Does the problem of evil disprove the existence of God?

The problem of evil challenges the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God. Philosophers argue that suffering may serve deeper metaphysical or moral purposes.

Is morality possible without God?

Some philosophers argue that morality arises from reason and human flourishing, while others believe it ultimately requires a transcendent foundation.

Can reason prove the existence of God?

Classical philosophers proposed arguments such as the cosmological and moral arguments to support belief in God, though critics debate whether these provide proof or philosophical justification.

The Self: Psyche and Anatta | Socrates and Buddha

Socrates: Let me press you on what I take to be the most important point between us. I believe in the soul — the psyche — as an immortal, rational principle that inhabits the body temporarily and is liberated by death. Philosophy, as I told my friends in the Phaedo, is preparation for dying — a practice of loosening the soul's attachment to bodily pleasures and directing it toward what is eternal and unchanging: the Forms, truth, beauty, goodness. The soul is the real self. The body is a prison. When you speak of the self, what do you mean — and do you deny that the soul is real?

Buddha: I teach anattā — no-self. Not that nothing exists, but that what we call the self is not a fixed, permanent, independent entity. When you look carefully at what you call "I," you find five aggregates — skandhas: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. These arise and pass in dependence on conditions. None of them, alone or together, is a permanent self. The belief that there is such a self — and the clinging to it — is the root of all craving and therefore of all suffering. I do not say the psyche exists. I say the question "does the self exist?" is itself a form of grasping that keeps one bound.

Socrates: This is a remarkable claim, and I want to examine it carefully. When I say the soul is immortal, I mean that there is something in me — the thinking, reasoning, inquiring part — that is not subject to change and decay as the body is. The Form of the Good does not change. Mathematical truths do not change. The part of me that grasps these things participates in their unchanging nature. You say this is an illusion. But then: who sees through the illusion? If the self is not real, who attains liberation? Who walks the Eightfold Path? You cannot have liberation without a liberated one.

Buddha: This is the question every student brings. It is a good question. My answer: liberation is the ceasing of the process of becoming, not the arrival of a self at a destination. A flame is extinguished — not because it goes somewhere, but because the conditions that sustained it are no longer fed. Nirvāṇa means extinction — the extinction of craving, aversion, and delusion. The liberated one is not a purified self that has survived. It is the absence of the grasping that generated the illusion of self. I do not say there is nothing. I say the question assumes too much.

Socrates: I confess I find this difficult. When I faced death in the prison, it was the thought of the soul's continuance — its reunion with truth and beauty unobstructed by the body — that gave me peace. If there is no self to survive, what is the peace of the dying sage? Is it simply the ending of a process? That seems to me less like liberation and more like extinguishment. You say nirvāṇa is not nothing. But you also say it cannot be described in positive terms. I am left wondering whether we are pointing at the same horizon through different languages — or whether we are genuinely pointing in different directions.

Buddha: Your peace came from a belief. My peace — and I sat with many dying monks — comes from the dropping away of the one who fears. There is a difference. A belief in the soul's survival requires that the belief remain true. The peace of anattā requires nothing to remain at all — and therefore cannot be threatened. I do not say your experience of peace was false. I say it was dependent on a metaphysical assumption that may or may not be true. The peace I point toward is independent of such assumptions. Whether it is greater or smaller than yours, I cannot say. It is different.