I would like to introduce to this forum two innovative theistic frameworks, curious as to what it makes of them. As per their self-evaluation, these two systems cut through theistic debates between the largely domineering groups of Benevolent Theists* and Atheists, offering novel alternatives for appreciating the nature of the Creator. 

1) Ananthropocentric Theism, as discussed by Tim Mulgan in his Purpose in the Universe (2015). Mulgan utilizes the, to his evaluation, best arguments from both aforementioned camps such as PSR, objective-moral, and cosmological arguments, as well as POE and issues of scale and religious diversity, and argues for a fundamental purposive force that is indifferent to human concerns. For a neat summary as well as some evaluations, see the review of the book in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews by Joshua W. Seachris.

2) Omnimalevolent Theism as discussed by John Zande in The Owner of all Infernal Names (2015) and The Problem of Good (2017). He concedes the strength of PSR, teleological and design arguments but insists that the POE, specifically the ever-presence, ever-expansiveness and constantly coplexifying nature of suffering which quantifiably dwarfs pleasurable sensations taken as a whole, as well as the, to his imagination, incoherence of typical Christian theodicies, the Fall, soul-making, free-will etc., suggest a Creator that wills suffering, and whose creation, given his motives of continually maximizing ill, is free of errands or blunders, as God's perfect nature would, in Zande's mind, demand. In his synthesis, the presence of 'good', i.e. pleasure, compassion, empathy, solicitude, gentleness, generosity, nurturing, and self-sacrifice, is compatible with the existence of an omnimalevolent Creator because it ultimately encourages life's propagation, and consequently the continued expansion and complexification of suffering. This is a considerably more poetic, somewhat parodic, and less analytic framework mind you, though I still think it packs a punch, not least because of its wide scientific references. It should also mostly concern religious theistic notions rather than purely philosophical ones, so I would be very curious as to the evaluation of Zande's arguments by proponents of the latter. For those unwilling to look into the books themselves, his article Delicious Excrement available over at academia . edu could prove a useful introduction. Also, one could look into the discussion had by Zande and Kristor over at the Orthosphere in the article The Trouble with Atheists. 

What do you make of the perspectives offered here? Anyone know of other alternatives? 



* those who believe that God encompasses the Good and/or wills the Good for humans (and sentient life more generally)