The Evil God Challenge

[quatona]

I understand that many people may find my "painbot" analogy to be rather disturbing. However, in this case, it seems fitting. When we see all the suffering in this world, especially the suffering of the innocent, many people understandably feel like a "painbot" and tend to turn their frustration and anger towards God in an accusatory manner.

I for one don´t believe there´s such a thing as a God. Understand that this talk is entirely hypothetical, and about keeping words meaningful rather than anything else.

Which is why I think it is so important that we clearly define what is good and evil. Setting "created purpose" and God's sovereign will as the standard of goodness allows us to take a more systematic approach to determining goodness.

Since you have now arrived at defining words to suit the desired result, one could do the same for an evil God: We define good as selfless, and since at the point of creation there was only God, the creation act could not have been selfless but necessarily selfish, IOW evil.

 

[quatona]

Btw., it seems to me that the main problem here is: including the standard for a value judgements in the group of things judged creates a category error.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

We define good as selfless, and since at the point of creation there was only God, the creation act could not have been selfless but necessarily selfish, IOW evil.

Selfish - (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Selfless - concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own; unselfish.

Creating earth and then allowing humans to exist does not sound selfish my friend. That sounds like He had consideration - careful thought, typically over a period of time.

What about a selfless sacrifice?

Cheers

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Your ad hoc definition that makes it possible for absolutely every imaginable act to be called "good" is not an argument against the god that has the attributes that I described. Can you address the challenge, or is semantics all you got? Because all definitions of "good" are subjective.

Ok. Let me ask you a question then. If God is evil, why does good exist? If we are created by God, why would he create us with the desire for good?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I for one don´t believe there´s such a thing as a God. Understand that this talk is entirely hypothetical, and about keeping words meaningful rather than anything else.

Since you have now arrived at defining words to suit the desired result, one could do the same for an evil God: We define good as selfless, and since at the point of creation there was only God, the creation act could not have been selfless but necessarily selfish, IOW evil.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Why would you suggest that the very act that created everyone is selfish/evil? In fact, the creation is probably the most selfless act ever. When you are the only being in existence, how can you be anything other than selfish? The act of creation made selfless/good possible. According to your definition of good.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. Let me ask you a question then. If God is evil, why does good exist? If we are created by God, why would he create us with the desire for good?

Because evil god wants us to freely choose to be evil. We aren't responsible if we're mere puppets, so he gave us free will. Sometimes people choose to do good, and evil god hates that. But it's inevitable when humans have free will.

So conversely, if god is good, then why does evil exist? Why would he create us with the desire to do evil?

You see, this is the dilemma of The Evil God Challenge. If you imagined for a moment that god was all evil, you would naturally assume that there would be nothing good at all in the world. So why is it unreasonable to assume that if god is all good, that there would be nothing evil at all in the world?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I for one don´t believe there´s such a thing as a God. Understand that this talk is entirely hypothetical, and about keeping words meaningful rather than anything else.

Since you have now arrived at defining words to suit the desired result, one could do the same for an evil God: We define good as selfless, and since at the point of creation there was only God, the creation act could not have been selfless but necessarily selfish, IOW evil.

Just an additional thought. If I may remind you the the premise of the question implies that God does exist. Even if in a hypothetical sense. Thus, your personal denial of the existence of God is irrevalent. Hypothetically speaking, should God exist, your subjective earthly definition of good would be flawed.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Because evil god wants us to freely choose to be evil. We aren't responsible if we're mere puppets, so he gave us free will. Sometimes people choose to do good, and evil god hates that. But it's inevitable when humans have free will.

So conversely, if god is good, then why does evil exist? Why would he create us with the desire to do evil?

You see, this is the dilemma of The Evil God Challenge. If you imagined for a moment that god was all evil, you would naturally assume that there would be nothing good at all in the world. So why is it unreasonable to assume that if god is all good, that there would be nothing evil at all in the world?

So in this case, our earthly definition of good and evil is backwards. What we call evil is actually good and what we call good is actually evil. Thus, God is still absolutely good. We just have our moral standards backwards.

 

[Moral Orel]

So in this case, our earthly definition of good and evil is backwards. What we call evil is actually good and what we call good is actually evil. Thus, God is still absolutely good. We just have our moral standards backwards.

Sure, you would call him good based on your definition. I wouldn't based on mine. But that's neither here nor there when we're deciding whether he prefers to see cruelty or kindness.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Sure, you would call him good based on your definition. I wouldn't based on mine. But that's neither here nor there when we're deciding whether he prefers to see cruelty or kindness.

Ok. I see your point. I guess it is hypothetically possible for an "evil" god to exist. However, it would not be the God of Abraham. Lest every prophet and apostle were completely wrong and the entire bible is backwards. Should such a god exist, there is no religion (that I know about) who worships such a god. Furthermore, should such a god exist, wouldn't it be logical to assume he would have done a better job communicating his expectations?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. I see your point. I guess it is hypothetically possible for an "evil" god to exist. However, it would not be the God of Abraham. Lest every prophet and apostle were completely wrong and the entire bible is backwards. Should such a god exist, there is no religion (that I know about) who worships such a god. Furthermore, should such a god exist, wouldn't it be logical to assume he would have done a better job communicating his expectations?

I'd think an 'evil' god would be all about trickery and tomfoolery, not to mention having a penchant to bring about carnage for no reason, no purpose, no system, and no goal other than to gain pleasure from the suffering to be had of the organisms existing in 'his' world. In fact, I'd imagine he'd probably look something ... like this, but we'd probably call him, Sid (like that bad kid from Toy Story):

Needless to say, such a god would be counter-productive to the notion of existence, maybe even to his own.

 

[quatona]

Just an additional thought. If I may remind you the the premise of the question implies that God does exist.

That´s clear to me. It does not allow for your assumptions about my emotions as a non-believer, though.

Even if in a hypothetical sense. Thus, your personal denial of the existence of God is irrevalent.

It is relevant in regards to the part of your post I quoted.

Hypothetically speaking, should God exist, your subjective earthly definition of good would be flawed.

Not any more than your subjective earthly definition that you came up with. That was the point.
Btw. definitions of words aren´t correct or flawed. They are definitions.
And on another note, the subjective self-definition of a divine being is utterly irrelevant for our earthly affairs and communication.

 

[quatona]

Ok. Let me ask you a question then. If God is evil, why does good exist? If we are created by God, why would he create us with the desire for good?

It´s interesting how the question "If God is good why does evil exist? If we are created by God, why would he create us with the desire for evil?" suddenly begins to make sense to you.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It´s interesting how the question "If God is good why does evil exist? If we are created by God, why would he create us with the desire for evil?" suddenly begins to make sense to you.

Sorry, it is hard to detect sarcasm in text. I will try to be better about using the sarcasm alert. It was meant to be a joke to poke fun at myself.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, it is hard to detect sarcasm in text. I will try to be better about using the sarcasm alert. It was meant to be a joke to poke fun at myself.

Yeah, the joke flew right over my head.

 

[quatona]

Selfish - (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Selfless - concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own; unselfish.

Creating earth and then allowing humans to exist does not sound selfish my friend. That sounds like He had consideration - careful thought, typically over a period of time.

What about a selfless sacrifice?

Cheers

I am not seeing how you can be selfless when you are alone. I am not seeing how you can be selfless towards entities that don´t even exist.
But since Jason had introduced the method of defining words in a way that forces the desired result, let me just define "selfless" that way.

Anyway, if you submit that God is selfless towards humans, you are destroying the argument that we are discussing: that human standards have no place in judging God good or evil.

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess it is hypothetically possible for an "evil" god to exist. However, it would not be the God of Abraham. Lest every prophet and apostle were completely wrong and the entire bible is backwards. Should such a god exist, there is no religion (that I know about) who worships such a god.

I promised to be nice in my disclaimer, so I'm still not touching points like this with a ten foot pole.

Furthermore, should such a god exist, wouldn't it be logical to assume he would have done a better job communicating his expectations?

Why is that? People are naturally prone to doing bad things. Why does he need to tell people to be bad? We're handy enough at that all on our own.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'd think an 'evil' god would be all about trickery and tomfoolery, not to mention having a penchant to bring about carnage for no reason, no purpose, no system, and no goal other than to gain pleasure from the suffering to be had of the organisms existing in 'his' world.

Well you listed the reason and the purpose at the end there, but why would you think there would be no system? Hitler had a system.

Needless to say, such a god would be counter-productive to the notion of existence, maybe even to his own.

Why in the world would that be the case?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Anyway, if you submit that God is selfless towards humans, you are destroying the argument that we are discussing: that human standards have no place in judging God good or evil.

Hey hey my new friend

It is true humans cannot judge God. Where do you fit into this discussion? Whats your opinion?

Cheers you marvel