Discussion To Atheist and Theist, do you think this is the best argument against the existence of god? (abrahamic religion theists specifically)

[uwushhdjwiio]

Im sorry to literate mfs i only made this with chatgpt, i dont have enough words in my vocabulary and im not very articulate, but i made this idea, chatgpt just helped me formulate it

---

The Formal Argument from Suffering in a Designed Moral System

Premises:

1. If God exists, He is traditionally defined as omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good).
2. An all-powerful God could create any possible world — including one without brutal suffering, without violating free will.
3. An all-knowing God would foresee the exact consequences of every possible world He could create.
4. An all-good God would prevent unnecessary or unjustified suffering, especially among innocents.
5. God allegedly designed our minds — including our moral intuitions and emotional responses — to see suffering as evil, and pleasure as good.
6. The actual world contains widespread, extreme, and unjustifiable suffering — both moral (caused by agents) and natural (caused by design).
7. Therefore, God intentionally created a system where:
   • He programmed us to feel suffering as evil,
   • He populated the system with it anyway,
   • And He expects us to trust Him based on a morality He himself designed — while violating it constantly.

---

Conclusion:

Therefore, the traditional concept of God is either:

• Logically incoherent (self-contradictory),
• Morally indefensible (cruel or manipulative),
• Or nonexistent.

---

Bonus Observation:

If believers claim "we can't understand God's plan", they cannot also claim "God is good."
Because "goodness" itself was designed into our brains — by the same God who now tells us not to trust it.

That collapses the entire moral framework of theism.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I absolutely agree with your arguments and conclusion. It's what makes me hope sincerely that there isn't a God. I simply can't square this world with a good God being responsible for it.

I know one counter argument is the existence of choice and free will. I think freedom is incredibly important in a 'good' world. However, I agree with you. Why even create the possibilty that an adult could feel sexually attracted to a child for instance? Just to see whether they can resist it? That's a huge risk with a possibly catastrophic outcome!

Plus, some creatures literally have no choice. Parasitical creatures have been designed so that, the only way they can survive is to feed off another- often maiming or killing the other. It's surely a special kind of evil that comes up with that. Forcing one creature to hurt, maim and kill another in order to survive.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Atheism and theism =/= gnosticism. There are many atheists and theists who acknowledge that there isn't actually any feasible way to know for sure if there is or isn't a God. It's just that they choose to believe in whatever despite this. Even though I identify as an atheist I also acknowledge the fact that a lack of evidence of there being a God doesn't in of itself mean that the atheistic position is all of a sudden correct. Failure to reject the null doesn't mean that the alternative isn't true. It could just be that there currently is just not enough evidence to conclude that the alternative is true. I don't believe in God, but logically I understand that I can't say that I know for sure whether they exist or not. It's just something that is not falsifiable.

I also don't get the point of using ChatGPT, especially when the arguments being used are very basic ones that you probably could have gotten from a quick Google search.

Also, if an all-knowing God would foresee the exact consequences of every world he creates, then couldn't it be argued that the reason why he made this world the way it is today is because this world (despite how things seem right now), was determined to be the one that would most likely end up with the best outcome?

My big issue here is that all of these arguments seem to revolve mostly around the moral character of God, rather than actually addressing whether or not God actually exists. The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah were all written by mankind. People are biased and oftentimes struggle to recount things with one hundred percent accuracy. The degree to which any of those texts are accurate representations of God could be argued to be questionable. Statements revolving around God being all-loving, all-good, all-knowing, etc, could be just exaggerations made as a result of bias in favour of our supposed creator. None of this AI slop is that good of an argument against the existence of God. It arguably comes off more as an argument against God being morally good.

 

[EternalShore]

Just as easily as you can create an argument using ChatGPT, you can create a counterargument using ChatGPT~ it's up to you whether you wish to believe your argument or the counterargument~ That kinda nullifies AI, since it doesn't actually get down to what the people in the conversation actually believe and address the reasons for their faith or lack of faith directly~

 

[ImnotCTB]

Whenever I hear a story about the bible, I get the impression that god is not good. Instead god is playing nice, the only good I can't deny is the existence of his apostles and Jesus, who in my opinion, are the ones that are truly good

 

[Carrot]

The best:
There are so many religions that contradict each other, at least one of them has to be wrong.

There is no proof that god exists, so one logically shouldn't be a theist.

There is no proof that god doesn't exist. So one logically shouldn't be an atheist.

I prefer agnoticism. Until proven, let's not speak confidentely about the existance or lack or a god. Belief can be different from facts.

 

[Akashaaa]

Im sorry to literate mfs i only made this with chatgpt, i dont have enough words in my vocabulary and im not very articulate, but i made this idea, chatgpt just helped me formulate it

---

The Formal Argument from Suffering in a Designed Moral System

Premises:

1. If God exists, He is traditionally defined as omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good).
2. An all-powerful God could create any possible world — including one without brutal suffering, without violating free will.
3. An all-knowing God would foresee the exact consequences of every possible world He could create.
4. An all-good God would prevent unnecessary or unjustified suffering, especially among innocents.
5. God allegedly designed our minds — including our moral intuitions and emotional responses — to see suffering as evil, and pleasure as good.
6. The actual world contains widespread, extreme, and unjustifiable suffering — both moral (caused by agents) and natural (caused by design).
7. Therefore, God intentionally created a systemwhere:
   • He programmed us to feel suffering as evil,
   • He populated the system with it anyway,
   • And He expects us to trust Him based on a morality He himself designed — while violating it constantly.

---

Conclusion:

---

Bonus Observation:



That collapses the entire moral framework of the

The theist can say that we don't really know what God's will is, but whatever it be, it is ontologically 'good'. Suffering, murder and depraved acts which maybe locally immoral is totally permissible and 'good' if he is the cause of it. The commandments he issued are only applicable in human-human relations.

Evil here is reduced to a relational property with no foundation of its own. From god's perspective, everything is moral as a perfect being is only capable of creating perfect universes, but this perfection requires his puppets (us) to play their roles.

He is the stage setter and the referee. He has divided us into two groups. One with his approval and sanction, and the other with his condemnation. His will (the game) is moral, but relationally he has a side he likes and has rigged the game to win.

I'm not a theist, only parroting their position.