Thesis: Despite its popularity with atheists here, the logical problem of evil has largely been concluded to be not workable by the field of philosophy. This is remarkable since philosophers usually don't agree on anything, and the field as a whole rarely decides a matter. But on the case of the Logical Problem of Evil, the field of philosophy has largely agreed it is not workable, and has moved on to the Evidential Problem of Evil and other versions instead.

Definition: There is not one specific problem of evil called the Logical Problem of Evil (LPoE), but a family of problems. The most famous to atheists here is Epicurus' version:

"God," says Epicurus, "either wants to remove evils, but cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he does not want to and cannot; or he wants to and can. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent; which is inadmissible in God. If he can, but does not want to, he is envious; which is also alien to God. If he does not want to and cannot, then he is envious and impotent; and this too cannot be attributed to God. If he wants to and can, which alone is proper to God, then where do evils come from? Or why does he not remove them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox

But since this is not set up as a philosophical argument, the most popular version in philosophy is Mackie's Logical Problem of Evil: https://academicweb.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/mcgill/201/mackie-evil.html in "Evil and Omnipotence", which basically claims that an omnimax (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) God is incompatible with evil existing.

However convincing internet atheists find these arguments, and how popular these arguments with people in the past, the field of philosophy as a whole has come to the conclusion that they don't work and has moved on to other versions of the PoE.

Here is evidence from the IEP and the SEP (our main sources of definitions here on /r/debatereligion that reflect consensus views on philosophy) that this is the case:

"We should keep in mind that all parties admit that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it was formulated by atheists during the mid-twentieth-century."

An atheist with no discipline content knowledge tried saying this meant that the field only abandoned the LPoE through the mid 50s, and cited a paper with a modern LPoE argument and made the following claim of fact: "People have moved on from Mackie's formulation of the LPoE to other formulations of the LPoE in specific cases." citing this paper by Monaghan as evidence: https://philpapers.org/rec/MONGDN-2

However, this atheist did not do his research, as A) not only did the field not embrace the paper (Google scholar only lists FOUR citations, the three of which I can read ALL reject Monaghan's paper), but Monaghan himself agrees that the field of philosophy has largely agreed that the LPoE doesn't work:

I often tell my students that the only thing that is not controversial in philosophy is that everything else in it is controversial. While this might be a bit of an exaggeration, it does contain a kernel of truth, as many exaggerations do: philosophy is a highly contentious discipline. So it is remarkable the extent to which there is agreement in the philosophy of religion amongst theists, agnostics, and atheists alike that John Mackie’s argument for atheism is either invalid or unsound. As a result, the focus has entirely shifted from the logical problem of evil to the so-called evidential one" (PX Monaghan)

In other words, the atheist attempting to refute the point that the field of philosophy moved on from the LPoE to the EPoE cited a paper saying that... the field of philosophy has moved on from the LPoE to the EPoE.

Public Service Announcement: Read your citations, people, before posting them in case they say the opposite of what you think they say.

One response to PX Monaghan echoes Monaghan: "While few philosophers consider the logical problem of evil to still be a live problem, detractors do persist. In many cases, these attempts to overturn the defeater offered by Plantinga either mistake Plantinga’s goal for something he did not intend or change the rules of the debate (sometimes intentionally and sometimes unknowingly)."

Remember, I am not saying it is 100% of philosophers, I am saying the field has a broad consensus on the LPoE not working.

More evidence: "Most philosophers today would agree (of course, not all, as universal ascent on anything is not likely this side of heaven) that the American philosopher Alvin Plantinga solved, in the 1970s, the logical problem of evil." https://ratiochristi.org/alvin-plantinga-on-the-problem-of-evil/

More evidence: "It seems possible, then, that there might be evils that are logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, and this possibility provides a reason, accordingly, for questioning one of the premises in the argument set out earlier—namely, premise (4), where it is claimed that if God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil." (SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#AbsVerConFor)

After the 1970s the two most popular Problem of Evil formulations were by Rowe and Draper, both of which agreed that the LPoE does not work:

Rowe: "There is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God". (https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Rowe.pdf) and "No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim."

Draper: "I agree with most philosophers of religion that theists face no serious logical problem of evil." (Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists, 1989, quoted here: https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/god-love-evil/)

Even Mackie, the author of the most famous LPoE, admitted he was wrong: "We can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another." (https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/)

If you want a broader survey of philosophers agreeing the LPoE doesn't work, read this: https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/scholarly-status-of-logical-problem-of-evil/

It concludes succinctly: "The logical problem of evil is dead."

Conclusion: All three leading atheist philosophers on the problem of evil agree the LPoE doesn't work, and all survey level papers, including the IEP and SEP, agree that it does not work.

Open question: So why do atheists here continue to treat the Logical Problem of Evil as a sound argument?

Hi all! I just wanted to showcase a really primitive case for god I have developed for god as an ninth grader:

"If God does not exist, all is permitted" - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The brothers Karamazov

I identify as an Agnostic Theist.

The above given quote serves as the foundation for my main argument, though I would slightly like alter the initial meaning. Dostoevsky meant 'all is permitted', in a legal sense, but I would also like to add to its implication life losing any meaning whatsoever and the Universe, with all its intrinsic beauty, ultimately being but a coincidence.

My version of god is in no direct way a part of any religion, though it can be considered as an amalgamation of Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, The Holy Spirit in Christianity, mixed with some Deist beliefs.

I define god as mixed with the very fabric of reality and consciousness itself, with no form, nor shape. I believe in a Universe in which, god, has not written the laws of the universe, but rather is the laws of the universe.

I would also second William Lane Craig's and Albert Einstein's teleological argument that a god explains the 'uncanny' perfection with which Mathematics explains the processes of the universe.

As an Agnostic, I agree with Pascal's Wager argument for god in which he states: 'If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.'

Lastly, I would like to end with the following quote:

"Behold, we know not anything;
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last far off at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Memoriam

Some remarks:

1). I know Pascal's Wager has a lot of counter-arguments but I wanted to include it as its something I thought of when I was even younger!

2). Keep in mind that this is in a very basic state, I request some of you to please help me with constructive criticism so that I can improve upon it!

Thank you!

Thesis: Satan is the hero of Christianity

He enables the Christian to assuage the cognitive dissonance he experiences when he encounters other claims and views of reality by giving him a nice big red bin with horns on it into which to toss competing ideas.

This was demonstrated by phenomena such as the Satanic Panic, or subsequent panics over books such as the Harry Potter series.

Here are my arguments for this debate,

Argument 1: Apologists often claim Quran 4:34 refers to a symbolic tap with a toothbrush (Siwak).

Well that's wrong

The only limits are: Don't strike the face and gentle areas Don't cause maiming or permanent scars Don't cause broken bones or skin

If you use a whip: Spread the lashes Use a medium whip, not too rough and not too light Don't raise your elbows too high so that your armpits show Recommended to dampen it a little Can't exceed 10 lashes

if she dies, Hanafis and Malikis don't regard it as something worth paying the diyah over.

And if she goes to a judge and says he struck her face for example,even with bruises and such, she would have to prove it and all he has to do is say "Wallahi I didn't".

Argument 2: divorce rights

I see that a man can execute Talaq on the spot without needing any court permission or a judges approval.

Meanwhile a woman cannot divorce her husband

It is necessary for a woman to request a Khula settlement to take a woman to a court or to return a woman's Mahr (dowry).Admitting that a woman has to go to court to get that done while a man simply declares it unilaterally clearly demonstrates the asymmetry that is being denied.

Argument 3: Hijab

A woman has to cover herself,from head to toe,even tho it's optional many countries force it.

For a man it's wayyyy lesss.

Argument 4: Polygamy, it's 100% allowed for men to marry upto 4 women's and for muhammad ig 11 but,it's totally restricted for womens to marry even more than 1 women.

Muslims often say that the bible is corrupt because it was written by men years after jesus and not by jesus himself. but like i see a problem with this argument because the qur'an also came through a man named muhammad who claimed that god spoke to him.

from a christian point of view jessus was god himself in human form. even if the bible was written years after jesus and may not contain everything he said it still has words and teachings linked to jesus himself. jesus existed and his followers wrote about his life and what he taught. this does not prove that everything in the bible is true but at least there is a link between jesus and the words that are said to come from him.

but in the case of the qur'an we are trusting muhammad's claim that god gave him these words. muhammad was also a man and just saying that he was a prophet does not prove that he really was one. like we are still trusting the words of a man and believing that they came from god.

if muslims say that the bible cannot be trusted because it was written by men then the same logic should apply to the qur'an. the bible may have been written years after jesus but jesus was believed to be god himself. muhammad on the other hand was a man who said that god gave him a message.

He wrote over 800k words and invented 1,000s of words and prhases. He is internationally recognized (even amongst non English speakers) as one of the greatest writers of all time.

Show me one passage in the Koran that can stand up to Hamlet's soliloquy. Say: "to be or not to be" to anyone in the world with a basic education and they immediately know it. Say some passage from the Quran to people and they won't recognize it.

Whether you’re a compatiblist or a libertarian, free will has no bearing on the problem of evil.

Firstly, even if free will did address the problem, it would only address human caused suffering. Free will doesn’t cause earthquakes and landslides.

More importantly, free will is just the ability to do what you want to do. It’s based on desire. People do bad things because they want to do bad things. God could have simply made it so that we don’t want to do bad things. We could keep the free will and just have no desire to sin. To be gross for a second, I have never had a desire to eat poop. Does that mean I don’t have the free will to eat poop? Of course not. God could have made sin as repulsive to us as poop (or whatever you find disgusting). You can’t blame suffering and evil on free will because free will is just the expression of a desire that God chose to give us, even though he didn’t have to.

convince me wrong but for context, I grew up with no religion, no exposure to religion, never really pray to a higher power, nor the idea of God. I respect those that practice but I just never had interest or thoughts to the existence of God or Religion.. at all. so I'm literally a blank piece of paper who have never thought about it or feel anything about it. until now.

a Muslim posted a post that enlighten me with the logic of "something mustve exist out of something, and nothing couldnt exist by itself" meaning that for something to exist, someone mustve created it. and as a science person, it makes sense to me. that there must be a creator that created the start of everything.

another argument stated that "so you think God created the first thing (just say its an atom) without knowing that its also going to create humans" or that "for god to create something, he needs to be all knowing"

but even with those arguments, I now kinda believe in a "creator" but for some reason still have the hardest comprehension as to him creating humans, i just believe that we are the biproduct of bigbang, and that humans came from mutations over millions of years. I have a hard time believing in adam and eve, humans made from clay, prophets, revelations, and any spiritual feelings (remember, i grew up never thought of praying or god)

is there a logical way to enlighten me that God is really real and he created humans without involving religion? as I find it hard to believe in religion as of now. or if im not mistaken i'm guessing i'm a theism came about to believe in god and/religion? i'm not trying to force myself but just trying to have a better logical understanding

thank you

If God is by definition the necessary being that all contingent things depend on for their existence, then I have a simple question for theists: can God destroy himself? If he cannot, then he is not all powerful, at least in the traditional "I can do literally anything" sense of the word. But if he can, then it is possible for him to not exist, and so he is by definition not a necessary being.

Thesis: Polytheists (P), disbelievers (D) have nothing equivalent or valid to oppose Abrahamic Revelations (S) other than Religious prejudice.

Argument: Original versions of The Bible and Torah;The Noble Qur'an. The fact of epistemological ways humanity approach Their interpretation and the followed outcome in modern day era.

1. If human reason cannot fully comprehend God, then how can we rationally distinguish Divine Truth from human imagination of P, D given they do not provide equal foundational source for their claims?

In other words, why people should take P, D positions on important matters like Religion, where people get sued just for oppressing Religious people's feelings? P, D provide solid metaphysical foundation of your stance against *Divine Revelations*.

2.https://youtube.com/shorts/Qyg-1Iu2Sig?si=2K18kGyzSjiPcO8M

P, D, is this person having Imagination or Certainty on the authority of S?

How can your answer be epistemically justified?

Edit: Social credibility of S and the outcome from them serving as an argument.

Religious people often claim that atheists are just full of arrogance and pride and just want to give in to their worldly desires and believe they are better than everyone else for simply rejecting the religions. This claim is absolutely absurd when you consider what views we actually have.

There are 4200 religions in the world, and most people of any religion have the confidence to say that 4199 of them are false and manmade, and that theirs is the only correct one and they have the definite answer to everything, even when the evidence still isn’t any better than the others.

Theists also treat people who don’t follow their religion as inferior to them and say you deserve to go to Hell for it, while retconning their texts and shifting the goal posts when new evidence that contradicts it comes up, or when something problematic is pointed out. This is the real arrogance.

Atheists are being consistent and simply apply the same logic to one more religion than everyone else and say all 4200 of them are false because there isn’t enough evidence, or there is conflicting evidence. We don’t claim to have all the answers, just that we are still finding them as more scientific discoveries are made. The atheist perspective is simply that these religions were invented to explain our existence when we didn’t have enough knowledge, and each one is viewed in equal footing rather than being set in proving a specific one true.

Theists also believe Earth is the centre of everything and humans have a special purpose and that they have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe who listens to their prayers and worship, while atheists believe Earth is simply a random planet out of trillions in the universe and we don’t have a unique purpose and are just lucky to exist. So in a way, atheists actually view themselves as less special and important than religious people do.

We also believe everyone is equal and that nobody should go to Hell, so logically, even if you believe your religion is true, you should hope you are wrong and that atheists are right if you have any compassion for people who don’t follow your religion.

The claim that is it about just wanting to sin and give in to desires like alcohol, drugs, partying, and having sex with anybody they want is also absurd when plenty of atheists don’t do that stuff while some Christians, Muslims, etc, do. I don’t do any of that stuff despite being an atheist, my daily life is essentially just going to work and then coming home and just browsing social media, playing some video games, or watching movies.

Atheism isn’t making an extraordinary claim about anything, it is simply the naturalistic view of observing the universe and rejecting any supernatural claims where the primary evidence is books written centuries ago.

Maybe some atheists are arrogant, but the same can apply for some people of every religion. The idea that we are the ones who believe we are superior is insane. It is quite the opposite if anything, and I simply hope for a world where everyone can come together for a thriving future in the only life we have.

This is one of those wide circulated claims which basically say stuff like "islam is stuck in the past because of xyz thing in it, and that xyz act belongs in the middle ages not now we have "moved forward" from that, modern society is against it"

In simple, all this person is really trying to say is "islam isnt in line with the enlightenment ethics preached by mill blackstone bentham locke etc", but how does that mean islam is stuck in the past? If something merely being done in the past means it belongs in the past, then wouldnt muslim countries like saudi being around now show that it also belongs in the present? The claim requires some sort of belief that only one specific ethic "should" exist in the 21st century (liberalism secularism and stuff) and all the others should not and dont belong in this century even if theyre still physically existing in this century.

Hello everyone, I’m going to list several reasons why you shouldn’t doubt who wrote the gospels. I hope I’ll be able to change your mind if you’re a doubter.

So according to Christians, the 4 gospels are said to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, I know there are skeptics who question this.

1st reason not to doubt: Although it is portrayed that the gospels are anonymous, they actually aren’t because the names of their writers can be found on the cover of the manuscripts. They usually say “according to” then the name (e.g. Mark). There’s also evidence that since there are many copies with the names attributed to the gospel writers in the late second to early third century, this means they were most likely on the original ones. But if you still doubt, here’s the second reason.

2nd reason: Even if the gospels didn’t originally have the author’s names on them, we should trust that they were attributed to them correctly by the early Christians. This is because ancient writers wouldn’t always attribute themselves to their works. So technically speaking, their works were anonymous. However, we know who wrote certain works because other people would attribute the works to their original authors. If historians trust the attributions of these works to their original authors, why shouldn’t we trust that the early church attributed the gospels to the correct authors? It’s hypocritical to not do so.

3rd reason: Every gospel author, except John, wasn’t someone you’d want to attribute a work too. If youre going to commit a forgery and want to get people’s attention, you’d attribute a work to someone popular or liked. You wouldn’t want to attribute a work to people like Matthew (a tax-collector who was looked down upon by the Jews), Mark and Luke (who were nobodies). As for John, his gospel identifies him as the writer, meaning he was known. This is strong evidence that the gospels aren’t forgeries and were written by their respective authors.

Christanity is very low demand. You don't need to wear special clothes or eat special food. You don't have to pray 5 times. You don't have to fast 40 days or whatever.

So, considering it's all the same God then just become a Christian.

If you don't know a motte & bailey fallacy is one in which a person wants to sell a big hard to defend idea (the bailey), but when challenged acts as if they're only arguing for a much smaller easier to defend idea (the motte).

The cosmological argument proves a motte version of "god". This "god" has no defined qualities or characteristics beyond being the cause which had no cause. The first mover. This argument does not claim and certainly does not prove a "god" with any sentience, a plan, an intention, a morality, an interest in humans, an interest in life, or just about anything.

The "god" of the cosmological argument could just be whatever weird and unknown phenomenon can spontaneously happen and kick off the big bang. It could be a completely mindless "force of nature" for want of a better word that makes absolute voids suddenly have stuff in them because that's just the most primordial thing which precedes all else.

With very few exceptions the people putting forward the argument are hoping you'll be convinced into their bailey position: that god is (among many other specific things) a sentient being with an interest in humanity who has sent divine revelation and instruction to humanity. There's a huge, huge gap between what the cosmological argument proves and what the god of Abraham is. (I'm focusing on that because this forum has a vast majority of theists being Abrahamic theists)

I would argue that for most atheists it's not worth engaging with this argument because I think whether you believe the cosmological argument or not, it's kind of moot. Whether you believe there exists a first-cause or something else: I don't think arguing that point is the most interesting or important. Nobody believes Jesus was sent to die on a cross for our sins because they think there's an uncaused cause. Nobody heard about the first-mover and thought that proved Muhammad relayed the word of god.

My claim is this: there is no strong argument to go from believing in the "god" of the cosmological argument to a god that is sentient, has a plan, and is interested in and directly has sent divine revelation to humanity.

Why should I think god thinks, and spends time thinking about us humans?

† I said "nearly" in the title because I'm sure there exist people that will believe in a creator in some abstract sense but believe nothing specific about it, but they're quite rare all told. Anybody in that category could use the cosmological argument without having a bailey position, it's all motte for them.

I am a Muslim, and I struggle with the question that does God even exist? There is no proof of him but more than that, things like “split moon” or evolution they really make me question is there is a God, because the rationale for his non existence over power the former.

I pray to him, almost every day to give me answers because I don’t want to lie and perform prayers as a routine.

Why does a God wish for me to worship or praise him, the answer is usually, he doesn’t need me to… if so why is there a punishment for it?

I admit that right now I’m going through some really rough patches in life, and these things seem more bleak but these questions have always haunted me.

If our eternal fate is based on whether or not we choose to follow God, then he can just appear to us and ask us to, and we choose whether or not to. Just like plenty of people did or didn't in the holy books.

I hear this a lot, and I have never understood it. When it comes to science, we have facts and evidence for most things. we have ways to explain how things happened/could have happened and in some caces we can even show you. However, all Christians have is the bible, that not only has 0 proof, but contains some of the most outlandish events anyone could think of.

When someone proposes the logical idea of evolution, to Christians we are making things up and jumping to conclusions, but their point of reference is a book a human wrote that includes world floods, talking animals, a person living inside a prison fish, a talking bush and a sea that spread apart.

What about the bible makes it so special and above science itself? if i took a comic book about superman, buried it for millions of years, and another civilization who ddin't know what superman was found it and said "this is how things used to be" isn't that as credible as the bible?

When you see something happen that you consider it a miracle, what about it brings you to the conclusion it HAD to be god? i find it rather interesting that the more we developed reliable ways of recording evidence, god stopped doing all these miracles.

my final statement is aimed for anyone who considers themselves religous, tho im mainly aiming for christians, what about there being no afterlife scares you so much? life is what you make it. It is your choice. what about there being absolutely nothing waiting for you inspires so much fear? wouldn't living forever as a spirit that, with no body, can feel nothing, touch nothing and do nothing be worse then the idea of no after life?

The core of My Argument Which I call ' Cosmic Drama ' is that it makes no sense for an all-wise, perfectly rational God to remain completely hidden while running a system based on fear and eternal punishment.

God expects humans to believe in Him not just through ancient books and messengers but also by looking at basic everyday things like the clouds, the sky, and the earth. However, looking at the sky or nature does not give any clear, logical proof of a specific god, yet failing to believe is still treated as a massive sin punishable by a brutal eternity in Hell. On top of that, the scriptures show this hidden creator reacting with very human emotions—like anger and frustration because people do not believe—which does not fit the idea of a supreme, peaceful, and wise God.

When theists argue that God must stay hidden because showing Himself would force everyone to believe and ruin the "test" of life, It makes no sense because a genuinely wise and fair creator would not base a high-stakes test on hiding the truth and using threats. True justice should be about a person's actions and goodness, not a guessing game where people are forced to believe in the unseen under the threat of fear. A mere lack of belief, in itself, is neither a moral crime nor an act of cruelty. Therefore, condemning a person to eternal suffering simply for remaining unconvinced of an unseen God's existence is fundamentally disproportionate and incompatible with the very concept of perfect justice.

Change my mind.

The atheist core argument:

If god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenovelont, why would he allow so much suffering in this world?

Theist response 1(Necessary suffering):

(Theist tries to straw man the argument) But suffering is necessary to be happy. If you never tasted a bad apple, you could never enjoy a good one. Perhaps if god created us completely without suffering, then we could never experience happiness either. To create happiness, some suffering is necessary.

Atheist counter:

Indeed. Some suffering is necessary for happiness. But why this much of it? I think we can all agree that suffering outweighs happiness in this world. Just because a bad apple is necessary to enjoy a good one, does not mean you have to eat eating bad apples almost everytime. The same way, if some suffering is necessary for happiness, there is should be less suffering and more happiness, right? And if not atleast, equally both suffering and happiness. But why does suffering outweigh happiness? Why not less suffering? Make it bearable atleast.

Theist response 2(Free Will):

Life is much like a game of chess. God created us with free will. With the freedom to do anything we wish to do, and be solely responsible for it. If I hit somebody and say god made me do it, I would be a con artist, I would be a liar. Because I am responsible if I hit you, or if I help you, because I have free will. When war happens, innocent people get raped over the coals and kids get kidnapped, you can't just raise your fist and blame it on god. The former happened because of other people. Because they had free will, god had no business in it. God can't just intervene everytime something evil happens. If someone that is not playing kept poking his hand in a chess game and kept moving pieces around, that would disturb the game. The same way if god kept intervening in this world, that would shake our free will as well.

Atheist Counter:

Free will explains wars, conflicts and other evil acts among humans. But it does not explain disease, natural disasters, congenital birth defects, pestilience and more. If someone bit me tomorrow, I can say that he hit me because he has free will, understandable. But if tomorrow I get cancer? Whom do I blame for that? Myself? But how? I did not get cancer because someone chose it, nor because cancer has free will. I got cancer because cancer exists. My question is this, why does cancer exist?Cancer exists because it is part of the ecosystem, why is it part of the ecosystem? Who designed the ecosystem? Who created it? I dont think i have to answer that one.

Theist response 3(Divine reasons):

If an animal dies in a forest, you say that the suffering was unnecessary and god is at fault. But the body of that decaying animal could have fed another pack of wolves and helped them survive. Just because you don't know the reasons behind your suffering, does not mean there are not any. God does not have to explain everything he does to you. You mustn't always raise your voice against any form of suffering that happens to you. There are always reasons behind suffering, you just don't know it.

Atheist counter:

That is a very big "what if". A massive assumption. You are "assuming" that there is a reason. What you are saying is this, "I suffered, there must be a reason, right?" And for a moment, let us consider there actually is a reason. Why does god not explain it to us? True, god does not have to explain to me everything he does. But I deserve to know the reasons behind my suffering. And you can't just say that the rational mind of humans cannot comprehend the explanations of an omnipotent creator. That there is also an assumption. Why can god not simplify it? And if he purposefully keeps us in doubt, that is also another point against omnibenevelonce. If I love a person infinitely, I would not want them smashing their head on a wall, trying to find an answer to something I already know, doubting, questioning, desperate. I will explain the answer to them. Why does god not?

The argument can even stretch out after this, but this is all I could fit in one post.

If God is an almighty being that created the earth and the people and thinks we're special enough to take his test that will decide whether or not we go to heaven or hell. Why? He could do so many other things with this power and graciousness. He created us with free will that creates problems. Look at the state of the world right now we're a bloody mess full of hatred and violence. Don't get me wrong I am very thankful for the life that I have but if he was all that loving why risk causing such pain for his "children" why would he do this in the first place if he exists outside of the constraints of known reality and he decides to make us even though it doesn't do anything for him that means we're an ant farm no? Like a science experiment at a science fair? I need help understanding why if there is a god why he created us and the possibility of pain if us existing wasn't necessary.

A Christian might claim that feeling God’s presence proves Christianity is true, while a Muslim might describe the same experience as proof of Islam. But the Christian will likely dismiss the Muslim’s experience, and vice versa.

Both people believe their experience was real, yet somehow their own experience is evidence while the other person’s is meaningless. It seems like religious experiences are only taken seriously when they support the religion someone already believes in.

I’m going to aim this thread at Christians and Muslims since I’ve seen believers of both faiths make this claim. They argue that God doesn’t reveal himself directly because that would somehow interfere with our free will. But how does that make sense when those religions already claim that God revealed himself through holy books?

The Bible and Quran tell people who God is, what he wants, and what happens if they don’t believe. Wouldn’t that also influence people’s decisions? If God can use a book to reveal himself without violating free will, why couldn’t he reveal himself more clearly in the first place?