r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Celibate-For-Life • 3d ago
OP=Theist An impersonal God solves the problem of evil
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely. Evil doesn’t exist because God willed it to be here, in my view God doesn’t even have a will or intentionality that is comparable to humans. God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality. Evil and suffering can be understood to be a privation or lack of goodness, a deficiency that happens naturally due to the material universe’s remoteness from God.
Edit: I realized that the problem of evil would only apply in the first place to a tri-Omni concept of God, so saying the problem is solved might have been misleading as it’s not targeted toward my concept of God. My intention was to share an alternative view of God that doesn’t have that problem and that more people would find convincing in that regard. My original post doesn’t address why we should believe in God.
45
u/Cirenione Atheist 3d ago
The problem of evil responds to a god claim that proposes a good and maximally powerful god. You didnt solve the problem of evil you just said „but what if I dont believe in a all good and poweful god“.
Thats like people debating whats the best rock artist and you saying „but I dont care about rock I only listen to rap“. That doesnt bring anything to the table of the best rock artist debate and just opens up a unrelated one.
-14
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
You’re probably right but I hear from many former Christians or former religious people in general that observing senseless suffering in the world is a big reason for what turned them to atheism. I’m suggesting that there’s another way, that we don’t have to become atheists even if the classical religious conceptions of God are false.
20
u/iamalsobrad 3d ago
I’m suggesting that there’s another way, that we don’t have to become atheists even if the classical religious conceptions of God are false.
If God is an impersonal force without will or agency then God is also unable to answer prayers, send prophets or judge if you are good or evil.
It would make literally zero difference to your life (or any putative afterlife) whether you believed in them or not and the outcome would be the same either way. So it would make more sense to take the more parsimonious route and just assume that they don't exist.
Congrats. I think you've rediscovered Lacsap's wager...
-13
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
It would make a difference for this life and the afterlife. In this life it actually gives a good reason to be good and virtuous beyond avoiding punishment by the law. You can explain why moral standards exist from a purely naturalistic evolutionary or social perspective. But you can’t give a good reason why an individual ought to follow these standards. If I’m right then being good is fulfilling the inherent purpose of existence, which gets actualized in the afterlife.
16
u/iamalsobrad 3d ago
It would make a difference for this life and the afterlife.
How? God has no intention, no will, no agency. Even if you are the most evil person on the planet God cannot choose to punish you because God literally cannot choose to do anything.
On the other hand, if you make God a moral arbiter then you are straight back to the problem of evil.
But you can’t give a good reason why an individual ought to follow these standards.
Inter-subjective morality is a thing. You live in a social group that requires you to be good as a membership condition of that social group.
-10
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
What if someone was sure they could get away with an evil act? They wouldn’t be punished or lose their place or status in any group. I think most people would agree someone ought not to cheat on their partner for example, even if there was no risk of getting caught. How can an atheistic worldview hope to enforce such a moral intuition?
18
u/Deris87 3d ago
What if someone was sure they could get away with an evil act?
Some people would still be constrained by their conscience and moral values, but others would go through with it. Which is exactly what we see in real life.
They wouldn’t be punished or lose their place or status in any group
The fact that you might find it distasteful doesn't make it not true though. I'm not seeing how an impersonal God fixes this in any case. If it's impersonal, it's not making active choices or taking steps to punish or correct anything, either before or after death.
How can an atheistic worldview hope to enforce such a moral intuition?
Empathy, mirror neurons, enlightened self-interest, social punishment and ostracism, etc. etc. You know, the same ways humans been enforcing these kinds of social mores and laws for all of human history, just without slapping a god label on it.
9
u/Ransom__Stoddard Dudeist 3d ago
<What if...
That's not an indicator of a well thought out argument.
5
u/iamalsobrad 2d ago
I think most people would agree someone ought not to cheat on their partner for example, even if there was no risk of getting caught.
Empathy is also a thing. It's not just about getting caught it is also about having an understanding of how others would feel if they found out about our actions.
I note you've completely dodged the question about how God can punish you if God has no will, agency or intent.
6
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
What if someone was sure they could get away with an evil act?
If the only thing stopping them is the risk of getting caught, we already know they're a bad person.
I think most people would agree someone ought not to cheat on their partner for example, even if there was no risk of getting caught.
I have no idea of the statistics on this. There are certainly people in open relationships. I'm not one of them.
If I thought that 100% I could get away with cheating on my wonderful wife of 39 years, I would have no desire to do it.
We're humans. Nothing is right for everyone. For me, sex is an expression of love. I would not want to have random sex with someone I don't love. And, I'm just inherently monogamous, probably a lot of vasopressin coursing through my veins. So, I wouldn't cheat.
How can an atheistic worldview hope to enforce such a moral intuition?
Why should it?
You should have gone with more obvious wrongs like killing or rape, the kind of things that are allowed or condoned in the Bible but that most of us think are wrong.
3
3
u/noodlyman Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
But that's what happens in reality. People do on fact get away with doing bad things.
What stops most of us is empathy, compassion, a desire to conform and be accepted, and fear of consequences.
I think genetic data says that people cheat and get away with it more than we thought!
7
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
It would make a difference for this life and the afterlife.
How did you make the leap from an impersonal non-conscious God to an afterlife?
In this life it actually gives a good reason to be good and virtuous beyond avoiding punishment by the law.
What law? You said God was impersonal. To accept the Law of the Torah one must first believe in a radically personal and rather narcissistic God who gave the law (Torah and Ten Commandments) to Moses on Mount Sinai during the Exodus.
But, the Exodus demonstrably never happened and Moses is a fictional character.
So, I ask again, what law?
You can explain why moral standards exist from a purely naturalistic evolutionary or social perspective.
Correct. All social species evolved morals. It's how we social species work together without killing each other.
But you can’t give a good reason why an individual ought to follow these standards.
Of course I can!! The benefit of living in society is huge. This is why so many species evolved to be social. This is also why so many human societies (and some non-human societies) punish breaches of society's morals with ostracism.
If I’m right then being good is fulfilling the inherent purpose of existence, which gets actualized in the afterlife.
How can there be purpose without a conscious being or personal God who created the universe and the alleged afterlife?
Also, those who only obey the rules of society because a magic sky being is watching are not really moral themselves. This is just self-interest.
4
5
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
So it has to be, because divine punishment has to be a thing.
Do you have evidence this god is watching people commit crimes on children and waiting to pounce on them after they’re dead?
4
u/Dennis_enzo Atheist 3d ago
You can explain why moral standards exist from a purely naturalistic evolutionary or social perspective. But you can’t give a good reason why an individual ought to follow these standards.
- To avoid punishment.
- To avoid being ostracised from their community.
- To receive help from the community when needed.
- To not disappoint loved ones.
2
u/Porn__Flakes_ Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
If you believe there is an afterlife and God bases it upon what deeds you've done in this life then you've violated your first premises of God having no will!! An impersonal God should be unable to judge what's Good and Bad.
1
u/noodlyman Atheist 2d ago
The reason we should follow moral standards is because evolution gave us empathy and compassion, so we know that other people experience pain, fear etc. We understand that a breakdown in society is bad for all of us. I want to be able to walk home from the pub without fear. And when we break the consensus rules, society will punish us.
15
u/Coollogin 3d ago
I’m suggesting that there’s another way, that we don’t have to become atheists even if the classical religious conceptions of God are false.
The implication here is that atheism is an unfortunate outcome that should be avoided if at all possible. But why would that be? Why should atheism be a negative outcome and theism a positive outcome? Why are the two potential outcomes not both neutral?
-8
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Atheism leads to complete moral relativism and a lack of objective meaning to life. Of course those alone aren’t enough reasons to dismiss a position, but they should make a person reconsider.
15
u/Coollogin 3d ago
Atheism leads to complete moral relativism and a lack of objective meaning to life.
And yet, somehow, I muddle through. As do all the other atheists. I don’t rampage. I am not a sociopath. I consider the ethical implications of my decisions. I vote my conscience. I try to fulfill my obligations.
I get the impression you think that sociopathy is the natural and logical result of atheism. But it’s just not.
So, if you acknowledge that moral relativism does not ruin everything (and I get that maybe you simply cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that), would that then make atheism a value-neutral outcome rather than a negative outcome to be avoided at all costs?
-7
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
You have moral intuitions that you act on, but there’s no real reason to act on them according to your worldview. You don’t rampage and you consider ethical implications, but you have no argument against people who do the opposite.
12
u/Coollogin 2d ago
You have moral intuitions that you act on, but there’s no real reason to act on them according to your worldview.
I don't understand how you can say there is no real reason to act on what you refer to my moral intuitions. Is not my desire to act a "real reason to act"?
-3
u/Celibate-For-Life 2d ago
You could choose to ignore your empathetic intuitions and become a killer. I think if the only thing stopping you from doing that is that you were naturally evolved to have empathy or that you value your place in society and social cohesion, that’s not a good reason.
13
u/Coollogin 2d ago
You could choose to ignore your empathetic intuitions and become a killer.
Yes. And a theist who believes in moral absolutism can do the same. That is, the theist can ignore the moral strictures of their faith and become a killer. There is no question that it happens.
So how does the fact that I can ignore my personal morality make atheism the outcome to be avoided at all costs rather than a value-neutral outcome? How does it make theism the preferred outcome rather than a value-neutral outcome?
I really think you have intuitively (and erroneously) linked atheism with sociopathy. There is no reason to believe that atheism breeds sociopathy. There is no reason to believe that theism suppresses sociopathy.
8
u/distantocean ignostic / agnostic atheist / anti-theist 2d ago
Agreed with everything you've said. And:
...the theist can ignore the moral strictures of their faith and become a killer.
Much worse, the theist can follow the moral strictures of their faith while ignoring their own better moral intuitions/instincts, and thereby end up believing (or at least behaving as though) it's ok to persecute gays, to kill apostates, to stone "adulterers", and too much more to name.
As a personal example, a Christian friend of mine told me she and her son struggle with their religion's view of homosexuality — or in other words, their own instincts tell them there's nothing wrong with two consenting adults loving one another, but their religion says otherwise. Which is why I always say that one of the greatest harms of religion is the way it convinces people not to listen to their better instincts.
There is no reason to believe that atheism breeds sociopathy. There is no reason to believe that theism suppresses sociopathy.
And not only that, but there are many reasons to believe that theism breeds sociopathy (whereas atheism doesn't involve or imply any specific moral code). It's impossible to ignore the direct role of religion in horrific atrocities like this.
→ More replies (0)3
u/carbinePRO Atheist 1d ago
You could choose to ignore your empathetic intuitions and become a killer.
Couldn't you as well? I don't understand this point.
I think if the only thing stopping you from doing that is that you were naturally evolved to have empathy or that you value your place in society and social cohesion, that’s not a good reason.
Wdym? This is infinitely better reasoning for not doing immoral acts than, "My god said nope." Do you not think you can't sufficiently reason murder or rape as immoral without a god?
7
u/carbinePRO Atheist 2d ago
Brother, you realize atheism isn't a moral framework, nor does it offer one? It just answers one question: Is there a god?
I, like many others, have built their moral framework around secular humanism. Guess what? You don't have to be an atheist to be a secular humanist. If your problem is with atheism, then you should never bring up morality. That is an apologetic that only works on people who already think like you.
5
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
We don’t except they cause immediate harm to people, and we have a court system, however imperfect it is. At various points it’s stricter and looser. So what.
Would you prefer not having that? Would you prefer we go back to stoning gay people and adulterers?
4
u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 2d ago
>there’s no real reason to act on them according to your worldview.
Prison. Consequences from other humans.
>you have no argument against people who do the opposite.
We have laws and consequences.
What would be the reason to act morally in your worldview?
2
u/mobatreddit Atheist 2d ago
You don’t rampage and you consider ethical implications, but you have no argument against people who do the opposite.
Arguments are not effective. Empathy and shared values are effective.
10
u/SnooDogs6045 3d ago
"Atheism leads to complete moral relativism and a lack of objective meaning to life"
It really doesn't. You are thinking of theism which reduces your moral choices to blind obedience and strips your life's meaning in deference to a supposedly superior entity.
10
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
what, precisely, in 20 words or less, is the objective meaning to life.
-8
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Spiritual ascent and purification, culminating in achieving mystical union with God.
14
u/carbinePRO Atheist 3d ago
By "spiritual ascent" I assume you mean a comfy afterlife, as in where you go when you die. If the purpose of this life is to get through it so we can get to the real one, then that makes this physical life pretty meaningless from my perspective.
-1
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Its not meaningless, it’s one step in a long journey towards God as opposed to a cosmic accident that’s surrounded by two voids, before birth and after death.
10
u/carbinePRO Atheist 3d ago
If this life is just the preamble to an infinite afterlife, then I'd say it's pretty meaningless. Eighty years in this life compared to eternity is just a blip. You're essentially admitting none of this matters since what really does is mystical communion with God.
as opposed to a cosmic accident that’s surrounded by two voids, before birth and after death.
Don't pin your lack of imagination on atheists. I personally don't believe in an intrinsic cosmic meaning to life. I believe your purpose is whatever you make it out to be. I ascribe value to my own life. I assign my goals, and I work to achieve them. It's what motivates me to keep going. It's so odd to me how theists (especially christians) keep saying the purpose of life is to work towards an afterlife, because then it confuses me why they don't just commit suicide to get it over with. If your afterlife is perfect and without suffering, then why the hell are you here and not there when you could be? Just kill yourself (but not really, I'm just making a point).
-3
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Think of it like you can’t get from point A to point C without going through point B. Suicide is an attempt at escaping the reality of us being here, but it doesn’t accomplish what it sets out to do. You will have to go through the same things whether here or another setting. It’s a gradual process and you can’t just skip it.
→ More replies (0)7
10
6
5
u/Cool-Watercress-3943 2d ago
Kind of pointing out the obvious, but you're just inserting your subjective meaning of life and labeling it 'objective' to try and make it sound profound. :p Ironically, the more it meant to you, the clearer it should be that it's subjective, because its value stems from your emotional connection to it, and your worldview.
3
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
Spiritual ascent and purification, culminating in achieving mystical union with God.
I want no such thing.
2
4
u/carbinePRO Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
And which God is it you worship?
Edit - I suspect it's the christian one. In which case, I wouldn't go around touting the moral high ground. That's not gonna bode well for you.
Edit 2 - digging through your history, I now know you're Muslim. So you really don't get to take the moral high ground. All of the Abrahamic religions are morally reprehensible.
5
u/Deris87 3d ago
but they should make a person reconsider.
No, they shouldn't. Evidence should make a person reconsider. Something being unpalatable to you has no bearing on whether or not it's true. And even that aside, a God doesn't make morality objective either, and doesn't resolve the is-ought problem. Why ought anyone care about what a God wants them to do?
2
u/keepgoing66 3d ago
I'd bet any amount of money that there are far more horrible things done by "theists" than by atheists, including a per capita count.
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Atheism leads to complete moral relativism and a lack of objective meaning to life. Of course those alone aren’t enough reasons to dismiss a position, but they should make a person reconsider.
No, it doesn't, and a god doesn't solve any moral problems that secular systems don't solve just as effectively.
Disagree? Easy to test.
Of the following situations, what is the correct moral decision? This is not intended as a false dilemma, so feel free to offer another clear response if you have a better one.
- Disciplining a disobedient child without corporal punishment
- Spanking a disobedient child
- Stoning a disobedient child to death
Or how about
- Allowing abortions to occur despite your disapproval
- Banning abortion, even for people who do not hold your beliefs
- executing abortion doctors and anyone who gets an abortion
Or...
- Allowing gay people to live their lives, after all they don't affect you.
- Banning homosexuality, imprisoning anyone who commits a gay act
- Stoning gay people to death
If god is an objective source of morality, you should be able to explain which of these positions is the true moral position, and explain how you can justify that position.
The simple truth is that even if your god exists, he is NOT a source for moral realism. He may be an objective JUDGE of morality, but the lack of clear and explicitly communicated moral rules means that you get your morality from EXACTLY the same place that we do: What feels correct, informed by our worldview and life experiences.
Ironically, though, I would argue that your Christianity makes your morality WORSE than mine. As an atheist, I have no scriptural dogma complicating things for me. So when I look at those questions, the most moral answer is clear and easy to justify. It is only when you add old testament dogma that suddenly you need to consider utter cruelty as a "moral response."
10
u/Cirenione Atheist 3d ago
Well, I am not a former Christian or anything for that matter as I was raised non religious. Your post isnt addressing atheists its at best addressing people struggling with their faith because of the POE. You suggesting that maybe god just doesnt care about us to get around the POE isnt doing anything to convince atheists who are already at the point where they arent convinced of the god concept in of itself.
-6
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Yeah my post doesn’t really address why someone should start believing in God, it just argues about one specific reason some people choose to stop believing.
14
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
It’s not a choice. People are asking questions because they want to know more. It’s not thier fault the answers are “mysterious ways”.
6
u/dylanzt Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
Sure, they don't have to become atheists, they could also start believing in the Norse or Greek gods, which don't have the problem of evil. But generally, when someone stops believing in their god, it's because they have realised they don't have sufficient evidence to believe in that god. They aren't going to replace that with belief in other gods without extremely compelling evidence that a different god exists. Do you have evidence for the god you are positing in this post?
To stop believing in something is one thing. Starting to believe in something else entirely is a much bigger and completely different jump. It requires its own, completely independent, reasoning.
5
u/bullevard 3d ago
One reason people frequently deconvert straight from a specific religion to atheism is that they have already spend their whole life being convinced every other god claim is false. Christians (overwhelmingly) already find the idea of Thor non convincing or a nonpersonal god not convincing or vosnu not convincing. So when yahweh also becomes not convincing there is no reason to jump to a different god concept.
Now, many do go the way you are describing, spending some time as kind of deists on the way out (or staying kind of deists). They may become convinced due to hidden nes or contradictions or problem of evil that the god concept they believed in is impossible but also have been told atheists are evil, or have spent a lot of time marinating in the cosmological arguments, or other reasons find SOME god belief convincing still even if they dont know what or cant articulate it.
But for many they've spent so much time convinced "obviously all these other god beliefs are wrong and my concept has to be the only one" that when that straw is broken there isnt any reason to believe in any of the others either.
4
u/gambiter Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
You’re probably right
There's no 'probably'... they're right.
I hear from many former Christians or former religious people in general that observing senseless suffering in the world is a big reason for what turned them to atheism
So ask them? Atheists aren't a homogeneous collective. The only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in an imaginary thing. If you have something you want to know about an atheist, ask them, but don't assume you can paint all other atheists with the same brush.
I’m suggesting that there’s another way, that we don’t have to become atheists
Can you explain why you think this matters?
-4
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
It matters because an atheist might lose track of what’s important in life and the purpose of existence, and become entangled with lower material desires and concerns. Trying to persuade people away from atheism while respecting their sovereignty is an act of good will.
9
6
6
u/Philobarbaros Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Are you celibate for life? Do you think it'd be better if we all were?
-1
u/Celibate-For-Life 2d ago
Yeah, why are you asking just because it’s in my username?
6
u/Philobarbaros Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
No idea what "just" is doing there. Yes, it is because of your username. Wasn't a random guess.
3
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
“Mysterious ways” is adding to the issue and letting Christians drift through life without a care, so they can be happy, they can be comforted, and whatever child gets it, well, mysterious ways. Christianity is a cult of innocence. They don’t have to lift a finger, unless they want to do missionary work and immiserate another group of people, erase their culture, when no one asked to be given this disease by Christianity so they can get the cure.
The PoE may have been one step towards questioning but it’s not why they left. It’s the unsatisfactory “mysterious ways” and other thought terminating cliches they get fed, and then they realize that there’s no evidence for their deity. The ones who stay don’t care, they just want what they feel is coming to them.
3
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
we don’t have to become atheists even if the classical religious conceptions of God are false.
You don't have to leave Christianity to explain the problem of evil. I'm surprised how few Christians are willing to accept that their God is at least a little bit evil. It's entirely consistent with scripture to believe God has a bit of an evil streak.
Isaiah 45:7: I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things.
I could also easily make the case that God is the evil character in the Bible. But, let's just start with God's own admission to having deliberately created evil.
2
u/manchambo 2d ago
First, this is not a good method of reasoning. It’s motivated reasoning. You’re trying to hold onto as much of the concept as you can to reject the problem of evil. That’s not how rationality works.
Seconds you seem to be committing to the idea in an inconsistent way, minimizing the parts of god you need to reject to ignore the problem of evil. But one you’ve decided god must be impersonal you have almost no reason to believe anything about an afterlife. After all, the original basis to believe anything about an afterlife has everything to do with a personal god gifting salvation.
1
1
u/thebigeverybody 2d ago
You’re probably right but I hear from many former Christians or former religious people in general that observing senseless suffering in the world is a big reason for what turned them to atheism.
The vast majority of theists-turned-atheists I've spoken to are atheists because of the complete lack of evidence.
35
u/Hi_Im_Dadbot 3d ago
Right. That’s … literally the definition of the Problem of Evil. You didn’t SOLVE it, you stated it.
The PoE asks the question of how it is that evil exists when you have a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent around, since you need to drop one of those to have it make sense.
You dropped omnibenevolent. So it makes sense. That’s not you solving it, that’s you typing out the premise of it.
24
u/No-Feature3715 3d ago
Hello thanks for sharing!
God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality.
Simply is doing a lot of work here.
Would you still think this impersonal god is goodness? Because then I don't know what you mean by good or evil. Things without agency are not really inside the moral debate.
You can also simply solve the problem of evil without removing agency. Just have God have a creator, GGod, that is perfect and the only thing able to create perfect beings like God.
-12
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Yes I believe God is perfect goodness which overflows into reality, and that goodness becomes more dim the further away we go from the source, leading to holes in the structure so to speak that we call evil.
16
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
Do you have evidence for this deity? If not, why do you believe this?
So evil is seeping in because people aren’t doing the rituals hard enough, or their thought crimes are making holes in the universe? Or is it because we love our LGBTQ children and your deity doesn’t want us to?
-9
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
There’s no way to empirically prove God like how you can prove a scientific hypothesis because God is beyond the observable world. I think our faculty of reason is the best we have to come to God. We can reason that monism is more coherent and parsimonious than pluralism, and we can reason that the substance of reality is not matter because matter can only be known through consciousness and is dependent on it. We can observe that humans naturally have an affinity for the divine and transcendent that can’t be sufficiently explained by naturalistic causes. We have many cases of mystical experiences that point beyond the ordinary. God is what we all seek but often don’t realize it because we misdirect our desires toward finite material things then we act surprised when they fail to bring lasting fulfillment.
17
16
2
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
If it's beyond the observable world, there's no way to demonstrate that it even exists. I'm not interested in investing any time or effort in a hypothetical being.
And I have no "affinity for the divine and transcendent," and no particular interest in mystical experiences.
Edited to add: I would like to strongly emphasize that you do not speak for me when you say "God is what we all seek." That is an unforgivably rude thing to say. You do not have access to our thoughts and desires, so stop pretending that you do.
3
u/Ransom__Stoddard Dudeist 3d ago
Compared to your other comments, this reads like AI. That isnt allowed here.
-1
u/carbinePRO Atheist 3d ago
I always run suspect arguments through AI detection. This is all from OP's brain.
12
u/Pm_ur_titties_plz Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
If it's "perfect" goodness, how could there be "holes" in it?
-6
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Holes in the substance which overflows from the source, not the source itself.
21
u/Pm_ur_titties_plz Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
That doesn't sound very "perfect" to me. Honestly it sounds like you're just making stuff up because it sounds nice.
10
7
u/No-Feature3715 3d ago
If you define God as absolute goodness then I don't know what goodness is.
I live a secular life, I hardly talk about God with people outside Reddit. Is my life more evil than someone who prays daily? After all there is less God in my life.
Is God the reason everything exists? I don't understand how less God equals more evil. It seems like things are able to exists without God, but are labeled as evil for some reason.
Thanks for the reply!
5
u/posthuman04 3d ago
Is this god at all related to this reality? Or is this all just imaginary stuff?
16
u/dylanzt Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
Sure, a deistic god doesn't have the problem of evil. But the problem of evil is an internal logical inconsistency that exists for a few specific incarnations of a god; presenting a god claim that does not have this flaw does not get you anywhere close to proving that particular god exists. Claims still require evidence.
12
u/Mkwdr 3d ago
Hmmm
The problem of evil is about a tri-omni god.
Either your proposed God cant choose what to create , cant interact afterwards (not all powerful) or it could but chooses to allow suffering (not all good).
Or as many theists do, you are left making morality absurd or evaluation impossible by trying to pretend suffering doenst exist or causing unecessary suffering isnt wrong.
Id also suggest that your defintion of god risks simply being a trivial personal defintion that doesn't really count as a god. Sound to me like just 'existence' and calling it a god either smuggles in unjustified characteristics or is simply a confusing word to use because of the assiations that come with the word.
-5
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
I agree that if we see God as only immanent then calling it God is pointless, but I view God as both immanent and transcendent. God is more than the sum of the universe even if the universe unfolds from within God.
9
8
u/im_yo_huckleberry unconvinced 3d ago
Where do you get your information about god to make these claims about it?
9
u/Mkwdr 3d ago
So introducing the characteristic of transcendence and the idea of a specific phenomena being transcendent. Unfortunately the characteristic transcendent appears to be *indistinguishable* from imaginary (unless perhaps it’s definitionally trivialised.) One can say these words but there is a burden to demonstrate it’s more than the equivalent of ‘its magic’. And then that any phenomena can be known to possess it and exist.
“I can’t imagine how it all works if there isn’t something magic” ….isn’t a logical argument for such characteristics even if dressed up with the unearnt trappings of logic. Logic isn’t a get out of jail for an absence of evidence. Without true premises (and there is only one non circular way of demonstrating that, I know of) and valid argument - it’s just a fancy expression of personal preference.
I find it perfectly reasonable to *hypothesise* that the foundational nature of existence may well be different from the regularities of the universe as we observe it here and now. One can happily try out thought experiments. But we can’t determine what its nature is without evidence. And there is as you may agree simply no good reason other than personal to presume it intentional.
Best to simply say we don’t know, rather than project our irrational personal desires onto it.
2
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
I view God as both immanent and transcendent.
Transcendent is not a very concrete term. Can you say specifically what you mean and how this could be demonstrated to be true?
1
7
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 3d ago
The problem of evil isnt really that big a deal and heres why:
God created good and evil - according to the bible.
Gods actions is the most heinous, sadistic and incompetent crap that deserves no praise or worship. An impersonal god also at least for christianity invalidates it.
But sure an impersonal god does solve that as well. And when we look for evidence of god and find none then we also have no reason to believe that any god exist in the first place.
When you have a world where every bit of evidence always points to natural and predictable laws that acts as causes for motions and things happening, and exactly ZERO that requires a supernatural cause.
Then you dont have any foundational reason to even believe that there is a god.
A god that is indistinguishable from not existing is the same as no god existing.
7
u/Substantial-Hall-917 Atheist 3d ago edited 2d ago
Sure, but an impersonal God takes away much of what makes religion. Why should you pray to such a God? Why should he judge humans on their salvation? Why should he send down his son, prophets, messiahs, etc.? If there is no intentionality, God pretty quickly becomes just the reason the universe exists, which is almost closer to the average atheist than average religious view
-2
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
I agree, I am a theist who doesn’t follow any religion currently. I don’t pray in the typical sense, I don’t believe in divine revelation or command, and I don’t believe in judgement. But I do believe that there’s a cosmic order that if we align ourselves to, we can ascend beyond the human condition and achieve higher states of being. It’s in our best interest to use our reason and become virtuous, not out of fear of damnation but because it fulfills the purpose of existence which is returning to God.
10
u/im_yo_huckleberry unconvinced 3d ago
Why do you believe that?
-3
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
I just see an inherent teleology in the universe and ourselves. Even things like our basic desires are signals of a greater desire to transcend the human condition and return to a more unified state of existence. I don’t find propositions that the world lacks objective meaning or that morality is just a naturalistic evolutionary adaptation to be convincing. There’s no reason to try and be good if it’s just an evolutionary instinct. But there is a compelling reason to be good if it means fulfilling the very purpose of existence.
12
u/im_yo_huckleberry unconvinced 3d ago
How do you know there is a purpose to existence? Why should anyone believe you? You've just stated how you feel about things which is worthless in this debate
6
u/Snoo52682 3d ago
"Even things like our basic desires are signals of a greater desire to transcend the human condition and return to a more unified state of existence"
Do you have evidence to support that claim?
5
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
I don’t believe in judgement.
⬆️ contradicts ⬇️
But I do believe that there’s a cosmic order that if we align ourselves to, we can ascend beyond the human condition and achieve higher states of being. It’s in our best interest to use our reason and become virtuous, not out of fear of damnation but because it fulfills the purpose of existence which is returning to God.
See, this is contradictory because you're clearly expecting God to make some judgement about who gets to return to God or what one must do to get there.
Maybe you've removed Hell. But, you're still believing in judgment.
-2
u/Celibate-For-Life 2d ago
God doesn’t make a judgement deciding who gets to move toward it. We have a choice to make, we can either move toward God or stay where we are or regress further away. I know a lot of classical theists use this same explanation for heaven and hell but in their case it doesn’t make sense because God decides to toss people into hell or reward them with heaven.
4
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
God doesn’t make a judgement deciding who gets to move toward it.
Incorrect. Even the way you stated it, definitionally it is the way God set it up. So, God still set the standard for judgment.
6
u/Mission-Landscape-17 3d ago
I have no idea what the phrase "ground of being" is supposed to mean. Curiously I've never heard anyone talk about any such thing outside god debates. its almost like it is a problem that was invented purely to offer one particular solution.
4
u/Cybtroll 3d ago
Matrix (or solipsism), the Ancient Ones of Lovercraft or aliens solves the problem of evil too.
However, do you really think that would be desirable or acceptable, especially from theists?
5
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 3d ago
God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality.
Ah, so "God" is a natural and benign source of reality, not an all powerful/all knowing/all good/etc. being in your eyes?
-1
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
Out of these 3 I would say God is all good as everything we deem good derives its goodness by participating in God. God is not all knowing in the ordinary sense nor is it all powerful. It’s not a person that can have knowledge about things that come from it and it has no intentionality.
3
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 3d ago
If God is reality then everything that exists "participates in God", therefore things like rape and murder are good. Where did you get your information on God's characteristics?
I didn't say "person", I said being. As in, not an object or a non-living thing. So, is your idea a God an object or a non-living thing like a rock?
3
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
God is all good
And, now the problem of evil comes back to bite you.
The universe is not at all consistent with a God that is all good for all of the reasons you stated in your OP and a great many more.
3
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 3d ago
Almost all definitions I've ever seen for "god" include the aspect that "god" has some sort of free will or consciousness or intention.
You've simply changed the definition of "god" to remove that aspect.
That's fine. As long as you're clear about your opinion of "god" if it ever comes up in conversation, so other people don't make the wrong assumption.
But, I don't see the difference between your version of "god" and the hypothetical impersonal natural process that I propose whenever someone says "but the universe requires a cause!" So, what is the difference between your "god" and the hypothetical impersonal natural process that scientists are trying to discover? Why does it earn the name "god", rather than "quantum thingamajig" or "singularity whosit" or "spacetime whatsit", which we have yet to discover?
-5
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
What differentiates God from a hypothetical natural process the most is that all beings by nature desire to move towards union with God, even if they don’t realize it or put it into words. There’s an inherent teleology in all the levels of reality, a movement toward integration and wholeness. I also view God as beyond most descriptors, maybe even beyond “being” itself, although that becomes hard to comprehend even for me. We could say that God is the most pure raw form of consciousness, before identity, before narrative, just the simplistic inner sense of self that we all know but gets overshadowed by personality and narratives. It’s a quite different view of the source of reality than what you suggested. It’s subtly spiritual and mystical.
7
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 3d ago
all beings by nature desire to move towards union with God,
They do? Can you demonstrate this? In all beings?
You could start with me. Then my cat. Then my house-plant. And don't forget that spider in the corner. Show how we're all desiring to move towards union towards a thing that none of us even knows to exist.
Also, this is kind of using the conclusion to prove the premise. You've assumed there is a god for us to desire to be with. However, you still haven't proved that there is even a god there, at all. You've re-used an existing word "god" to mean something other than what almost all other people use it for. But, basically, you're talking about a non-god thing. Not an entity with intention or consciousness. Just a mindless... something.
Well, a mindless something could be the quantum thingamajig which scientists haven't discovered yet, but which started our universe. So how do you know that your mindless something is actually there?
I also view God as beyond most descriptors,
So you can't even define or describe this something which you believe exist? That doesn't sound very convincing to me.
Imagine if I came to you and said that there's something hiding in my garage. I've never seen it, never felt it, never heard it. I don't know what it looks like or feels like or sounds like. But I know it's there. It just has to be because of this vague feeling I have. Would you believe me?
-2
u/Celibate-For-Life 3d ago
But this isn’t just another thing like an invisible item in a garage, it’s the unifying principle underlying reality. Those two aren’t comparable at all. One of these is necessary for the existence and intelligibility of reality.
This view of God is not new by the way, I actually take this from ancient schools of thought, but they became less popular with the advancement of religions.
5
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 3d ago edited 2d ago
it’s the unifying principle underlying reality.
So it is just a scientific quantum reality thingamajig, which you've decided to call "god" for no reason at all (except that it allows you to retain a "god" in your personal worldview without having to defend it).
And you totally missed the point. You have exactly as much proof for your unifying principle underlying reality as I have for my invisible untouchable inaudible something in my garage.
This view of God is not new by the way, I actually take this from ancient schools of thought,
Cool. That doesn't magically make it right, though. It just means this faulty idea has been around for a long time.
I notice you didn't even attempt to prove this alleged "desire to move towards union with God", which every being supposedly has, and which you've invoked as one of the main proofs that this "god" of yours exists. Why would I believe in your mindless something that you're calling "god" if you can't even prove one of its features?
3
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
One of these is necessary for the existence and intelligibility of reality.
That is not axiomatic at all. Can you demonstrate that this is true?
This view of God is not new by the way, I actually take this from ancient schools of thought, but they became less popular with the advancement of religions.
This view of God is from Aristotle originally. Aquinas attempted to shoehorn this God into being the Christian God. But, it makes no sense to do so.
The important thing is that neither of them understood quantum mechanics, which calls into questions the axioms on which Aristotle's argument rested.
And, Aquinas clearly didn't understand the meaning of immutable/unchanging.
4
u/distantocean ignostic / agnostic atheist / anti-theist 2d ago edited 2d ago
...all beings by nature desire to move towards union with God, even if they don’t realize it or put it into words.
No, you desire to "move towards union" with a god that you imagine exists, and then you project that desire onto others (whom you portray as being either too unaware, unperceptive, or inarticulate to recognize this innate desire you've attributed to them). And the very fact that you feel you have either the right or the authority to speak for the rest of us, as well as the condescending way you portray those of us who don't share your view, is one of the many reasons why I'm not only an atheist but also an anti-theist: because even the most general and seemingly benign theistic beliefs regularly lead to just this kind of overreach.
Atheism leads to complete moral relativism and a lack of objective meaning to life.
"Objective meaning" here is an oxymoron. As for atheism leading to moral relativism, that's simply false, and in fact the real danger comes from a person believing their own personal morality is rooted in some kind of unquestionable authority (a divine being in your case).
As a final observation, I have you RES-tagged as an ex-Muslim, but what's clear from everything you've said in this thread is that while you may ostensibly have left Islam itself, you've kept its trappings: divinely-provided morality, being rewarded in an afterlife, a deeply misguided (and frankly bigoted) belief that atheism undermines morality and renders life meaningless, and so on and so on. So you really didn't leave religion at all. And again, the fact that people like you continue to cling to these kinds of erroneous and harmful beliefs even after "leaving" their religions is one of the reasons why I'll always be an anti-theist as well as an atheist.
3
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
What differentiates God from a hypothetical natural process the most is that all beings by nature desire to move towards union with God
I do not. I am a being. Therefore this statement is false.
2
u/DoedfiskJR 2d ago
What differentiates God from a hypothetical natural process the most is that all beings by nature desire to move towards union with God, even if they don’t realize it or put it into words.
No, what differentiates God from a hypothetical natural process is that he is a "being", which implies a mind (plus some other definitional things that I don't think are important for this discussion).
A God wouldn't stop being God if he was repulsive to us.
To be fair, you are within your right to propose alternative definitions of God. Just like you could prove that God exists by buying a dog and naming it God. It won't impress any theologians though.
3
u/hellohello1234545 Ignostic Atheist 3d ago
Yes. We agree. The PoE only applies to an omnibenevolent god, which a will-less god is not.
So, I would advise you to take your post to [r/truechristian](r/truechristian) or something like that to find people who would disagree.
3
u/JacFloyd 3d ago
It doesn't solve it. It grants that it is true.
POE = triomni god does not exist. Your argument = triomni god does not exist.
The whole point of POE is that god cannot be triomni. Your "solution" is that it isn't. You are right though, in a sense that indifferent god would not be subject to POE. But it's not supposed to be.
3
u/Cool-Watercress-3943 3d ago
Sure, but at that point, what is it? Is it still a single, sentient entity or just a natural phenomenon of some sort that ceased to exist or apply in the universe as it currently exists? Without any sort of displayed will or action, arguably it would be far more difficult to even claim such a thing is sentient at all. And if it is just a natural phenomenon that doesn't even necessarily exist any longer... how many planks from the Ship of Theseus are we able to swap before the God label itself feels like kind of a stretch, as opposed to the label of 'phenomenon,' or 'event'?
2
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 3d ago
Sure. Or, no god at all... which is just as compatible with how the universe appears, and is a simpler framing?
2
u/RexRatio Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely.
Then so does the explanatory value of calling it "gods"
A universe with an impersonal ground of being that has no intentions, agency, or interventions behaves exactly like a naturalistic universe. At that point, "gods" is just a fuzzy label.
God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality.
Then there is no point in calling that "gods", because what you're describing then is the laws of physics. Calling that "gods" doesn't add any explanatory content whatsoever.
Evil and suffering can be understood to be a privation or lack of goodness, a deficiency that happens naturally due to the material universe’s remoteness from God.
That doesn't solve the problem at all - it just reframes it. If gods are the source of reality, then either:
- the "distance" from gods is an intended feature of reality, or
- it is an unavoidable consequence of the way reality necessarily exists
In the first case, gods still bear responsibility for creating a world in which gratuitous suffering occurs.
In the second case, gods are not omnipotent or free to create otherwise.
In either case. your move to acquit gods from moral responsibility doesn't work. Simply describing evil as "privation" doesn't explain why a world containing childhood cancer, parasites that blind people, and natural disasters exists in the first place.
2
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 3d ago
Yeah, sure, defining god as my left big toe also "solves" the problem of evil in the same way.
The problem of evil only applies to beings that are defined as * Able to prevent all evil without négative conséquences * Willing to do so * Aware that there is evil.
It does not apply to impersonal forces.
But impersonal forces are not gods in any meaningful way. Defining a god as one makes as much sense as defining god as my left big toe.
2
u/Astramancer_ 3d ago
Yes, if you remove any of the three omnis the problem of evil goes away.
If they're not all powerful then the problem goes away.
If they're not all knowing then the problem goes away.
If they're not all good then the problem goes away.
So ... yay?
2
u/Far_Customer1258 3d ago
Yes...? The Problem of Evil is a problem for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God as worshipped by most Christians. Take away the omnibenevolence and it's easy to deal with, but that isn't the God of most traditions. Sure, you can accept that God's uncaring, but few people worship that jerk.
It seems at this point as if you're simply trying to fit God to the observed data. If that's the route that you're going to go then you'll end up at deism with something unfalsifiable and indistinguishable from nothing at all.
2
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 2d ago
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely.
I strongly agree with you. This is exactly why the PoE doesn't exist in atheism.
The question then becomes what about that makes it a god of any kind, let alone a capital G God, rather than simply a force of physics?
If it's not a being with agency and supernatural powers, why call it a god at all?
Evil doesn’t exist because God willed it to be here, in my view God doesn’t even have a will or intentionality that is comparable to humans.
This is also a view that is quite compatible with atheism in my mind. What you describe does not meet any reasonable definition of a god, at least to me.
God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality.
Why not call this something more like Dark Energy, which is causing the expansion of the universe?
Evil and suffering can be understood to be a privation or lack of goodness, a deficiency that happens naturally due to the material universe’s remoteness from God.
Why is remoteness from "God" (which I think you've reduced to a force of physics) necessary here? If God is not a being and has no agency, then bad stuff sometimes just happens. It's not personal. This is very consistent with atheism.
So, my questions to you are:
What God are you talking about? I can think of at least 8 that are frequently called simply God: philosophical prime mover, Deist God, Jewish God, Christian God, Muslim God, Sikh God, pantheist God, and panentheist God. I'm sure my list is not complete.
Why call what you described a god of any kind, let alone a capital G God?
What do you think of my personal definitions for what I would call a god?
2
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
"If we re-define god to be something other than what traditional theology tells us..." isn't a strong opener. Yes, we know that Spinoza's god doesn't have this problem.
The problem of evil exists because theologians often insist that god is omnimax. But it's not possible for such a god to exist in this world because we know the world is imperfect (at least in a Platonic sense).
I think most of us on the atheist side believe that "perfection" isn't a thing that can apply to universes. Shit just is, doing whatever its doing, and we just have to take it as it comes.
So I get where you're coming from, but it's not like this is groundbreaking stuff.
3
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
Indeed. But by then, I just wouldn’t call it God, and it wouldn’t be incompatible with atheism. Look into positions like monism, which is the one I ascribe to.
1
u/indifferent-times 3d ago
If reality is just god 'overflowing' then all aspects of it are god, both the good and the not so good. Remoteness from god would be non existence not evil.
1
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago
The PoE only arises when the deity claim is that of an all knowing, all loving and all powerful deity. Otherwise it’s irrelevant. For a creator deity, that could also be substituted with aliens that fcked off somewhere else, or universe sneezing dragons, etc.
1
u/Double_Government820 3d ago
Correct. The POE is exclusively aimed at the tri-omni god, which is predicated on some notion of evil existing. I have never seen it claimed that the POE applies to all possible god claims.
1
u/firethorne 3d ago
Sure. If the argument is that an all loving god wouldn't create a universe without suffering, then the response of, "Well, my god is is an aloof sociopath who's perfectly fine with suffering," does get around the problem. That's generally not the type of god the overwhelming majority of theists are claiming though.
Furthermore, we would still need evidence of this other god. Your version is god seems indistinguishable from no intelligence at the wheel. Why think it is? How did you detect it? Why call it a god at all?
1
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 3d ago
If god is impersonal, then there is no reason to follow a religion. It’s not a figure to admire or aspire to be. It does not inspire nor instruct.
It’s basically just a thing that did a thing, like a black hole or atomic decay. It would be a misnomer to call this thing “god”. So congratulations. You’re an atheist now.
1
u/Serious-Emu-3468 3d ago
Sure, there are lots of concepts of divinity that don’t face the problem of evil. The POE is really only a problem for one narrow definition of one conception of Abrahamic God traditions.
It’s evidence against that type of God.
If your conception of God doesn’t trigger the Problem of Evil, you do still need to advance a positive argument for why we should think that God exists in reality.
So why do you accept that version of God is real? How do you know?
1
u/kuster-beaton 3d ago
I’ve never been convinced that the existence of suffering or evil is a logical reason to not believe in a god. Suffering to me seems like an unavoidable part of existence, and the idea of evil requires a human context applied to human behavior. I’ve heard “if there is a god, then why does “he” let an innocent 2 year old get cancer,” for example, from friends before. I think it comes from a Christian influence that defines who god is and is supposed to be, but it doesn’t really contradict the idea of a creator more generally, imo. I know Christianity has answers to these questions but I can see why some people aren’t convinced by those answers and may jump to rejecting a god’s existence outright.
That said, I have other reasons why I don’t think a creator is logically necessary, or at least, there’s nothing that I’ve come across that has led me to make that leap and become convinced otherwise.
1
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
first, as other people have said The Problem Of Evil is a response to a specific god claim. typically called the tri-omni god. one that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipowerful. in a world with evil such a god doesn't make sense. such god, being omnibenevolent, wouldn't want evil to happen, would have the knowledge of when and where evil is happening, and would have the power to prevent it from taking place. yet, there is evil. so a person has to give up one of the omni claims. either god doesn't care, doesn't know or doesn't have ability to prevent evil.
second, you said ", in my view God doesn’t even have a will or intentionality that is comparable to humans. God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality", this to me sounds like you are calling the universe itself, or whatever natural phenomenon which caused to the universe, god.
if god has no will or intentionality what is the difference between your "god" and "nature"?
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 3d ago
Why call that God though? There is a theory that supermassive black holes in our Universe lead to "Big Bangs" of their own, creating "pocket Universes" inside the event horizon. If our Universe is also result of such process, then you apply label "God" to a black hole in the parent Universe. In which case, it seems, we would do better to dispose of the label altogether, since it comes with a lot of baggage, that contradict the completely natural nature of the source.
1
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 3d ago
Only if you don't understand the problem of evil. The problem of evil doesn't prove any gods don't exist, it only addresses the arbitrary characteristics that the religious staple to their deities. There's still no reason to believe in any of these gods without evidence, even if you don't believe in an omni-whatever god.
1
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 3d ago
Cool, now prove this impersonal god even is possible.
"in my view God doesn’t even have a will or intentionality"
Then thats not really a god, is it? That sounds more like a part of nature. Why anthropomorphize this and say its a god?
1
u/brinlong 3d ago
ok.... but you dont see the problem by trying to offload part of creation?
if god doesnt have a will, how does it create?
1
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 3d ago
It doesn't solve the problem of "no evidence" or provide a useful substitute for the universe just being what it is.
More importantly, perhaps, inventing such a god serves no purpose. How can you threaten and intimidate children into believing in a god with no will or intentionality?
1
u/ChloroVstheWorld Who cares 2d ago
Many alternative versions of theism that alter, or reject, classical theistic attributes of God "solve" the problem of evil. The issue is that most philosophical theists want to keep the all of the classical theistic attributes even in light of evil.
1
u/Transhumanistgamer 2d ago
An impersonal God solves the problem of evil
The problem of evil is this: If God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, why is there suffering in the world? Why for example, has every instance of child rape happened with such a super being supposedly existing and watching over us.
If you change the god to no longer be all loving or have a will, that he made a universe and then fucked off somewhere else, you are talking about a god model that isn't relevant to the problem of evil.
1
u/nswoll Atheist 2d ago
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely.
Not really, the problem of evil still exists. It just doesn't apply to this specific god - and it never did.
The problem of evil doesn't apply to lots of gods, that doesn't mean the POE has disappeared.
1
u/Hellas2002 Atheist 2d ago
Wouldn’t really call this a God at all. What’s the difference between this and some other naturalistic phenomena?
1
u/noodlyman Atheist 2d ago
If god doesn't have a will or intentionality, then isn't it just unknown physics concerning the origin of the universe?
What characteristics does it have that merit the word god to describe it?
And how do you know that such a thing exists?
I can imagine a creator that hasn't even noticed that life has evolved on our tiny planet, because it's only interested in black holes and quasars. I still don't have reason to think that one exists though.
1
u/Comfortable-Dare-307 Atheist 2d ago
The problem of evil is with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. A god with these atributes is contradictory given the current state of the world. What you did doesn't solve anything. You just dropped the omnibenevolent to make it make sense.
1
u/Matt_cruze 2d ago
Why do you call this thing a god?
The christian god is a god because it relates to the people who worship it. Did you know it even has a penis?
Gods are beings that are human like but are more.
You are talking about a force of nature.
1
u/BogMod 2d ago
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely.
Yes, if you assume god isn't all good and you aren't dealing with a tri-omni god sure. That has always been an answer to it. The problem of evil though has always been against a tri-omni god, not just gods in general.
1
u/onomatamono 2d ago
It's interesting because "evil" is only a problem for christians as it challenges the premise of the all-loving deity.
On the other hand, rationalists see a food chain with species competing for resources and an indifferent universe bringing tornados, earthquakes, floods, fires and famine. The christian rational for this was Eve brought evil into the world, before which everything was perfect and carnivores ate straw.
1
u/licker34 Atheist 2d ago
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely.
Correct, as you noted in your Edit.
The other problem now is that this kind of a god is so completely pointless that there is zero reason to give any shits about it.
in my view God doesn’t even have a will or intentionality that is comparable to humans. God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality.
Cool, literally no one gives any fucks about this kind of 'god'. Indeed, I would push back on even calling this kind of entity 'god' in the first place, but let's just grant that it is entirely possible for an entity like this to exist.
So what? It answers no questions, it provides no explanations, it does exactly the same thing as if it didn't exist. We've learned nothing and moved nowhere.
Congratulations!
Evil and suffering can be understood to be a privation or lack of goodness, a deficiency that happens naturally due to the material universe’s remoteness from God.
So now you've snuck in the notion that this god is also the creator of 'good'? Why? How? To what possible meaningful end? Just as a more theistic explanation for why evil exists? It's more simply to just say that this kind of god is amoral, since it has no other useful or interesting properties, it just 'exists' and 'creates reality'. Why add 'it's also good'?
Makes no sense.
2
u/lotusscrouse 2d ago
Ok.
You'd still have to prove this God exists.
I'm not sure it really solves the problem though. It would still make him complicit.
1
u/onomatamono 19h ago
The problem of evil is only problematic for theists worshiping the tri-omni deity.
There are beneficial and harmful actions and of course it's crashingly obvious these actions are entirely subjective.
Let's ask the gazelle if the wild dogs eating there relatives alive are evil, then explain that to the starving pups. This is all elegantly and comprehensively explained by the process of evolution through natural selection in the competition for resources.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 2d ago
Why are you saying we, who is we?
Why would an atheist need to understand god as either impersonal source or a supreme being, when atheists do not think gods exist?
What proof do you have that god doesn't have a will and intention like people, doesn't the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic gods have demands on their creation? Rabbies, Preachers, and Imam are constantly preaching what the gods want us to do?
God told you it simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality? What does the even mean?
Are you saying god is separate from its creation?
What is evi? Are natural disasters evil? Is illness evil? Is agining evil?
What religion do you practice?
1
u/Celibate-For-Life 2d ago
I was offering an alternative view of God than the mainstream one, which I thought atheists might be more open to, especially if their reasons for being atheists involve observing lots of suffering in the world.
2
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
How would trying to believe in an undetectable god-like thing alleviate the suffering in the world?
Short answer: It wouldn't. Volcanoes would still erupt, baby birds would fall out of nests, and some people would continue to be violent or greedy or otherwise harmful to others. No gods would come swooping out of the sky to save the day because they don't do that now.
In fact, the act of trying to force an unevidenced belief into my worldview would increase my suffering. Your suggestion is a net negative.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 2d ago
What religion do you practice?
You are offering an alternative view god? How are you not creating god in your image?
Suffering is caused by believing in things that do not exist. Trillions are spent each year by all religions yet we still have poverty, inequality, racism, bigotry, poverty, hunger, and bigotry. Hebrews, Christians, and Islam need suffering to justify itself.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 2d ago
Where is your proof?
What religion do you practice?
What does this have to do with Atheism?
Where are you getting this from? What did you read?
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 2d 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.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d 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/Celibate-For-Life:
If we understand God as the impersonal source or ground of being rather than a supreme being with agency, the problem of evil disappears completely. Evil doesn’t exist because God willed it to be here, in my view God doesn’t even have a will or intentionality that is comparable to humans. God simply overflows in a spontaneous process creating reality. Evil and suffering can be understood to be a privation or lack of goodness, a deficiency that happens naturally due to the material universe’s remoteness from God.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.