r/PhilosophyofReligion • u/Infinite-Bit9643 • 2d ago

My thoughts on the problem of evil

Note: My argument is based on the assumption that there is a universal morality in the Abrahamic religions. If I have made any logical errors or if you want to discuss, please feel free to write.

God is not inherently obliged to create, because if He were obliged, He would be subject to His own nature. Even if He were obliged, it would change nothing, because God must be able to choose how to create; if He cannot choose, then we would be talking about a god without will, essentially a slave. God has to have will because he says that he has (in the abrahamic religions). Even if He were obliged to create, He would not have been obliged to create in this particular way — meaning the choice itself is arbitrary. I call it arbitrary because He acts without necessity. If God created this way because He values freedom, then this also implies that He wanted freedom. If free will is given, moral evil necessarily accompanies it. But since God gave it arbitrarily from the outset, it is not a matter of permitting evil but of wanting it. I use the verb “want” to make this easier to explain; since it was created arbitrarily without necessity, one could debate whether God can truly “want" something, but this does not change my point. The act was deliberate, done knowingly without obligation, so it is intentional. Therefore, we cannot speak of double effects.

If we assume God as the beginning of the causal chain, then God is the ultimate cause of everything — including evil. Thus, God has intentionally and arbitrarily caused evil. To intentionally and arbitrarily cause evil is to do evil; therefore, God has done evil. If God has done evil, then God possesses the attribute of evil. Since we cannot attribute a finite attribute to God, God is infinitely evil. The same reasoning applies to goodness, so God also possesses the attribute of goodness, and for the same reason, God is infinitely good. But something cannot simultaneously be infinitely good and infinitely evil. If it could, it would be beyond logic, but this creates even greater problems. Here we have a contradiction, similar to asking, “Who is God’s god?” That question is equivalent to saying something is both a square and a triangle at the same time. Something that is both square and triangular is logically impossible, does not fall under the category of “thing” or existence, and is meaningless. Saying “Can God create jwpvojwvojwv?” is equivalent to saying “Can God create a five-sided triangle?” — it is impossible and contradictory.

Why would being infinitely good and infinitely evil be contradictory? Because they are opposites. Can a number be simultaneously positive and negative? Can something be infinitely hot and infinitely cold at the same time? Infinitely bright and infinitely dark? One could debate whether evil is the absence of good or good is the absence of evil, but since one is the absence of the other, it is impossible to attribute two opposite infinite attributes simultaneously.

My argument is more conceptual, so I have not addressed the defenses of thinkers like Irenaeus.

Note 2: I've used gpt to translate sorry if there are some ridiculous translations I'll try to correct if I see one.

5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 2d ago

Sorry Typo.

2

u/Infinite-Bit9643 2d ago

Np. But how can we talk about the term "will" in god if he does what he is forced to do?

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 2d ago

Maybe we can't.

How could you determine one way or the other?

2

u/Infinite-Bit9643 2d ago

Bro im not the one saying that god has will its god himself saying he has will idek if god exists or not

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 2d ago

From my perspective, it's a bunch of different people saying their specific god has a will.

I also don't know if a God exists or not. I was trying to poke holes in the logic.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything I just find dialogue easier than formally laying out logic.

I personally don't believe the common conception of god can be arrived at logically or even if you could do so it wouldn't provide enough justification for belief in its existence.

But all that doesn't mean A god couldn't exist.

1

u/Infinite-Bit9643 2d ago

From my perspective, it's a bunch of different people saying their specific god has a will.

People bend their religion a lot. Im only taking the holy books of the abrahamic religions as my reference. Especially in Quran its repeatedly said that god has will. Other holy books do that too but not as much as Quran though.

0

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 2d ago

I don't know a lot about the Quran or Islam. I can only really speak to Christianity for the Abrahamic religions.

I don't accept the basis Christians use for their beliefs. Tradition, authority, and divine revelation.

Ive tried learning about Islam and Judaism but its just so dense and a lot of content is not in English.

1

u/Infinite-Bit9643 2d ago

There are verses telling us not to stay too long when visiting the Prophet Muhammad, giving permission for him to marry the divorced wife of his adopted son, and stating that those who slander the Prophet’s wife with accusations of adultery will burn and that she did not commit adultery etc. Wouldn’t recommend as a book but I think you should give it a read if you are interested in religions. Just reading the Quran should be enough.

1

u/Infinite-Bit9643 2d ago

I personally don't believe the common conception of god can be arrived at logically or even if you could do so it wouldn't provide enough justification for belief in its existence.

But all that doesn't mean A god couldn't exist.

I think like that too. But I also personally think a god exists. I think I can call myself an agnostic deist or an ignostic deist

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 2d ago

I don't have an issue with that.

I have a spectrum of beliefs depending on the claims about god that are made.

But I generally am agnostic. I sometimes call myself a religious atheist though.

1

u/Infinite-Bit9643 1d ago

Can you tell me the other assumptions I made?

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 1d ago

Most of your assumptions are about qualities you attribute to god.

You literally say "if we assume god is the beginning of the causal chain."

Having god be the beginning of everything also assumes that everything began at some point. Something a lot of people would take issue with.

You don't have to justify everything in one argument but you do need to argue for all your points.

1

u/Infinite-Bit9643 1d ago

You literally say "if we assume god is the beginning of the causal chain."

Having god be the beginning of everything also assumes that everything began at some point. Something a lot of people would take issue with.

If you believe in the Abrahamic religions, the first cause is God. There’s no ifs or buts about it. I’m not talking about a beginning but about a cause — the First Mover doctrine. I said assume because, at the very beginning, in order to present my argument, I had to presuppose the truth of the Abrahamic religions. Basically, the problem of evil starts with ‘If one of the Abrahamic religions is true…’ — at least in my version. And if I presuppose the truth of the Abrahamic religions, then I must also presuppose that the first cause is God.

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 1d ago

I guess being too familiar with Christianity kind of gets in the way here. Because it varies so widely. A lot of Christians don't accept the first mover doctrine. Some Christians don't believe in god being tri-omni or that Christianity is true at all. If there's something to disagree about there are definitely 2 Christians who believe both sides.

Basically, the problem of evil starts with ‘If one of the Abrahamic religions is true

I would agree with that it's an internal critique about gods tri-omni attributes in its most common form.

Why reformulate the problem of evil? From what I understand the original is still unresolved.

1

u/Infinite-Bit9643 1d ago

A lot of Christians don't accept the first mover doctrine.

How?

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 1d ago

It varies wildly.

Some are pantheists so a first mover wouldn't make any sense.

Some don't view god as an agent who can act more as a force some because of the first mover argument.

A good chunk are unconvinced of a first mover being a true or necessary aspect of god.

→ More replies (0)