From what I’ve read, it seems like your conclusion is that Christianity calls Christians to judge others. To start, I think Christians definitely have a bad reputation for passing judgments where they have no right to. I think it is very common to perceive Christians as judgmental and ignorant. However, I do not think that Christianity itself calls people to judge others at all. I think it is pretty clear in the Bible that we are supposed to love each other unconditionally and that God is the only Judge. I think it is then the people who call themselves Christians and proceed to judge others as if they are God that cause this problem. In other words, people can say that they are Christians and act contrary to what Christianity actually calls for.
I also would like to discuss what you said about morality having to do with cause and effect. If I am interpreting you correctly, I think you are saying that we can know what the bad action was, but we can’t know what caused it. In other words we don’t always know what leads people to make poor decisions or what their intentions are. I agree with that and I do believe that there are cases where intentions can be important in determining judgments. I think a distinct difference between human beings and God is that we lack impartiality. It is nearly impossible for us to be impartial to certain people. That being said I have a small argument that might coincide with what you are trying to convey:
If something cannot be impartial, then it should not judge others.
Human beings cannot be impartial.
Therefore, human beings should not judge others.
Not sure if you would agree at all, but I personally think this is a major reason that human beings should not judge others.

From what I’ve read, it seems that your conclusion is that humans are not inherently good. I don’t necessarily disagree with that conclusion, however I believe that there is a counterexample to the first premise that you laid out in your argument above. Could it not be the case that evil could still exist even if humans were inherently good? This is a bit of a dark example, but consider a grizzly bear eating an innocent child while that child is playing outside. I would consider that to be evidence of evil that is not from humans and I think evil still exists in this world outside of just plain human control. There are also natural evils like hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires that would not be accounted for by this argument either. Basically, my point is that even if humans were inherently good, evil would still exist (which negates the consequent of premise 1). Therefore, I believe premise 1 of the argument is false. I think you could still say that humans definitely increase evil in the world because they aren’t inherently good, but I don’t think you can say that they are the only root of evil.
Also, regarding your Adam and Eve reference, I think it is important to remember that Eve was tempted by Satan and coerced into eating the apple. Not to say that she didn’t do anything wrong, but I think it is important to note that Eve’s free will was already being tampered with because Satan was coercing her into believing and doing something. Also, because Satan existed, evil was already present prior to Eve’s sin anyway which goes back to what I said previously about evil being present regardless of whether humans are inherently good or not. This doesn’t necessarily take away from the truth of anything, but I think it is an important detail that people often disregard.

I personally do not find the free will defense satisfying in any case of the problem of evil, however I recognize that is not the purpose of this post. From what I’ve read, it seems like your conclusion is that God permits natural evil because he is impartial to all of His creations. Your argument seems to go like this:
If God loves all of His creation equally, then natural evil is just the result of impartiality.
God loves all of His creation equally.
So, natural evil is just the result of impartiality.
I agree that if there were a god that loved all of his creation equally, then natural evil is just the result of impartiality. But if we are talking about the Christian God (which I believe we are), then I do not think this argument can stand. I think it is prevalent that the Christian God favors humankind over the rest of his creation, therefore the Christian God does not love all of His creation equally (denial of premise 2). First, God created man in His own image. To make something in one’s own image seems to reveal a great deal of pride or honor for whatever is created. In other words, if God likes the birds just as much as He likes us, why did He not make the birds in His image? Second, in Genesis, God explicitly says that man has dominion over animals. This can be debated and interpreted in many ways, but it certainly does not say that man is equal among animals. Third, if God cared equally about each of His creations, He would have made a more level playing field. Even among just the fish in the sea, there are creatures that have a greater ability to survive than others. So, if God loves us all equally, why would He make mankind so much more advanced and powerful that all other creatures?

From what I have read it looks like your conclusion is that God intentionally put evil in the world to help us develop some sense of ultimate goodness. Because of this you think the logical problem of evil is not in fact a problem at all for Christianity. First, I think it directly contradicts the Christian faith to claim that God intentionally put evil into the world. From what I understand, according to the Bible, Satan is the root of all evil, not God. If that is the case, then claiming that God placed evil in the world intentionally creates just as big of a problem for the Christian faith as the logical problem of evil does since it would directly contradict the book in which the Christian faith is based on. Second, it seems a bit silly to think that a being wouldn’t favor a behavior He created and that He has the power to destroy. Certainly any sane being who didn’t like something would just destroy it if they had the power to and they certainly wouldn't have created it to begin with if they knew they would hate it (which the Christian god would since He is omnipotent). Furthermore, if a being who is supposedly good in every way were to exist, how could that being create evil? It seems to contradict the very nature of the Christian God to be able to create something that is His complete opposite. Last, even if God intentionally put evil into the world for us to learn, wouldn’t He have told us that? There’s an entire book about how we are supposed to live our lives and the mistakes other humans have made along the way. I think God would have included this very important piece of information in the Bible rather than blaming it on Satan?

From what I’ve read, you are trying to conclude that God is a simpleton. I think your argument goes like this:
Trial and error is a technique used by simpletons.
Trial and error is involved in evolution.
If God created human beings, then God created evolution.
If God created human beings, then God used trial and error.
So, If God created human beings, then God is a simpleton.
Regarding premises 3 and 4, I don’t see how God could have created evolution, but not the process by which evolution exists. What I mean when I say this is that is it not possible for God to have created trial and error when he created human beings? If that’s the case, then couldn’t God have just created evolutionary human beings just for kicks and giggles? Could He not have just created us as some sort of entertainment to watch how we develop if he gives us the tools to develop on our own like trial and error? I don’t see how the existence of evolution entails that God is a simpleton because there is no evidence provided in this argument that God had no other option or couldn’t create us as fully developed human beings had He wanted to. Furthermore, even if God had to use trial and error through evolution to create us, could that really classify Him as a simpleton? There is an entire universe of unknown things and we have only scratched the surface of one small planet in the universe. It seems that if God were a simpleton, then we would be even lower than simpletons, and if that were the case I don’t think any of us would even be alive at this point. I think the best conclusion you could draw from this sort of reasoning is that God might not be omniscient.

Based on what I have read, it seems like you are trying to explain how the Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) is inconsistent with the Christian god (although I could be incorrect about which god you are referring to above). I have a few concerns about your argument. First, regarding premise 1, I don’t believe the FTA claims that the universe would not exist if “x” was not present. I believe that it claims that we would not exist if “x” was not present. Second, regarding premise 2, how does the possibility of our universe not existing lead to a failure on God’s part? Couldn’t it just be that God decided not to create this universe and that is why it could have not existed? For example, if a woman and man didn’t have sex and therefore didn’t get pregnant with a child, does that mean they failed to have a child? Surely not, it simply means they didn’t try to. Something not existing doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it isn’t possible for that thing to exist nor does it entail that it was supposed to exist. Third, regarding premises 2 and 3, I don’t see how God has a purpose if we are referring to the Christian god. The Christian god simply is, there is no reason to His existence nor does He have any sort of goals to reach, so I don’t understand where your idea of purpose for an omnipotent being is coming from. Last, regarding premises 2 and 3 (again), even if (though I do not believe it to be the case) the Christian god had a “purpose,” why would it be to create this universe? Or even to create life in general? It doesn’t seem like creating such insignificant and powerless beings and places would have anything to do with an all-powerful being’s purpose.

I'm a Philosophy student so bear with me because I am new at this! From what I have read, it looks like the main conclusion of your argument is that we should not desire for God to exist. However, at the end of your post you also conclude that we should reject God’s existence entirely. Although I think the argument you laid out has the potential to support the former conclusion (barring any objections), I do not think that it can support the latter conclusion whatsoever. The actual existence of God is an entirely different topic than the desire for God to exist, I do not think it follows that if we do not want God to exist that he does not in fact exist. The same way that if we don’t want oxygen to exist, it does not mean that oxygen cannot or does not exist. I think you would need more support for the second conclusion if you were trying to give people a reason to reject God’s existence.

Disregarding your second conclusion, I do not see how the anti-theist response to the objection you laid out for premise four does away with the objection itself. I find it hard to believe that a world full of evils and horrors “dishonors” God. Satan is what is responsible for the evils and horrors, so at most it would be Satan that dishonors God, not the world. Furthermore, God made imperfect beings that he knew were “beneath” him. So, if God knew he was making imperfect humans, then how could he be dishonored by their actions or the world? And, even if God was dishonored by his creation, wouldn’t Jesus’s sacrifice have made up for that? Would it not have balanced out the scales the same way it did for our sins? This sort of “problem of evil” response, however, could be used in some sort of argument that there is not a perfect, all-knowing God and could aid you in supporting the second conclusion you mentioned in your post. Thanks for your time!

Hi there, I am a Philosophy student so bear with me because I am a bit new at this!
From what I’ve read, it looks like the overall conclusion of your argument in this post is that Christianity is a Satanic religion. First, I would like to address the second paragraph where you seem to conclude that the Christian God is lazy. It seems that the only example of striving you gave is “striving to defeat temptation.” So, if something is striving, then that thing is overcoming a temptation. However, I don’t see how this definition of striving could apply to the Christian God. The Christian God does not face temptation as far as I know. It seems as though the definition of striving you have provided would only apply to imperfect beings who are capable of facing temptations, not to immortal, perfect beings as portrayed in the Christian Bible. Furthermore, I am unfamiliar with the writing you referenced from Nietzsche, but it seems to me like they/you are using “will” and “striving” synonymously. I have no basis to argue against that, however it seems that you add “action” into the mix as being synonymous with those two words as well at the end of the paragraph. I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action, so even if you respond to say that your argument about overcoming temptation applies to the Christian God, it does not follow that the Christian God is “lazy” since striving is certainly no the only action that omits laziness
Secondly, I would like to address your conclusion that Catholics have a cannibalistic nature. From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being. Even if a Catholic were to genuinely think they were eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, they aren’t actually eating another human being, so they aren’t being cannibalistic. It’s similar to someone stabbing a pillow while thinking it is a person, they aren’t committing murder, they just are under some sort of hallucination that they are. I disagree that the figurative nature of communion doesn’t matter, it is the entire point in my opinion. It is meant to be a symbol of Jesus’s sacrifice, etc. Jesus did say to do this in memory of him, but he didn’t say eat human flesh and be cannibals. So, in my opinion, this portion of your argument is false.
Third, regarding Christianity being pro-murder, I think this is too strong of a claim to make based on your provided evidence. One reason I believe this is because the two examples you gave were from the Old Testament of the Bible, not the New Testament where Christ actually becomes part of the picture, so at most your examples only provide evidence for Judaism being pro-murder. Now obviously Christians study the Old Testament and most believe in the Ten Commandments outlined in there, however the biggest part of Christianity is Christ himself. Could it not be the case that the God of the Old Testament changed once his son was born or once his son was sacrificed, i.e. changed into a God that no longer commanded murder or genocide? If that’s the case then since Christianity itself did not exist until that point in time and (from what I understand) the Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder.
Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
Thanks for your time!