Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then neither "God is good" nor "God is evil" are possible statements.Hey hey my new friend
It is true humans cannot judge God.
I am just examining arguments.
About what specifically? Humans demonstrably can judge God quite fine. They do it all the time.
Concepts of 'Systems' as we understand them seem to me to be a bit too confining when we are talking about 'gods,' specifically EVIL ones. Hitler was human and had to have a human system in order to analyze and project a strategy against political peers in the world (nation to nation). But, with an evil god, who might be omnipotent, the idea of system seems to be unneeded, maybe even inhibitive.
I don't know. Maybe an evil god is unstable. Maybe she'd like to 'do herself in' to see what it might be like to not exist.
If an evil god is anything like those kids who perpetrated the Columbine incident back in the late 1990s, who knows? Nietzsche? (Yes, I dropped a name here: why not stir up trouble among all the locals! ) I mean, are we playing Dungeons & Dragons here, where evil powers can be one of three different kinds of evil: Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil?
But we see natural systems all the time, and if there is a god, good or evil, he created them too. If they're inhibitive to evil god, are they also inhibitive to good god?
That's a good point, the whole "lawful" part. But if we're talking about a god that's already been prove through other apologetics like the Kalam's, then evil god is uncaused, and probably outside of time itself. If a being is timeless, it can't have an end even if it wanted to. But I also don't see why an evil god would want to end himself. If the goal is to have as much general badness as possible, a cessation of badness is definitely a good thing.I don't know. Maybe an evil god is unstable. Maybe she'd like to 'do herself in' to see what it might be like to not exist.
I'm not talking about 'natural' systems. I'm talking about a design for systematic implementation of suffering in the world. Evil god probably wouldn't want to wait for a hurricane to blow people around (or off the map), so he wouldn't have a natural system. And Evil god wouldn't want a system of his own that might slow him down from sending stray lightning bolts at will to wreak random havoc as he feels the inclination (and pleasure) to do so.
Well, I've never paid much attention to the Kalam, or various arguments of an Grecian sort, either. As you know, I'm more about the identity of God as a Hebrew/Jewish construct. So, I have little interest in the philosopher's god. I mean...if there is a scenario Stephen Law can concoct wherein the God of the Jewish people is really an evil god, then let's hear that instead.
Ahh, well just because a natural system naturally produces hurricanes and lightning bolts doesn't mean evil god is restricted to waiting for them to do so. He can interfere with his natural systems at his pleasure and leisure. Mostly I was pointing out that if there is a god, he likes making systems, no matter his moral polarity. And though we may not recognize a system he has in place for implementing evil because his ways are not our ways, it doesn't mean there is no plan in place.
Well to address the point specifically in terms of the Hebrew God, He cannot change, and that's where a lot of people imagine the whole "timeless" aspect. If evil god can't change, then going from existent to non existent is impossible as well.
Well, sure. We can play the Yin-n-Yang Good or Evil god game until...we're both pushing up daisies. And we'll get nowhere.
But 'Good' God, then, will have at least some reasons that are discernible to us for why He does this or that. An evil God, by contrast, isn't one that I'd think would want us to know He'd exist at all, in any way; so much the better for taking advantage of us by our lack of awareness. How much more pleasurable would it be for evil god to inflict needless suffering on those who don't know, and to observe and enjoy every passing second of that human suffering.
Sure. He doesn't change. But our human understanding of how and why the Hebrew God does what He does might be half-informed and seem like 'change' to us.
That's great that you're not going to publicly attack the Bible. The problem is, I'm not going to privately defend it.
And that's the point of The Evil God Challenge. It's impossible to show an argument that is unique for goodness.
Sure we do. If there's a god, and he created everything, and systems exist, either we assume an ultra-powerful being begrudgingly created systems he didn't like, or an ultra-powerful being created whatever he liked. Seems to me that the latter is the more probable.
I'm not convinced that a good god would subscribe to the creation of a system, unless it equates to a kind of omnipotent-size pleasure dome. This is the point. That if you imagine an evil god, then you think you can make a probabilistic estimate of what the world would look like, and it would be extremely bad. Yet if I imagine a good god, and I think I can make a probabilistic estimate of what the world would look like, and it would be extremely good I'm somehow wrong, and you're somehow right.
What Law argues is that a case needs to be built for any conception of a god. First establish that he created the universe, then establish that he's good and later you can say, "See, since we know there's a good god, the Bible is the most likely account of his interaction with people." You seem to want to start at the end and work backwards.
Why not let us know he exists? On top of torturing us, we can experience terror as well.
I offered to PM you because I wasn't sure whether all these repeated attempts to steer towards the Bible were because you were just really curious how I would defend against the Bible as evidence for god being good, or whether you were just egging me on to be rude and a liar. I guess it wasn't the former after all.That's great that you're not going to publicly attack the Bible. The problem is, I'm not going to privately defend it.
Spot on. I think the most reasonable response to this challenge is that God cannot be defined according to subjective human constructs such as good and evil. Half this thread has been taken up with fruitless attempts to define standards of good and evil. Some theists like to use God himself as the definition of good but as @quatona pointed out this makes a category error and renders our definition meaningless and useless.
A lot of theists don't get the distinction, but saying "this doesn't justify belief in a god" is not the same as saying "belief in god is not justified". The challenge is an attack on the various defenses against "The Problem of Evil", it isn't an attack on the existence of god at all.
He does actually give a reason for not believing in an evil god. I'll bold the most pertinent part:
He simply points out that he can concoct "ingenious explanations" out of thin air to explain the problem away. That doesn't mean he hasn't shown a perfectly good reason to suspect a god isn't evil.
Oooh! A lot of theists aren't going to like that at all! You're basically saying that god needs us to be good. But god isn't supposed to be dependent on anything for his goodness. Incidentally, I would agree with you, but I'm no theist.
Yes. I guess I am saying that, but not in the sense that his goodness is dependent on us, but that goodness is only a coherent concept within the context of relationship. Without anyone else God can only say he is good for himself, which renders the term meaningless. Even an evil God would be good to itself, that is to do things that are to its own satisfaction. When we want to determine weather God is good we presumably measure by how good he is to us. Not how good he is to cows or spiders or the rocks on Mars. So again our measure is subjective. I don't believe in objective morality either if you're curious.
I apologize. That statement was inappropriate and uncalled for. Sometimes I let discussions found throughout this section bleed into the responses I make in other sections, and I shouldn't. That was my mistake, and I'm sorry.
You're right, the FWD isn't intended to prove god's existence. But your response was a straw man because you turned his statement into something it wasn't and then declared it "failed".
Look, it's impossible to even attempt to prove god doesn't exist, that's why I picked this challenge because the spirit of it is to assume the universe has an intelligent creator and we're to argue about what other qualities we might be able to discern. No atheistic argument says, "there is no god" they can only say "god isn't like this or that". But "existence" is so wrapped into the discussion that people phrase it in that context. Instead of saying, "god isn't good" they say "there is no good god". It sort of means the same thing, but it belies what little power any atheistic argument can really have.
I think it's subjective too, but I think his dependence on us is a bit stronger than that. If you can do some good deed for someone else, but instead you choose to do only good things for yourself, that would be selfish and bad right? So not creating us and existing all alone would be selfish. I think @quatona touched on that actually a few pages ago. There have been a few Christians I've seen echo that sentiment as well.
I saw that and I find it a particularly weak argument. Or perhaps it just hasn't been presented in a convincing manner. It might make some sense under a very black and white view of morality, but in my opinion morality is a compromise between what is best for the self vs what is best for the tribe (and we are reliant on the tribe). Selfishness, (I don't like using that word because it carries negative moral connotations) or acting in self interest, is not automatically bad and can only be judged in a social moral context.
I think this whole thread seems to have been predominantly taken up by discussion about objective morality anyway. The challenge inevitably leads us to first have to establish how we determine good and evil. I think this challenge is successful at illustrating the problems with objective morality rather than leading us to any conclusions on the nature of God.
is pulled out of thin air in the same way claiming earth should be absolutely perfect in every way if it were to come from a perfect and powerful being is unjustified; this is why I responded that Mr Law is providing no reasons. Perhaps I should have qualified reasons with "justified reasons".
