Thank you. This is a good answer

If God is perfect, why would his creation be imperfect?

1. God is perfect so he can make things imperfect

2. God wants us to be imperfect (the theodicy I presented)

Put these two together and you can see why it is a problem. I’m a sort of deist/atheist but the logical problem of evil is one I believe we should reject. It’s been asked since the ancient Mesopotamians. Too many theodicies have been created for this argument to hold any weight. Instead we should seek metaphysical and epistemological methods of disproving theism.

Agreed. I guess the good thing about online forums is that trolls do not do as much harm. Frustrating. „ It is a massive uneaten book of personalities“ what a lovely way to put it :)

... what? Why?

I can imagine. As you say, it isn’t a big issue, but frustrating. There will always be trolls

:) Fairly similar myself

My point is that there does not need to be a god of any form. That isn’t always an argument against, but regardless, if we can prove that we don’t need a god, then it is definitely a step in the right direction :)

Don’t worry, I have just been asked to prove my atheism, that is all :)

Religious theism is just absurd, so I think I will talk more about philosophical theism, and reasons I reject such claims.

The first cause is more or less the biggest argument for theism. As well as this, the leibnizian cosmological argument is generally their need for a necessary being. However, what if we suggest that the universe was necessary? The instant reaction is to say: But we know it began to exist!
This does not mean that it is not necessary. We can define the universe as something, and although I am cautious that science does change from time to time, it’s not necessarily impossible that something can come from nothing.
If something can come from nothing, it was always possible when there was nothing, for something to happen. Given that, outside the universe (theoretically there is no outside but I imagine you understand what I mean) there was all the time (even though it had no time, there is in a theoretical sense possibility to happen) so it had to happen.

1. Something can come from nothing (not completely proven, but nearly there)

2. In the nothing, it was always possible for something to appear

3. Something would always eventually happen (at the same time)

I am having difficulty expressing why I believe the third premise to be true. I have other arguments for atheism, but I am not going to waste my time proving I am an atheist like it’s the Middle Ages trying to work out if I am a witch.

No. Just because an atheist is saying something that might seem pro–theism, it does not mean I am a theist. I thought we were all about leaving dogma, and instead in reach of questioning god and other religious claims.

I am getting the feeling that you belong only to a small community of teenage rock music, satanist (in an atheistic sense, not the worshiping devil sense). Many atheists are lovers of classical music, like myself. Look at my pseudonym.

There is obviously nothing I can do to convince you that I am atheist. Just because an atheist has asked a question that might seem to go against atheism, it doesn’t mean you should just reject it. I thought we were all past dogma.

Even though I reject religion, I do not agree with you on this one. The most common answer that theists often respond with is free will. Of course this leaves the question: does free will exist? I would argue that free will does exist, but that is not what I will be arguing.

Irenaeus stated that God made humans imperfect and is therefore partly responsible for the existence of evil. To make humans perfect would take away their freedom to live in accordance with God’s will. By creating imperfect humans, individuals are given the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into children of God. Irenaeus stated that eventually good will overcome evil and suffering.

Alvin Plantinga argued something similar, but I won’t go into specifics.

I feel like there are many theodicies concerning the evil in humans, but let’s assume that you want to know about earthquakes, tsunamis, predators, etc.
The problem with needing a theodicy for this, is that it is not moral evil. Is it immoral for a lightning bolt to strike a tree? Obviously not.
We might think that tsunamis are bad but does that make them evil?
The following question would be Why doesn’t God stop them happening? My best answer is that we only see them as bad because they go against what we want. However, most religions already have rules that go against what humans want (sex before marriage, lying, temptation, etc.) so it’s not really a problem.

I am not a religious person, but I do not believe that the logical problem of evil is actually a good argument against theism. Hope this helps! :)

thank you, this was an informative response :)

lol, it’s a thought experiment

My point is that we need to be designed by something that has all truth for our logic to be correct. The word ‘God’ can imply other things. The reasons it cannot be aliens is because we would have to know they are all truthful too, but then they would need something all truthful. We cannot have infinite regression, so it’s more logical to say that we were designed by a all truthful [thing?].
Sorry if I have made a mistake or misinterpreted your comment.

I was just trying to answer the first thing you were saying, is that bad? :meh:

Thank you for your comment. I, an atheist, am aware that we do not have a single set of views, however my mere point was that the person who makes the claim that I was mentioning, is wrong. That’s all :)

I am grateful for this reply. This Enformationism is rather interesting and I will attempt to think about it more.

There’s not much I can do to convince you that I am not a Christian apologist, but you’ll have to take my word on it that I am not. In any case, what I presented above does not point to Christianity in the slightest, let alone ‘God’.

Thank you for the steel man, however the very last thing you say, I disagree with. I do not think we have to be so quick as to say ‘God’ but I guess it can depend on how you define said ‘God’. What I suggested is that the best (or most rational) conclusion is that we are designed by an all truthful [thing?]. This means that this creator designed evolution, and so in some way shape or form involves in some sort of divine intervention.
I am beginning to think that I took too far a assumption based off of some other responses I have received. If we need our logic to be true, is there another explanation you can think of?

You can’t conclude anything from a paradox

This is quite literally my entire point. The person who says that we are just a bunch of chemicals is making a claim that leads to a paradox.
Of course you can’t ‘conclude’ anything, but that’s a misleading way to think about it.
In this situation, to make the claim ‘we are just a bunch of chemicals’ leads to a paradox, which we logically wish to avoid. In this case, as the paradox follows modal logic, we just have to invalidate the first claim. So I would say that the only way to avoid the paradox is to say that we are not just a bunch of chemicals.

However the ‘paradox’ I presented brings up a key issue: we need to assume that we are right for our logic to be true.
We will always have to grapple with this, or else that too will lead to a paradox, so we need to avoid it too. I suggested that the best way to avoid it is to just say that we are intelligently designed by (or with) a all truthful [thing?]. However, I might be assuming something, so please suggest what an alternative answer could be.

yup, my grammar is bad :)

Good point. If morality is subjective, why should you not call me ugly? I don’t know what country you live in, but I can safely assume that it’s not against the law. Why not call me ugly?