it seems to be very likely that God actually intends to put evil in the world as an intermediary to strengthen people’s faith and ultimately align with goodness. — Isabel Hu

Although this may be true, who knows, I believe it's safer to argue that god did not actually intend to put evil into this world, but rather it was a product of many of the good things he brought into the world, i.e. free will. If God truly meant to put evil in the world, then he most definitely isn't all loving and all good. If you were to say that it was rather a product, as I stated previously, it opens the door to God still being good and evil still being present in the world.

To go into further depth on this, God may have viewed free will as a necessity. If there wasn't free will, then, once again, it would seem that God isn't all good and he would seem more like a puppeteer messing around with his puppets. Given that free will exists, we might as well be led to assume that it brings around more good than bad, because an all good God would never do the opposite, but also gives a place for evil things to happen without god impeding upon them. If God were to stop evil, then, in many cases, it would directly be interfering with the notion of free will.

This seems like a good place to tie in the soul-making theodicy as you mentioned in your last paragraph. These "evil" things, as many others have mentioned, could be described as genocide, murder, rape, etc., but not all evil takes place as an extreme. Many evils, like ice on the roads in winter, can be painful and yet most people, emphasis on most, learn to drive more carefully in general whether it's icy or not after going through an experience such as sliding through a red light. Nothing happened after sliding through the red light, but you definitely learned something beneficial. Many of the evils we face are not as extreme as the ones I mentioned before; rape, murder, etc., but I suppose it's easier to look at those and say "Yeah, there's definitely nothing good there and nothing good will every come out of that." Seems like an issue with perspective.

1. If human is inherently good, then evil won’t exist. — Isabel Hu

Free will permits mistakes, and mistakes have the possibility to create evil, but then again depends on the definition of evil you describe in your argument. I feel as though The Trolley Problem, an ethical and psychological thought experiment, has a lot of ground here. If unfamiliar with The Trolley Problem, follow the link here.

The Trolley Problem suggests a situation, which could be caused by many different mistakes, in which a person has to choose between two different options. For arguments sake we'll use a more basic setup. On track 1, the track you're currently on, there are two people. On track two, there is only one person. The person controlling the lever on the trolley to switch tracks is inherently good, but is forced to kill at least one person. Almost everyone put into this situation would switch tracks and only kill one person as it is the most moral thing to do. That person, being inherently good, would always choose to switch tracks.

If we define evil as being immoral, then we can see that the person switching tracks didn't commit an evil act, they simply made the most moral decision. If they were to not switch tracks, given an unlimited amount of time to choose, then the choice they made is immoral and would be considered evil in most cases. Being inherently good makes all the difference here.

The way I suggested The Trolley Problem is in one of its most basic forms, but The Trolley Problem can be used in an unlimited amount of scenarios, probably every scenario that you could think of. If this is true, then there is always a choice that is more morally good than any of the others. This permits free will to exist with mistakes while evil is still not present.

Hello Maureen,

From what I see, a majority of your argument lies in this quote:

the God of any religion only necessarily came to fruition or came to be recognized in conjunction with the onset of that religion. — Maureen

I'll just start by saying that this kind of idea that a certain God couldn't have existed before a religion was able to recognize it poses a lot of issues for an everyday theist. First of all, if what you say is true, then we can immediately forego attributing the beginning of the universe to a being much higher than ourselves. It's possible, but there are many different arguments that could be stated as an objection. No need to get into that here, but after reading through your post I can see two different arguments stand out. The first one, which I see coming from:

unless humans were aware of His presence before the onset of Christianity (which is impossible to determine, but again very unlikely), then no one among us can argue that He existed before then. — Maureen

This seems to have a sort of background argument as follows:

1. If something is to exist then there must be physical evidence to prove that it does exist.
2. There is no physical evidence that god exists.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist

But then you continue to make another argument for after a religion comes to fruition:

1. If something is to exist, then there must be physical evidence to prove that it does exist.
2. The bible, or any other religious book, exists.
3. Therefore, said God exists.

I don't see how both of these arguments could be true at the same time. If one is to use the bible as evidence for the existence of a God, then the stories about God in the bible must be true. If the stories in the bible are true, then God certainly did create the universe and life as we know it. Now this doesn't fit well with the first argument as we know God existed before religions came into fruition, and that denies the first argument if both arguments were to be true. The second argument seems to relate the bible directly to God as though God himself wrote it and was therefore evidence of his existence. We know God didn't write the bible and we know that the bible only includes stories that have God as a subject within them. The bible itself cannot prove the existence of God. Like you said, we could never know God existed unless there is undeniable evidence, most likely physical evidence directly tied to God, that he indeed does exist. This doesn't stop any one person from believing or having faith, though.

I’ll just start with a thought.. Maybe after looking at all the ways the world could be, God decided that the best possible world, for us, was one that contained some level of evil. A perfectly good world, which includes anything and everything you ascribe to being good, never teaches us what is right and wrong. There would be no personal development from negative aspects of the world, and only development from positive aspects. The saying “learn from your mistakes” might as well not exist. A perfectly evil world, which includes anything and everything you ascribe to being evil or bad, never teaches us anything about joyful emotions such as being happy or excited about people or things in our lives. If this is the case, then God is left with a decision that makes him either desirable, as you describe in your argument, undesirable, or somewhere in between.

This is where the concept of free will seems to grab my own attention.. If God truly made the world to be in between perfectly good and perfectly evil, then it seems as though he left us our own choice. We can choose to look at all the good in the world, and the fact that God made those “good” things makes him at least a little bit desirable. We can also choose to look at all the evil things in the world, and the fact that God made those “evil” things makes him at least a little bit undesirable. Our perspective on God being desirable or undesirable seems to be changing all the time. If I’m in a bad mood, assuming I’m a theist, then I’m going to be curious as to why God made these bad things and I’ll think less of him for it and vice versa. If God truly exists, it seems as though he’s taking a slight blow from our own opinions surrounding the evil in the world in order to make the world an overall better place for everyone.

So to sum up, my argument may have this form:
1, If positive nihilism is true, in face of everything, one should and will completely honors freewill and seeks things that are meaningful to him/her.
2, Eternity is part of the beliefs of positive nihilism.
3, Positive nihilists should and will seek things that are meaningful to them in eternity.
4, No perspective other than having faith with eternity can bring what a positive nihilist need.
5, Therefore, if one accepts positive nihilism, he/she might as well accept that there is a God. — xinye

I enjoyed the read and this idea is quite thought provoking. Although, I didn't follow the argument you made as well as I wish I could have. After a little bit of thought I feel as though this argument may get the point you're trying to make a little more understandable.

1. If positive nihilism is true and it includes the idea of eternity, then a positive nihilist should be a theist.
2. Positive nihilists seek only what is meaningful to them.
3. Theism gives the kind of optimism and meaning that positive nihilists seek.
4. Therefore, if one is a positive nihilist, they should also be a theist.

You bring in the sense of eternity, and, like you, I think this idea of eternity has a big impact on the argument being made. Theism, most of the time, revolves around what is inherently good and how performing or doing "good" deeds benefits each individual in the sense of eternity. Although "good" is not something a nihilist, in general, would agree with, the benefits that come along with a good deed are something that they would agree with. When searching for their own meaning and what has meaning to them I'm sure many positive nihilists have stumbled across the benefits of religion and have asked themselves whether it is truly worth it to delve into. As we know, religion brings about many different social benefits, monetary benefits, in specific cases, and the benefits of the afterlife as you mention. All of which spark interest in search of meaning for a positive nihilist.

Before posting, I was reading through once again and I realized this kind of argument falls apart in specific scenarios. If a positive nihilist doesn't find meaning in the search of religion or doesn't find meaning in the benefits of religion, then said positive nihilist would never become a theist. This goes against premise 3 as theism would not be giving a positive nihilist what they seek and the argument falls apart from there. In this case a new argument could be formed perhaps relating the fact that a positive nihilist does find meaning in the benefits of religion and therefore should be a theist.

If anyone is interested, the video here explains positive nihilism in an easy to understand way.

I don’t think one can see another’s spirit or mind because I do not think either exist. — NOS4A2

I suppose that answers the question, then, as I'm not the one to tell you what you should believe or not believe. I'm just simply stating there are other viewpoints to look at when considering the possibilities of the afterlife.

You say that you don't want to get into this debate, but why? Are you afraid of the negative or positive possibilities of exploration? — Jack Cummins

Lack of available time.

It would be a tough debate for the dualist, certainly. We can literally watch what happens to us after death, and can refer to the entire history of humanity to confirm it. I imagine one would have to invent a variety of invisible entities in order to convince himself. — NOS4A2

Once again, assuming dualism is true, what makes you believe you can see one's spirit or mind in the afterlife? Unless there is some sort of physical connection between the spirit and one's body you could never know what happens. You can't see my spirit/mind just as I can't see yours.

We do know what happens, actually, and we have the cadaver farms to prove it. — NOS4A2

If physicalism is true, then yes we have proof of what happens in the afterlife. Nothing. If dualism is true, however, you've only shown what happens to the body and not the spirit or the mind.

Seems like a debate I don't want to get into.

in general most beliefs seem to favor a paradise — TiredThinker

No one truly knows what is going to happen in the afterlife, assuming there is one, but if we don't know what's going to happen, then why not imagine the best possible scenario? Like you said, the majority of us are going to look for an unimaginable paradise. This kind of paradise is what I want for myself, but I'm not like other people, and other people aren't like me. I suppose this is where you could ask the question "Do others really deserve the same kind of paradise I do?"

Our views of the afterlife seem to be shaped by the sense of morality we develop while living on earth. Say you have person A and person B. Person A lived what you would describe as a "good" life. A life of helping others before helping themselves. Person A committed no crimes in their life. Person B on the other hand lived a life of violence and crime. A "bad" life if you will. Should person A and B go to the same place? A lot of people form an argument such as the following:

1. If you live a "good" life, whatever you attribute to being good, then you will surely go to an afterlife where "good" things and "good" people reside.
2. Person A lived a "good" life.
3. Therefore, Person A will go to an afterlife where "good" things and "good" people reside.
4. Person B lived a "bad" life.
5. Therefore, Person B will not go to an afterlife where "good" things and "good" people reside.

Obviously there are a lot of scenarios where this kind of argument won't work, which seems to be most places, because life is more complicated than "good" and "bad". This kind of argument just shows one of the ways we can begin to imagine what the afterlife would look like. There seems to be infinitely many ways the afterlife could be and no one will ever truly know the answer to the question "What is the afterlife?"

I appreciate your thought provoking forum post. If I were to directly answer your initial question "Is there anyway that every idea of life after death can be correct?" I suppose I would just have to say maybe and move on. It's an impossible question to answer unless we could actually travel there ourselves before death.

Being omnipotent indicates that, “For every x, (x is an ability/capability & is logically possible) -> s has x" — xinye

Why does being omnipotent have to be logically possible, assuming that the definition of logical pertains to something with sound reasoning? To my understanding, the kind of capabilities a being described as omnipotent may possess are far beyond what the definition of logical encompasses.

Think of it this way. If an omnipotent being decided to create a universe, does said being need a reason to do so? If there isn't a reason, then the creation of that universe would prove to be illogical. If there was a reason, then it would be logical. The creation of the universe being logical or illogical doesn't change anything. It really doesn't make sense to determine if something is logically possible or not, especially in this case.

On the argument that you propose here,

Is there such a thing as “a rock that God cannot lift”? (it either exists or it doesn't exist)
If there is no such rock, then -> god cannot create a rock that he cannot lift (because such rock does not exist) -> god is not omnipotent (because he cannot create the rock) — xinye

If you bring this argument to the basics, isn't it just stating that infinity = infinity? Creating a rock that God, an omnipotent being, can't lift is something that only an omnipotent would be able to do, and lifting that rock is just as difficult. This is like saying one omnipotent task equals another omnipotent task. Indeed this argument poses a contradiction, but, contradiction aside, isn't said being still doing something that only an omnipotent being can do?

In the end, the contradiction seems to give the same answer as:
1 divided by 0 = undefined

There is no conclusion as the argument contradicts both sides of the coin.

To clarify, the argument I’m making is through the perspective of God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, alone, and is excluding the human perspective as humans are neither omnipotent or omniscient.

Say I use your definition of illogical, “situations where reasoning is missing.” This definition doesn’t describe what kind of reasoning has to accommodate an illogical situation, it only suggests that there is no explanation. Now, if something being logical refers to situations where reasoning is present, a few things come to mind.

Think of the story of The Feeding of the 5000, linked here if needed. Jesus, through God’s power, turns five loaves of bread and two fish, which could only feed a few, into food plentiful enough for 5000. In this story, if we bring it to the basics, it possesses a statement such as:

5 + 2 + God = 5000

God has no numerical value to our understanding and can be simplified to 5 + 2 = 5000

As you suggest,

For example, the following statement is illogical:

2 + 3 = 10 — Bird-Up

We can follow the parallels between the two statements and determine that the statement 5 + 2 = 5000 is also illogical, but is supported by reasoning as God made it happen. This is quite contradictory to the definition of illogical as something cannot be explained by reasoning and be illogical at the same time.

If we go back to the statement I started with, "To clarify, ..." I suggest that God is omnipotent and omniscient while humans are neither. Because humans are neither, we can never truly admit that what we know, for example: 2 + 2 = 4, is the end all. There is still more to be known.

Say you define omnipotent as, "Having unlimited power" and omniscient as, "All knowing." You believe God is omnipotent and omniscient. Limitations would cease to exist as the definition of omnipotent implies, and logical vs. illogical in God's eyes would also cease to exist as he is also omniscient. What may seem impossible to us, anything illogical, is most definitely logical to God. To put this into an argument form,

1. If a being is omnipotent and omniscient using the definitions above, then that being knows "everything" and the "illogical" is logical to them.
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient.
3. Therefore, "everything", including the illogical, is logical to God.

It really matters, in this case, whose perspective we're looking at both "everything" and "the illogical" through. God's "everything" includes what we may view as illogical.

As for where you say,

Illogical things are nonexistent to the human mind.

the example of the square that is also a circle is something that is commonly thought to be illogical, but still exists in the human mind.