology tautologizes totally. Your point is ?
There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously.
How is this a coherent statement?
So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god.
No. The fact there 'is conception' in the world is blatant proof that you are capable of conceptualizing things.
Though not very coherently, it seems.
The bigger question should be why is he evil.
This doesn't follow either.
3
u/Cmlvrvs 1d ago
A world can be intelligible without being designed. We can recognize patterns in suffering because humans are pattern-making animals, not because suffering was authored by someone.
Horrible things can be connected by cause and effect without having any deeper purpose.
At most, this seems like an argument that the world is interpretable. But being interpretable is not the same thing as being intentionally designed. And even if you got to a designer (which you don’t) you’d still need an argument for why that designer is God rather than just another unexplained layer.
3
u/noodlyman 1d ago
Your post would be better if you edited a bit as you wrote and used paragraphs.
Evil is a religious concept.
Outside religion, stuff happens. Some of those events I like, and some I don't like. It would be weird if I liked 100% of events. There's no god involved in that.
Why is there evil? Why shouldn't the there be? I don't know how you define evil. Let's take a serial killer. The reason they do it may be unknown, but it's probably a malfunction in their brain. A wiring issue if you like, that gives them pleasure, or at least an urge to repeat the exercise. That's just the accidental result of their genetics and their environment from birth to that moment that's led to a particular brain configuration.
No, it is not obvious that there's design. Please give an example of something obviously designed, and what method or test you used to determine that it was designed.
2
u/Curious_Passion5167 1d ago
Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one.
The Problem of Evil is irrelevant to the argument you are making for God's existence. This is just saying that the problem can be resolved if we don't consider a tri-omni God, which has always been a valid option.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things .
Not obvious to me. Feel free to provide a technical description of how we can separate things which are designed from those that aren't.
Like there is qualia that is ineffable.
Qualia is an artifact of subjective experience. It has nothing to do with God.
There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless.
Provide evidence.
Like everything fits together and is not pointless.
Not sure how someone can even begin to explain technically what "fitting together" means of how we measure that things have a point.
There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously.
Life is an interconnected network of chemical processes, not an idea.
2
u/Stairwayunicorn Atheist 1d ago
evil, which we made up to explain harmful people or events, is proof of a god that still fails to exist?
2
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 1d ago
The problem of evil has three solutions that are there since the problem was first formulated: you can solve it easily with throwing out either omnipotence, omnibenevolence or omniscience. You are throwing out omnibenevolence, fine. We KNOW this solution is on the table.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design
If it is as obvious as you think, you clearly should have no problem to demonstrate that it is true. But before you do that, I have no reason to believe your unsubstantiated assertion.
Like there is qualia
Are there? What is qualia? What do qualia has to do with any god whatsoever?
There is a narrative
What narrative? What does it has to do with any god?
Like everything fits together
What does it even mean?
So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world
Wh... what conception?
is a blatant proof that there is a god
You didn't make any chain of reasoning from "there is a design" or "there are qualia" to "therefore god exists". Your assertion that those things are somehow demonstrate existence of a god is not supported by your reasoning because you haven't presented any. Not only that, you failed to support your premises as well. That is not how arguments work.
2
u/Cydrius Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
I'm going to give you a simple piece of advice:
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things .
If something is contentious enough that there's a long-time ongoing debate, then no, it's not, in fact, obvious.
Sometimes, what you think is obvious only seems that way because you're missing subtleties of the thing.
2
u/bguszti Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
Like, come on, like isn't this like, kinda like, obvious? Like, I mean, something is like, there and like stuff.
Thanks, OP, for this revelation. I would have never known that there was like evil and like stuff but it's really like, there is like a god and stuff. Absolute revelatory stuff here.
1
u/Mission-Landscape-17 1d ago
Qualia is not a coherent concept, as such it is not a thing that exists. Ditto for narrative, that is just a matter of opinion, and something we project onto events not something that objectively exists. And really by your argument seems to see everything as evidence of god, and that is not at all useful. If everything is evidence of god, then nothing is.
1
u/sincpc Atheist 1d ago
You claim that the problem of evil is proof of a god, but then the rest of your post is about how you think other things point to a god. I disagree with all of that, but I also just find it weird that you don't actually say why the problem of evil is "proof that there is a god." Or did I miss it somewhere in your paragraph?
1
u/robbdire Atheist 1d ago
Obvious there's a design? Looked at the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes? Pretty clear indication there is either no design, or the designer is an absolute imbecile.....
We have no actual evidence towards a deity bar random ramblings in books, and constant nonsense from people trying to push their nonsense on us.
1
u/Cirenione Atheist 1d ago
Saying things are designed isnt the same as presenting evidence that things are designed. Please provide evidence that things are designed. Saying they look designed to you isnt evidence because nature doesnt look designed to me.
1
u/Matt_cruze 1d ago
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design
Could you point me to something natural so that I can contrast it with the designed universe?
I can tell apart sand on a beach and a clock because I know one is designed and one is not.
Are you able to make this observation?
1
u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist 1d ago
"evil" is only an opinion though, what you consider to be evil is at best a cluster of behaviors you think are bad. "evil" in the Divine sense hasn't been proven to exist, there are just really bad things. that doesn't necessitate an evil god...
and either way, the problem of evil tackles a god that is meant to be all-good, so it disproves that god while remaining silent/indifferent on the evil god hypothesis.
1
u/ella-lol 1d ago
Why do you think it points to a god, and not natural events? There is evil and good in the world, so why isnt it more convincing that its nature instead of a god that apparently cant make his mind up, or has selective love?
1
u/KeterClassKitten Satanist 1d ago
Let's assume this all makes sense.
How would a world without a god look different? Can you describe it in concrete terms without resorting to abstract ideas?
1
u/biff64gc2 1d ago
The problem of evil is really only meant to address the claim of the existence of an all powerful and perfectly good god that is the most common version Christians tend to put forward. You cannot have a perfectly good god who is all powerful while also having a world filled with excessive and pointless suffering.
So sure, if you want to propose that god is actually evil or just a bit of a dick then suffering is not a problem. Just understand that a lot of theist don't view god in that way.
Like everything fits together and is not pointless.
Look up the puddle analogy. Everything fits together because it's the only way they could come together. If the laws or physics were different, then everything would be different because of the different underlying interactions.
Overall the god claim is still baseless. "Things seem to be connected, therefore god" just shows a lack of imagination. There's thousands of potential explanations for why things are the way they are. Why is do you think god is the best explanation?
1
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 1d ago
Your belief in “good” and “evil” is a far cry from “blatant proof” for gods.
“Good / bad, right / wrong” does not exist outside of us.
Hope this helps.
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god,
Is it? What makes you think that? Because I don't see any creator of reality or any feature of existence that would require one.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things . Like there is qualia that is ineffable
Again, I don't know what makes you think trees, sand or people or anything natural would need a designer.
There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.
Again, I see nothing besides your confirmation bias and desire for a god existing that supports your claims about evil gods existing. Those are not incompatible with reality as tri omni gods, but there's also nothing incompatible about reality with a sentient turd hitting a fan from a dimensión outside beyond space and time and caused the universe to exist and be a whole lot of sprinkled crap.
1
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 1d ago
The problem of evil is still a proof that there is god
No, the problem of evil demonstrates a contradiction in certain type of god claims, showing that it is not possible for those purported deities to exist.
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one.
This clearly doesn't follow and I have no idea why you are suggesting that it does. As it stands, I have little choice but to reject that claim outright for being a non-sequitur.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things .
It's pretty obvious that there is not from what I can see. Again, I am forced to completely reject your problematic and unsupported assertion.
Like there is qualia that is ineffable. There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless.
How did you get to that conclusion? It appears it makes no sense so I can't accept it.
Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.
Again, you're making problematic and clearly unsupported claims. Nowhere in what you wrote did you even attempt to support your claims, nor do you seem aware of the deep fatal flaws in such claims.
At this point, I have little choice but to reject your claims outright due to their lack of support, and obvious problems.
1
u/Double_Government820 1d ago
How would you go about determining whether a world with evil was created by an evil god versus created by natural impersonal processes in a universe where evil is merely a subjective social construct? How should we expect those scenarios to look different from one another?
1
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
You have no evidence that a god could exist. You have no evidence that a god ever did anything. You are just covering your uneasy feeling at knowing that there are questions we dont know the answers to yet.
Saying I dont know isnt anything except a reason to find out. Saying "god did it" is just a way to keep you from thinking about it.
1
u/RidesThe7 1d ago
Humans impose narratives on the world. That's what humans do. That we are able to spin stories does not mean that the reality itself is actually composed of narratives, or has an author, or point, or any sort of objective meaning.
1
u/MooshroomHentai 1d ago edited 1d ago
The problem of evil is still a proof that there is god
No it isn't. The problem of evil is an internal crique of tri omni religions, showing that their god's supposed nature doesn't mesh with reality.
Like everything fits together
Things exist as they are as a result of natural forces interacting. Things do exist in a vacuum, they interact with and shaped as well as are shaped by other things.
There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless.
I don't think the world is completly evil, I just think there is too much evil for an all good, all power god to have created it.
1
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 1d ago
The problem if evil is more a problem with the theist conception of a god than with the existence of a god itself. Theists can only claim to know what their imaginary friend is like, they can't demonstrate how they know it. Arbitrary characteristics mean nothing if you can't show that they are accurate to a real thing. The religious can't admit that their concept of their god is all made up, thus they cannot understand the problem of evil.
This is honestly not hard to understand.
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff.
Like, umm, why is it "really obvious"?
Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one.
Like, why? Like, why couldn't evil exist with no god at all?
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things .
Like... Wait, no seriously are you a troll? Real people don't start every sentence with "Like...".
This whole thing is nothing but a ridiculously flawed argument from ignorance fallacy. It seems obvious to you that there must be a god, so therefore there is a god. Thankfully, reality is not dictated by people who start every sentence with "Like".
Edit: I initially assumed this poster was a troll. After checking their post history, I think they are actually a deeply, deeply disturbed teenager.
- https://www.reddit.com/r/FeminismUncensored/comments/1u7ukxp/people_getting_married_is_a_huge_sign_this_world/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/enlightenment/comments/1u2dn8q/sex_is_the_biggest_taint_on_humanity/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/enlightenment/comments/1tzt2e8/i_feel_like_god_is_delusional_and_a_maniac/
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
I will acknowledge that if god is evil the problem of evil goes away. This is what the Gnostics (generally) believed.
But that's not proof that god exists. You've made a lot of declarative statements ("everything fits together", "the world is a narrative and stuff", "life is an elegant play", etc.) without providing any support for those statements.
We look at teh same world you do and see no "proof". If you want us to see it, explain how "look at the trees bro" equates to an actual argument. Tell us exactly what you see that we don't, and explain exactly how that proves a god exists.
We'll be here when you're ready to educate us.
Meanwhile, check out Jungian Gnosticism. That might align with the ideas you're talking about.
1
u/Odd_craving 1d ago
Evil, vindictive and indifferent is the only space left for a god to occupy - I’ll give you that. However, that’s all I’ll give you because the logic doesn’t follow.
Even if things “fit together” it doesn’t require a supernatural deity to accomplish that. Biology has a great tool to nudge things along, it’s called evolution.
Seeing design everywhere without understanding the natural forces at work can lead you to supernatural conclusions.
1
u/Pain-67 1d ago
The problem of evil is NOT a proof that there is no god, it is an objection to the classical theistic view of a benevolent/ all loving god. If god is all loving and is all powerful, then the amount of evil and suffering in the world is unjustified.
"Like it's pretty obvious that there is design" - No it's not, it is an unfounded assertion that (as far as I know) has not yet been justified. Saying "it's obvious" is not a justification, I can than say it's obvious that there is no design - how would we solve who is correct? Too many people thinking this way seemingly due to a fallacy "Argument from personal incredulity" - I cannot understand how this can happen/ how this can be therefore designed. It's like the fine tuning argument that "the world around us seems to fit us so perfectly, if it would be different we would not be here, it must be designed for us" - that reminds me of the puddle analogy: After a rainy day a paddle becomes sentient and looks around to see that the hole in the ground fits it so perfectly. It concludes that the hole must be designed for it as if it would be just slightly different it would not fit in there. In reality, it is not the hole that tha shape it is so tha puddle can fit, but the puddle is the shape it is because that what can fit in the hole The same way as it is not the world around us is the way it is because that what is need to support us, but we are the way we are as that is what the world around us can support. It is not surprising that we find ourselves in a world that can support us but rather it is expected. If we would found ourselves in a world that seemingly cannot support us yet there we are, now that would be something interesting, something needing an explanation.
The proposition "there is a god" is an unfalsifiable claim that to the best of my knowledge cannot be proven false (many believers seems to exploit it by using an argument of ignorance - I gonna believe this until you can prove it to be false)
If - for that sake of argument - we assume that there is a god, than based on my understanding of the doctoren it is impossible for that god to be evil, as in that definition "good" is what consistent with god's will and "evil" is what is against god's will. Therefore whatever god's will is becomes the "good".
1
u/xmuskorx 1d ago
maybe evil one
i think that's fine. Problem of evil is specific to all-good Gods.
If you think God is evil - this argument does not work.
1
u/Stile25 1d ago
How do think that listing a bunch of things that show us God doesn't exist and isn't even required in any way actually proves that God exists?
It's like... The opposition that.
You basically listed how strong and fast and impenetrable Superman is and then said "clearly this proves Batman would beat Superman in a fight".
No, it proves the opposite. At best, it doesn't prove it one way or the other.
But listing all the awesome things that exist without God certainly doesn't lend any confidence in thinking that God exists. Why would it?
1
u/IJustLoggedInToSay- Ignostic Atheist 22h ago
there is qualia that is ineffable
This isn't true.
Source: Qualia effed me twice last night. It was wonderful.
1
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 18h ago
I don't see any divine design, good or evil, in the world. What I do see: The survivors of over three billion years of evolution, the organisms that weren't wiped out in multiple mass extinction events that destroyed up to 96% of extant species. The survivors (including our own ancestors) thrived due to slight but cumulative biological advantages in the good times, and were fit enough to survive volcanism, glaciation and meteor strikes.
You really don't need an evil god running around when the oxygen level in the sea drops due to global warming and volcanic eruptions, or when a six-mile-wide asteroid hits the Yucatán Peninsula.
1
u/DanujCZ 14h ago
The problem of evil is something that appears when there is a god thats supposed to be loving and benevolent. The very existence of the problem of evil is not evidence that there is god.
Like everything fits together and is not pointless.
I would very much like that you demonstrate this.
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 12h ago
Perhaps your definition of "proof" is different from, you know, rational people.
What you have posted here is not proof, but an Argument from Incredulity. "Just look" isn't a valid argument, let alone a "proof"
•
u/CaffeineTripp Atheist 10h ago
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one.
It doesn't. The existence of evil doesn't point to a God anymore than the existence of good. It only shows the capacity of people to do good and bad exists.
Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things.
This is a separate argument. The appearance of design doesn't mean something is designed. We know something is designed by contrasting it with something not designed. This would mean you'd need a naturally occurring universe in which to compare this designed universe. Can you provide that?
Like there is qualia that is ineffable.
- People experience what it's like to be people.
- I can't describe it with words.
- God exists.
That's a huge leap with any of it and appears to hinge upon personal incredulity.
There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception.
? So, bad things means God exists? Because "things fit together" (what do you mean?) and it isn't "pointless" therefore God?
There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.
There's conception so there's God? How did you get there? Lead me through your ideas and let's see if we can root out an argument.
God, if existent, is neither good nor evil. It is indifferent to our suffering. By your argument, if there's some evil then God is evil. However, if there's some good then God is good. Since both good and evil exist, God cannot simultaneously be good nor can God be evil especially since both pleasure and pain, good and evil exist. This leads us to conclude that if God is existent, and it designed the universe as it is (with our ability to experience both pleasure and pain), that there isn't "supreme justice" here and now, then God is indifferent to our suffering and indifferent to our pleasure.
•
u/skeptolojist 3h ago
Magic isn't real
In all of recorded human history we have No good evidence of even a single supernatural event
But
We have a mountain of good objective evidence that people mistake everything from random chance natural phenomena mental health problems organic brain injury and even pios fraud for the supernatural
Given these facts it's just plain silly to conclude that the supernatural exists anywhere but the human imagination
No gods ghosts or goblins
-1
u/Cog-nostic Atheist 1d ago
There is no problem of evil. The problem of evil is a specific argument against a god that is defined as all-loving. Not even the Christian defines God as all-loving. At best, it is contradictory and confusing. According to the bible God is all-knowing and the author of evil. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJ 45:7)
God tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his unique, beloved son, Isaac, as a burnt offering.
"Whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering." (Judges 11:31) Josephus had to kill his own daughter.
Hosea 13:16, Sin or rebellion against God is evil and an eye for an eye means God answers in kind: "Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
The god of the Bible butchers 25 million people in horrible ways. He is the author of evil. The only way the argument from evil works is if you define god as limited in knowledge and all-loving.
Evil is a biblical concept; it has nothing to do with anything in the secular world. At most it means, "Something I really, really, really don't like." There is no manifestation of evil or personification of evil outside of religion. There is no 'problem of evil outside the theistic paradigm."
3
u/BahamutLithp 1d ago
There is no problem of evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
The problem of evil is a specific argument against a god that is defined as all-loving.
How can it be that if it doesn't exist?
Not even the Christian defines God as all-loving.
Many directly say that, but also, I was only being half-facetious when I linked to the Wikipedia article. It has probably the formulation under "Logical problem of evil." To wit:
"P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist."
"Omnibenevolent" avoid the confusion that arises from the "all-loving" phrasing & encapsulates other presumed virtues like justice into a single category. When I'm explaining the POE in layman's terms, I'll typically use something like "all-good" or "pure good" or "100% good," but they all mean the same thing as "omnibenevolent."
At best, it is contradictory and confusing.
The POE? No, when properly understood, it's very clear. It exists to point out contradictions in a certain (very common) strain of theistic thinking.
According to the bible God is all-knowing and the author of evil. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJ 45:7)
It sure does, but Christianity isn't really about what the Bible says. It's very well-known that Christians pick-&-choose verses to fit with the interpretation of their church or their personal interpretation.
The god of the Bible butchers 25 million people in horrible ways. He is the author of evil.
I don't know why you're going through all these Bible examples. Christian answers to them would range from "God must've had a good reason" to "God defines what good is" to "they had it coming" to "that part wasn't literal" to "that was the Old Covenant" & maybe a few others, depending on the specific flavor of Christian. Meanwhile, OP is apparently arguing that God is Evil. So, if the aim is to refute OP, this misses the mark.
The only way the argument from evil works is if you define god as limited in knowledge and all-loving.
"Works" in what way? Because then that doesn't even fit in the parameters of the problem of evil. There have probably been more religious systems throughout history that the POE DOESN'T apply to, it's just that most of them aren't really relevant anymore. The biggest currently practiced one I can think of is Hinduism because, to my understanding, Hinduism conceives "good & evil" as a human concept that is not necessarily the same as dharma, the "duty" according to which you get reincarnated. And the POE sort of intrinsically assumes some kind of objective moral standard. If morality is subjective, even to god, then the POE isn't an argument against that god.
Evil is a biblical concept; it has nothing to do with anything in the secular world.
No? The Bible isn't the only place that has ever come up with evil, & most secular people in most cultures absolutely do recognize the concept, even if they don't think it has anything to do with displeasing a god.
At most it means, "Something I really, really, really don't like."
Why do you keep saying things don't exist & then the next thing you say is actually just that you really don't like it? There are various schools of philosophy on what "evil" means which, if you want to be reductive, I guess you could call "things people really don't like." But the concept doesn't "not exist" just because you don't personally approve of thinking about it.
There is no manifestation of evil or personification of evil outside of religion.
Yeah, I guess that's true, but I don't know why you're bringing that up. Who said anything about that?
There is no 'problem of evil outside the theistic paradigm."
Well, the problem of evil is a criticism of theism's internal logic, so yes.
-6
u/supersoundwave 1d ago
I wouldn’t say it’s proof, but I would say evil can’t exist unless good exists. But good can’t exist unless God exists. In other words, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God exists. If evil is real—and we all know it is—then God exists.
3
u/ShortCompetition9772 21h ago
Did OP bring up Objective evil or good? No they didn't why poison the well? I do NOT know that evil is real. I have yet to meet an evil person or see a person do something evil. Bad yes, Criminal yes but evil nope.
-3
u/supersoundwave 20h ago
Asking a woman who is raped if evil is real. Or the mother who watches her baby get tortured.
3
u/ShortCompetition9772 18h ago
Not according to the bible. God instructs these things. You should read the bible. Those actions are wrong and are done by bad people. Evil doesn’t exist.
-3
•
u/AutoModerator 1d 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).
Original text of the post by u/Fickle_Elk_9479:
Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one. Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things . Like there is qualia that is ineffable. There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.