The Evil God Challenge

[Moral Orel]

First the disclaimer:

This is not a thread about God commanding and doing evil deeds in the Bible. This is a thought experiment and not accusatory in any way. I am not attempting to attack or defame God, I am putting this here to question the justification for believing that any god that might exist is all good.

With that aside, I'll get right into it. A summary from Wikipedia:

The Evil God Challenge demands explanations for why belief in an all-powerful all-good God is significantly more reasonable than belief in an all-powerful all-evil god. Most of the popular arguments for the existence of God give no clue to his moral character and thus appear, in isolation, to work just as well in support of an evil god as a good God.​

The Evil God Challenge was created by Stephen Law. He's written a paper on the topic here, and there is also a neat little video on YouTube that summarizes the concept, but I won't link to it here because it may contain images that certain viewers could find offensive. But I'll transcribe most of it here:

Many atheists argue the world contains too much suffering to be the creation of a good god. There are wars, diseases, and natural disasters; horrific human and animal suffering is built into the very fabric of the world we’re forced to inhabit. Isn’t this good evidence that even if there is a creator, he is not all powerful and all good?

Of course the faithful try to explain the suffering. Some talk about free will. They say God could have created us puppet beings that always behaved well. But if we’re god's puppets, we’re not responsible for what we do. God cut our strings so that we can freely choose to do good. Then some of us choose to do evil and cause suffering. That’s the price god pays for our free will. So have we shown that it’s reasonable to believe in god after all? I don’t think so.

Suppose that after a bump on the head i come to believe that the universe was created not by a good god, but an evil god. I believe there's a single all powerful creator who’s malice knows no bounds and who’s wickedness is beyond our comprehension. Who believes in a god like that? Almost no one. Why not? Because the world would look more like a torture chamber if it was created by such a powerful and wicked being. There's too much love and laughter and too many people being kind and helping each other for this to be the creation of an evil god. Yet notice, I can explain why my evil god allows good in the same way religious folk explain why their good god allows evil.

I can say my evil god could have made us puppet beings that always did bad things, but if we’re his puppets, we’re not responsible for what we do. That’s why evil god cut our strings and set us free to allow us to freely choose to do evil. Unfortunately for evil god some of them choose to do good deeds; thats the price evil god pays to allow moral evil. Have I shown that belief in an evil god isn’t absurd. No, of course not.

Sure, I can cook up such ingenious explanations to defend both belief in a good god and belief in an evil god, but still, we can be pretty sure there’s no evil god can’t we? So why can’t we be pretty sure theres no good god either? We may not know why the universe exists but surely we are justified in supposing it is not the creation of either of these two gods.​

So can anyone rise to the challenge and explain why, if there is a personal, intelligent creator of the universe, that such a being is significantly more likely to be good than he is to be evil?

 

[Yanni depp]

Hi Nicholas,

I actually just watched a Q&A video for the first time a few hours ago that had a segment that seems highly relevant to your challenge here.

The exchange in this video is just over ten minutes long, so it wont be a arduous task to watch it.

If you could watch from 19:23 to 30:05 you will see a mans question brought up and then it is answered, i hope you like it and find it helpful.

 

[SkyWriting]

So can anyone rise to the challenge and explain why, if there is a personal, intelligent creator of the universe, that such a being is significantly more likely to be good than he is to be evil?

First the scriptural explanation:
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Then the layman's version.
To create is good, to destroy is evil.

Evil is unable to "do" anything itself.
"Good" is able to create. (see scripture above)

So evil is a sub-concept where "Good" is the main one.
Evil has zero control or power except where allowed by people.

 

[Freodin]

First the scriptural explanation:
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Then the layman's version.
To create is good, to destroy is evil.

Evil is unable to "do" anything itself.
"Good" is able to create. (see scripture above)

So evil is a sub-concept where "Good" is the main one.
Evil has zero control or power except where allowed by people.

I don't think that answers the challenge, as, at best, it points to a God that is both good and evil. And that only if we were to follow your definitions of "good" and "evil".

 

[Freodin]

So can anyone rise to the challenge and explain why, if there is a personal, intelligent creator of the universe, that such a being is significantly more likely to be good than he is to be evil?

I cannot answer this challenge in the given way.

It is just too difficult to secondguess a "personal intelligent creator" without relying on the conditions that we find in the supposed creation. These conditions are all we have to make statements on, and yet they are often said to not apply to the creator.

That said, it is as difficult for me to imagine an unrestricted deity that creates because of a plan as it is to imagine such a deity to create in order to destroy.

More likely would seem to me a creator that is neutral (or both good and evil), with neither the intent to "help" or "hinder" his creation, but with the attitude to create something different and just "see what happens".

 

[Hammster]

I guess my first question would be, how are you defining good, and how did you come to that definition?

First the disclaimer:

This is not a thread about God commanding and doing evil deeds in the Bible. This is a thought experiment and not accusatory in any way. I am not attempting to attack or defame God, I am putting this here to question the justification for believing that any god that might exist is all good.

With that aside, I'll get right into it. A summary from Wikipedia:

The Evil God Challenge demands explanations for why belief in an all-powerful all-good God is significantly more reasonable than belief in an all-powerful all-evil god. Most of the popular arguments for the existence of God give no clue to his moral character and thus appear, in isolation, to work just as well in support of an evil god as a good God.​

The Evil God Challenge was created by Stephen Law. He's written a paper on the topic here, and there is also a neat little video on YouTube that summarizes the concept, but I won't link to it here because it may contain images that certain viewers could find offensive. But I'll transcribe most of it here:

Many atheists argue the world contains too much suffering to be the creation of a good god. There are wars, diseases, and natural disasters; horrific human and animal suffering is built into the very fabric of the world we’re forced to inhabit. Isn’t this good evidence that even if there is a creator, he is not all powerful and all good?

Of course the faithful try to explain the suffering. Some talk about free will. They say God could have created us puppet beings that always behaved well. But if we’re god's puppets, we’re not responsible for what we do. God cut our strings so that we can freely choose to do good. Then some of us choose to do evil and cause suffering. That’s the price god pays for our free will. So have we shown that it’s reasonable to believe in god after all? I don’t think so.

Suppose that after a bump on the head i come to believe that the universe was created not by a good god, but an evil god. I believe there's a single all powerful creator who’s malice knows no bounds and who’s wickedness is beyond our comprehension. Who believes in a god like that? Almost no one. Why not? Because the world would look more like a torture chamber if it was created by such a powerful and wicked being. There's too much love and laughter and too many people being kind and helping each other for this to be the creation of an evil god. Yet notice, I can explain why my evil god allows good in the same way religious folk explain why their good god allows evil.

I can say my evil god could have made us puppet beings that always did bad things, but if we’re his puppets, we’re not responsible for what we do. That’s why evil god cut our strings and set us free to allow us to freely choose to do evil. Unfortunately for evil god some of them choose to do good deeds; thats the price evil god pays to allow moral evil. Have I shown that belief in an evil god isn’t absurd. No, of course not.

Sure, I can cook up such ingenious explanations to defend both belief in a good god and belief in an evil god, but still, we can be pretty sure there’s no evil god can’t we? So why can’t we be pretty sure theres no good god either? We may not know why the universe exists but surely we are justified in supposing it is not the creation of either of these two gods.​

So can anyone rise to the challenge and explain why, if there is a personal, intelligent creator of the universe, that such a being is significantly more likely to be good than he is to be evil?

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think that answers the challenge, as, at best, it points to a God that is both good and evil. And that only if we were to follow your definitions of "good" and "evil".

I did answer the challenge.
You just don't like my answer, which is fine.

 

[SkyWriting]

why, if there is a personal, intelligent creator of the universe, that such a being is significantly more likely to be good than he is to be evil?

Becasue good is creative, and evil is incapable of creating.
Evil can only corrupt that which is good.
There is no other version of evil that exists on it's own.
If you can explain any evil that is not a corrupter of what already exists, try.

 

[SkyWriting]

Many atheists argue the world contains too much suffering to be the creation of a good god.

What standard are they using?
Where did they get this standard from?

 

[SkyWriting]

There are wars,

People involved in war are at an all time low in history.
Up to 25 percent of the population has been involved in the past.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are wars, diseases, and natural disasters

Diseases and disasters are a tiny percentage of the populations experience.
Except I have the sniffles today.

 

[SkyWriting]

Suppose that after a bump on the head i come to believe that the universe was created not by a good god, but an evil god.

Then you would die in a few minutes from a painful death.
End of your problem.

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess my first question would be, how are you defining good, and how did you come to that definition?

This is a challenge, not an argument itself. So feel free to define good and evil how you please to support a "good god hypothesis". Just understand that the challenge will attempt to reframe your argument to support an "evil god hypothesis", and we'll discuss whether your argument or the challenge's argument is more valid.

 

[Hammster]

This is a challenge, not an argument itself. So feel free to define good and evil how you please to support a "good god hypothesis". Just understand that the challenge will attempt to reframe your argument to support an "evil god hypothesis", and we'll discuss whether your argument or the challenge's argument is more valid.

Without a definition of good/evil, we can’t really continue.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

An omnimalevolent deity, an apathetic deity, or no deity at all would better explain the existence of obligate carnivores. I cannot understand why an omnibenevolent deity would arrange it so that nearly every living creature on earth possessing a nervous system dies in terror and agony.

 

[Moral Orel]

Without a definition of good/evil, we can’t really continue.

A challenge is an unfamiliar way to tackle this issue, I understand. Imagine it this way. You presented to me the Fine Tuning argument, and the Kalam's Cosmological argument and you won. I now believe there is an intelligent creator of the universe. Now present an argument that this creator is all good.

 

[Hammster]

A challenge is an unfamiliar way to tackle this issue, I understand. Imagine it this way. You presented to me the Fine Tuning argument, and the Kalam's Cosmological argument and you won. I now believe there is an intelligent creator of the universe. Now present an argument that this creator is all good.

That would depend on your definition of good. I say that whatever God does is good, because He’s the benchmark. I’m sure there are many who would disagree. So then the argument is, what is considered good?

 

[Moral Orel]

That would depend on your definition of good. I say that whatever God does is good, because He’s the benchmark. I’m sure there are many who would disagree. So then the argument is, what is considered good?

Let's see if we can come to an agreement on what is good and what is evil. What if we said: good things are those things that are desirable, such as happiness, and evil things are those things that are undesirable, such as suffering. Just speaking in generalities for now, is that a fair way to start?

So, if God were to create a world that everyone in it only experienced suffering, and never experienced happiness forever, would you still call that "good"?

 

[Moral Orel]

@SkyWriting & @Yanni depp
I'm not ignoring you and your responses, I'm just trying to give some time to let other people get in on the discussion. I'm responding to just Hammster right now to get him to a point that he might attempt the challenge like you and Yanni have done.

 

[Freodin]

I did answer the challenge.
You just don't like my answer, which is fine.

You are still a Christian, aren't you? With a basis in the Bible?

So this God that you mean is both creating and destroying. He says that he creates good and evil. He destroys his creation, because he is not satisfied with it. He promises that he will again destroy the remains of this creation to do it over. He is even said to create in order to destroy.

That would mean this God is good and evil, according to your usage of these terms, isn't it?

And that let's me doubt your whole definition of these terms. If you can destroy without being evil, then this definition does not fit. If you create in order to destroy, that would make creating evil.

So, no, it is not that I don't "like" your answer... I think, for the abover reasons, that it is not a fitting answer to the challenge.