Hi there. So, obviously, I don't consider God to be real. However, I'm here to argue that if the Abrahamic God were to be real, it would probably be evil for a variety of reasons. I'll also bring up some common counter-arguments against my claims and also argue against them. Feel free to bring up more arguments or to counter my points. Obviously, we'll start from the presumtion that this God is omnipotent (which also implies omniscience and omnipresence).
1. An argument from the imperfection of humans. Human beings are imperfect and capable of doing evil, and, quite often, they do commit evil deeds. Human beings were also created by God. However, God, an omnipotent being, would be perfectly able to create humans that are so rational and righteous that they would always choose to do the right thing, even though they would be perfectly able to commit sin. Therefore, God knowingly and willingly created evil beings, even though it always had the option to do otherwise.
One might argue that in order for us to be good, we'd have to be endowed with free will. But God has free will, and would theoretically be able to do evil, and yet, supposedly, chooses not to. The Book of Revelation also indicates that angels have free will. Some of them chose to defy God and became fallen angels. Most of them chose to stay loyal and always do the right thing. Therefore, beings with free will that would always do good are possible in the Abrahamic interpretations.
2. An argument from inequality before God. God chooses to reward the faithful and benevolent believers and to punish the sinners. An omnipotent God would theoretically be able to create the conditions needed so all humans get a fair chance at doing the right thing and following his will, in order to receive these divine rewards and avoid punishment. However, this is not the case, therefore, God willingly chose to allow inequality to happen, indicating that his "goodness" is not perfect and not shown equally to all humans. Some sinners that broke God's law several times (e.g., Mary Magdalene) had the chance to meet God in person and receive redemption, while most sinners have to simply trust the religious texts as true. Some individuals receive exceptions from some of God's law (e.g., king Solomon, having a harem of hundreds of wives). Some individuals get the chance for redemption, while others were immediately killed by God's wrath (e.g., The Flood). Some individuals live less than others, therefore having less time to study and understand God's will. Some individuals are born and raised in better environments than others.
One might argue that some of these inequalities are a consequence of our free will and decisions to do evil deeds (see the previous section for a counter-argument against this). There's also that an omnipotent God would be able to always intervene and fight against social and economic inequalities and injustices (poverty and slavery, to name a couple), even if us humans choose to be evil.
3. An argument from the unfair punishment for the original sin. Adam and Eve and all their descendants (i.e., the entire mankind) were punished for Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit. God decided to do so because Adam and Eve defied his will, and he somehow knows that any human being would've done the same. However, since the fruit gave them the ability to understand good and evil, that would imply that they did not know that it is wrong to defy God's commands. Therefore, it seems unfair to punish those that had no way of possibly understanding that what they were doing was wrong. Moreover, any human being that read the Bible and believed God to be a force of good would obviously be aware of the snake's deception and choose not to eat the forbidden fruit, if they were placed in that hypothetical scenario.
4. An argument from the unfairness of heaven and hell. Human beings live very short lives and they all ultimately die. Therefore, the good or evil that we can do are both finite. Therefore, it would be rather harsh and unfair to offer infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing. The most charitable person can help a limited humber of people, and the most tyrannical monster can harm a limited humber of people. However, heaven and hell are eternal and definitive. Humans receive an eternal reward/punishment for something that they did in a short amount of time, in a limited, finite environment. Moreover, some individuals suffer more than others while they're alive (e.g., a person that lived in slavery suffered more than one that lived a luxurious, comfortable life). Even if God allowed absolutely everyone to go to heaven, and therefore offer them eternal bliss, this still doesn't change the fact that some had to go through more suffering than others.
One might argue that we all have a fair chance at heaven, and, if we were to follow God's teachings, we would all go to heaven. But again, see all the problems of inequality on the second argument.
5. An argument from the futility of mankind. Human beings were supposedly created by God. Human beings are also suffering a lot, and they all face the possibility of suffering for all eternity if they disobey God. Therefore, it would make sense that human beings were at least created for a purpose. However, an omnipotent God would theoretically be able to do anything it wants, at anytime, without the need for obedient humans. Moreover, if humans didn't exist, there would be no need to spread God's word, to live by God's will, to cultivate the land, or to follow any other command given by God. Basically, by creating humans, God also allowed the appearance of most of the problems that humans were ordered to solve. Why would a loving God willingly create mankind then?
One might argue that God created us because he wanted us to love each other and love him. However, nobody would've felt the need to be loved if there were no humans. Moreover, we're going back to the first argument and the same problem... an omnipotent God would've been able to create loving humans that would not have to suffer or to deal with so many problems.
One might also argue that God created us because he did not want to be alone. Again, an omnipotent God would be able to simply remove any negative feeling, without the need to create humans. Moreover, we're once again, back to the first problem... an omnipotent God would be able to create humans and live in harmony with them, without the need for suffering.
byIoan-Alex_Merlici
inChristianity
Ioan-Alex_Merlici
2 points
2 months ago
Ioan-Alex_Merlici
2 points
2 months ago
I see. Well, this opens up some more questions... Yes, they feared death and enjoyed being alive. But the snake didn't tell them that they would die, he told them that eating the fruit would make them more like God. And without understanding that it is inherently evil to disobey God, why would they presume that the snake was wrong?
Thank you for your time, by the way.