Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Darshan]

Those who cannot solve the problem of evil therefore choose atheism as the only logical solution versus believing in an evil God.

[Terrapin Station]

Please rephrase anything I may have ignored unintentionally.
The problem of evil which Earthellism solves is how a omnipotent God would allow extreme suffering of innocence. The answer God does not allow it, God just cannot prevent it here because on earthell God is not here.

The problem of evil is about the omni properties. So if we're saying that God is not omnipresent, how is that solving the problem of evil? The whole objection is that God can't be omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc., given that there is evil. If you say, "God is not omnipresent," then what are you solving? You're rather agreeing with the objection that God can't be omnipresent, etc.

[Darshan]

Earthellism explains that innocent suffering and pain and death here is not God’s will. God being all-loving is more important than Being all-present.
This allows atheist to say the suffering here is not due to a a evil God but a God who is not here but above us fully compensating as we we suffer here on earthell.

[Darshan]

Earthellism answers the question about the foundation for this new philosophy : the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth."
This book asks someone to to digest the facts in it and create a philosophy to tie it all together with the Bible and other scriptures.
In that book they define hell and that all life is recycled and that we will all be in another solar system after 7 billion years.
Read the Epilogue on page 208 first then read the rest of the book. It is a hard book to read but is my version of the Final Testament in that
it answers many questions that are unanswered in the Bible and objectively proves the existence of God, the human soul and Heaven.

[Terrapin Station]

Earthellism explains that innocent suffering and pain and death here is not God’s will. God being all-loving is more important than Being all-present.
This allows atheist to say the suffering here is not due to a a evil God but a God who is not here but above us fully compensating as we we suffer here on earthell.

You didn't understand my post.

The problem of evil is the idea that God can not be omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent if there is evil. The conclusion drawn from this is that God isn't what God is claimed to be--because traditionally the omni properties are claimed.

The problem of evil isn't that suffering and pain and death are God's will. It's that there's a logical problem with saying that God has the omni properties if evil exists.

By you conceding that God isn't omnipresent, you're not solving anything. You're confirming that yes, God can't have the omni properties that are traditionally claimed. You're confirming both that God isn't omnipresent that that He's not omnipotent (because omnipotence would allow omnipresence), and he's no omnibenevolent or omniscient, which on the usual interpretation, makes whatever alternate God we're supposed to be positing not much of a God after all, and it makes it a God that doesn't resemble the God claimed by the Judeo-Christian religions.

That's not a solution, that's a concession.

[Terrapin Station]

Earthellism answers the question about the foundation for this new philosophy : the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth."
This book asks someone to to digest the facts in it and create a philosophy to tie it all together with the Bible and other scriptures.
In that book they define hell and that all life is recycled and that we will all be in another solar system after 7 billion years.
Read the Epilogue on page 208 first then read the rest of the book. It is a hard book to read but is my version of the Final Testament in that
it answers many questions that are unanswered in the Bible and objectively proves the existence of God, the human soul and Heaven.

The book you're referring to has nothing to do with philosophy, and it certainly doesn't talk about the Bible or scripture. It does use the word "Hell" three times, but just as a casual metaphor for inhospitably hot, volcanic, etc. conditions

[Steve3007]

I just found the thread where darshan attempts more of an explanation:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8126&p=122200#p122200

One thing I'm not at all getting is why he thinks that "the problem of evil" has something to do with the location of Hell. That seems to be his hinge--that by claiming that Hell is located on Earth, that has some implication for the problem of evil. But that's a big non sequitur, because the problem of evil doesn't have anything to do with the location of Hell. The problem of evil has to do with the supposed "omni" properties of God and how God can allow evil in light of God possessing those omni properties.

It's particularly odd that darshan's explanation of "Earthellism" comes right out and says: "God is not omnipotent here"--but that's underscoring the problem of evil, the idea of which is that the omni properties can't hold given that there is evil. If we go ahead and say that one of the omni properties doesn't hold, then we're not solving anything.

I had a look a that topic you found. 7 years old. That explains why he says he's been talking about this stuff for 7 years.

In that topic, his argument from astrobiology to Earth-Hell seems to go something like this:

Astrobiology is about life on other planets. Planets orbit stars. Stars are hot. Stars will eventually grow big and consume their planets. Hell is also hot. Therefore planets are hell. Therefore Earth is hell. Therefore astrobiology supports Earthellism.

I think the reason why he thinks "the problem of evil" is related to the location of hell is that he doesn't know what "the problem evil", in the sense that the term is commonly used (as you've explained it to him), means. Or at least he doesn't use the term in that sense. In that topic he refers to it as "the problem of atheism". I think he really just means that he's found a way to persuade atheists to believe in God. That is to say that Earth is hell so bad things happen on Earth.


He won't address the substance of your questions. He will tell you he is answering them by simply repeating his core message in various superficially re-worded forms. It's essentially the same method that gater used to repeatedly broadcast his core message that the universe is infinite, but slightly more polite. Both of them say things like "I'm happy to answer any questions" and then when questions are asked the message is simply repeated.

[Steve3007]

Sure, will answer anything anytime.

Smashing. Here's a question I asked earlier:
viewtopic.php?p=358469#p358469

Earthellism can prevent future genocides by explaining that as a soldier you choose to be a human devil by killing women and children and will send your innocent victims to Heaven to be fully compensated by a loving God. As that human devil soldier you are guaranteed eternity in Hell and die a thousand deaths for each drop of innocent blood you spill and no chance to go to Heaven and never be with God. Hitler is here in Hell dying a thousand deaths for each drop of innocent blood of 6 million people he is responsible for killing.

Ok, that sounds like a practical proposition for solving the problem. How is it working out so far?

To elaborate: What you're talking about above is a carrot and stick approach to persuading people to stop doing bad stuff. Carrot = heaven. Stick = hell. It's an approach that's been tried for a long time. As you know, it hasn't been universally successful. What makes you think it's going to start being more successful?

One problem with it is that we never, as motivation, get to see the carrot or the stick being applied to other people. We're simply assured that it is. So when you tell the solider he's guaranteed eternity in Hell if he doesn't behave himself he can reply "no I'm not". If he wants to he can assert the opposite. If he wanted to he could say something like "God will reward me for killing the children of the infidels" or some such thing.

[Terrapin Station]

I had a look a that topic you found. 7 years old. That explains why he says he's been talking about this stuff for 7 years.

In that topic, his argument from astrobiology to Earth-Hell seems to go something like this:

Astrobiology is about life on other planets. Planets orbit stars. Stars are hot. Stars will eventually grow big and consume their planets. Hell is also hot. Therefore planets are hell. Therefore Earth is hell. Therefore astrobiology supports Earthellism.

I think the reason why he thinks "the problem of evil" is related to the location of hell is that he doesn't know what "the problem evil", in the sense that the term is commonly used (as you've explained it to him), means. Or at least he doesn't use the term in that sense. In that topic he refers to it as "the problem of atheism". I think he really just means that he's found a way to persuade atheists to believe in God. That is to say that Earth is hell so bad things happen on Earth.


He won't address the substance of your questions. He will tell you he is answering them by simply repeating his core message in various superficially re-worded forms. It's essentially the same method that gater used to repeatedly broadcast his core message that the universe is infinite, but slightly more polite. Both of them say things like "I'm happy to answer any questions" and then when questions are asked the message is simply repeated.

Good points. Yeah, it's too bad he won't really engage. I'm actually intrigued by people with weird ideas--that was a big part of my attraction to philosophy in the first place--and I always hope exponents will elaborate when you request it.

I'm genuinely curious how he thinks that atheists would be persuaded by the idea of God being absent on Earth and therefore having nothing to do with "evil" occurrences on Earth. Although I suppose we might be disappointed in that it wouldn't amount to anything more complex than:
(1) Atheists are atheists because they think that God is the source of evil occurrences on Earth.
(2) If God isn't present on Earth, then God can't be the source of evil occurrences on Earth.
(3) Therefore atheists can't blame God for evil occurrences on Earth, and they'll become theists.

[Steve3007]

Good points. Yeah, it's too bad he won't really engage. I'm actually intrigued by people with weird ideas--that was a big part of my attraction to philosophy in the first place--and I always hope exponents will elaborate when you request it.

There have been one or two good ones on here before. My favourite was a guy who called himself Groktruth who claimed to believe that when the soul leaves the body at death it has mass. He cited those dodgy experiments that were performed about 100 years ago which claimed to measure a 21 gram mass reduction at the point of death (there was a movie of that name made). He said that, having mass, these souls would drift through space and then fall into black holes. The tidal effects of the black hole ripping the soul apart, coupled with time dilation, meant an eternity of agony. i.e. hell. Great stuff.

I'm genuinely curious how he thinks that atheists would be persuaded by the idea of God being absent on Earth and therefore having nothing to do with "evil" occurrences on Earth. Although I suppose we might be disappointed in that it wouldn't amount to anything more complex than:
(1) Atheists are atheists because they think that God is the source of evil occurrences on Earth.
(2) If God isn't present on Earth, then God can't be the source of evil occurrences on Earth.
(3) Therefore atheists can't blame God for evil occurrences on Earth, and they'll become theists.

Yes, it's probably something like that.

[Sculptor1]

The concepts of Heaven or Hell are typically associated with a God who makes judgement on people's action during their life. But assume that God doesn't exist does that mean that there is no Heaven or He'll?

You mean to ask; is is possible that two imaginary places can exist if another imaginary person does not exist.
So could Mordor and MInas Tirith exist if Gandalf did not exist??

[Darshan]

Earthellism was born from the ashes of World War II and the book “The Life and Death of Planet Earth”.
It may redefine the concept of God and the location of Hell
but it answers the most important question of the 20th century which is could God have stopped Hitler?
In the last century we accepted free will and believed God was here in someway and so the answer was yes in the last century. This new century with a new philosophy the answer is no. If God was here this place would be Heaven but God is not here and this explains the Holocaust and WWII better than any religion or philosophy or atheism.
Any good and true philosophy should logically explain WWII and Earthellism does it the best, even better than atheism which is the next best explanation but in the end atheism fails.

[evolution]

Earthellism says God does not allow genocide of innocent babies, children and women and men.
God cannot prevent genocide here on earthell because God is not here but God’s love is here.

Can you see the contradictions here?

Whatever "earthellism" is, saying that God does not allow genocide of anyone would instantly mean that there is no God, if there is genocide.
There is genocide.
Therefore, there is no God.

But then you say God's love is 'here', on earth, correct?
But if there is no God, which your first statement says there is, then there is also no God's love.

It would be a contradiction to state that there is God's love but no God.

Genocide is a war crime and a crime against God and Earthellism was born from the ashes of WW II where all the religions and existing philosophies failed to prevent the slaughter of 50 million people.
Earthellism can prevent future genocides.

So, to you, this so called "earthellism" was born or created supposedly from ww11 where genocide was not prevented from happening, but somehow the very thing created from ww11, this "earthellism" thing, will supposedly prevent future genocides.

Firstly, when will the current genocides stop?

And, are you able to elaborate at all on how any of this will take place?

Why would the very thing, which was created from the failed prevention of genocide supposedly prevent future genocides?

[evolution]

Please rephrase anything I may have ignored unintentionally.
The problem of evil which Earthellism solves is how a omnipotent God would allow extreme suffering of innocence.

But how an omnipotent God does actually allow extreme suffering to the innocent, done by ALL adult human beings, including yourself, is not something to be 'solved'.

How an omnipotent God does this is just something that happens, and which can be explained.

The very reason why thee omnipotent God does allow adult human beings to continue extreme suffering to the innocent helps in explaining how thee omnipotent God chooses to allow this behavior to continue.

The answer God does not allow it, God just cannot prevent it here because on earthell God is not here.

This seems like one of the weakest attempts at 'trying to' "justify" a God that I have seen for quite a while now.

If thee omnipotent God is not here on earth, then where is God?

[evolution]

Those who cannot solve the problem of evil therefore choose atheism as the only logical solution versus believing in an evil God.

Firstly, what is this supposed ' "problem" of evil '?

Secondly, who can solve this supposed "problem of evil"?

And, how does it supposedly "follow logically and reasonably" that only those who cannot solve this supposed "problem of evil" choose atheism?

Obviously there is NO so called "evil God" to begin with.
God does NOT 'force' anyone to do anything that they do not want to do free willingly.
God chooses to tell, through explanation, what is right and wrong, but does not choose to interact any other way.
People are FREE to choose to listen or not.
People also have the free will to do whatever they so choose to do.
This is the only way what will come to be will be reached and achieved in the True and Right way.