The Evil God Challenge

[Hammster]

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"?

That’s not a fair way to start because there are undesirable things that can be considered good, in reality.

 

[quatona]

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

Then feel free to give the definition of good/evil that the notion of an all-good God is based upon.

 

[Freodin]

That’s not a fair way to start because there are undesirable things that can be considered good, in reality.

Really? I can't think of any. Only of something that might be called "necessary evil".

 

[Hammster]

Then feel free to give the definition of good/evil that the notion of an all-good God is based upon.

Everything He does is good. He’s the definition.

 

[Hammster]

Really? I can't think of any. Only of something that might be called "necessary evil".

If I discipline my child, he may not think it’s good even though it’s ultimately for his good.

 

[Freodin]

If I discipline my child, he may not think it’s good even though it’s ultimately for his good.

That would be a necessary evil. If you had a means to achive this ultimate "good" without "disciplining" your child... wouldn't that be "good"?

 

[Hammster]

That would be a necessary evil. If you had a means to achive this ultimate "good" without "disciplining" your child... wouldn't that be "good"?

I don’t consider discipline to be evil. Hence, the need to define what’s good.

 

[Freodin]

I don’t consider discipline to be evil. Hence, the need to define what’s good.

I used the definition given. Personally I don't like to use the terms "good" and "evil", exactly because there is no agreed perspective.

Nicholas Deka's attempt at a definition has at least the advantage of being concise, if subjective.
But your example feels a little... vague. What makes something "good" in itself? Is discipline "good", because it aims at something "good"? Would it be "evil" if it fails to achive this goal?
Would "torture" be "good" if your aim is something "good"... even when it is clear that you won*t achive this "good"?

 

[Halbhh]

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?

Which God, an evil or a good, will then give these commands to us --

"Love one another."

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

"Forgive....not seven times, but seventy times seven times."

As commandments with emphasis and warnings of consequences for disobeying, and even repeated?

Are these emphatic instructions supporting evil or good?

------

Suffering is a central question -- Why is suffering and death of innocents , such as by disease, etc., allowed to happen?

We live this temporary experience where we can learn and do love, before an eternal life of bliss. And learning requires real experiences.

We are to learn to love. The young still know how, but adults have to relearn at times.

"Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Learning requires real events.
Life at stake, real deeds of good or evil, real effects and outcomes, a real death of a real body.

The idea that suffering and death is final is actually presuming God does not exist.

(Sometimes we see that used as an unconscious premise:

Q: How could God allow such injustice and suffering?

Premise/assumption: this life is all there is, so suffering and death are final and ultimate. i.e. -- there is no afterlife.

Conclusion: Suffering and death then prove that either that God doesn't exist or else prove God doesn't care or is evil (since we presumed there is no afterlife....).

From the (unconscious) premises flows the only conclusion those premises can allow.

It's logic going from a premise to a...restatement of that premise.)

We are told from God the basis of Judgement for the coming age (whether we gain eternal Life, or instead "perish" in a "second death) --

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”
(Romans chapter 2)

Now, that's a reasonable sounding thing -- to love others and then to gain Life (eternal), or to refuse to love others and face an ultimate limit, the "second death", finally.

But one great gift God grants us --> God counts our trust in Him, "faith", as the most key factor of all, and which counts decisively in our favor! (...why? The reason is that trust allows love to last and flourish, without end)

 

[Moral Orel]

Everything He does is good. He’s the definition.

Remember, this is a challenge, not an argument unto itself. It's a request for you to convince me that God is all good. Claiming that whatever God does is good needs to be supported. Why should I believe this?

 

[Hammster]

Remember, this is a challenge, not an argument unto itself. It's a request for you to convince me that God is all good. Claiming that whatever God does is good needs to be supported. Why should I believe this?

How can I convince you without an argument? I cannot convince you, of that I’m sure. I can only present an argument. If I had the power to convince you, I would.

 

[quatona]

Everything He does is good. He’s the definition.

Ok, so if defining it that circularly, the person who postulates that God is evil can do the same: "Everything He does is evil. He´s the definition."

 

[Hammster]

Ok, so if defining it that circularly, the person who postulates that God is evil can do them same: "Everything He does is evil. He´s the definition."

I suppose they could.

 

[Moral Orel]

How can I convince you without an argument? I cannot convince you, of that I’m sure. I can only present an argument. If I had the power to convince you, I would.

So present an argument to try to convince me. Maybe it won't convince me, but maybe it will convince some lurker that reads and never posts. Don't give up before you try!

I don't think many people actually think they're going to change the minds of the more vocal people around here (on either side), the point is the discussion, not the outcome.

 

[Hammster]

So present an argument to try to convince me. Maybe it won't convince me, but maybe it will convince some lurker that reads and never posts. Don't give up before you try!

I don't think many people actually think they're going to change the minds of the more vocal people around here (on either side), the point is the discussion, not the outcome.

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.

It’s more reasonable to believe in a good God because the Bible shows Him to be a good God.

Now, even the idea of reasonable will differ between us, so there may not really be anything more to discuss.

 

[quatona]

It’s more reasonable to believe in a good God because the Bible shows Him to be a good God.

Well, you just said that God is the definition of good, so this statement ("The Bible shows God to be a good God") is completely vacuous.

 

[Hammster]

Well, you just said that God is the definition of good, so this statement ("The Bible shows God to be a good God") is completely vacuous.

And I believe I have also stated that I have no illusions of convincing you of the truth.

 

[quatona]

And I believe I have also stated that I have no illusions of convincing you of the truth.

Well, I thought you would at least have some sort of attempt at an actual argument.
You were the one who initially said that this discussion cannot be had without a definition of "good" (and I agree).
Now, you defined good as God and God as good, whereas the statement "the Bible shows God to be good" implies that there is some standard that allows us to evaluate God´s goodness (other than just having defined it that way).
If God is the definition of good, there is no way for the bible (or anything) to show God to be not good, no matter how it depicts him.

 

[Hammster]

Well, I thought you would at least have some sort of attempt at an actual argument.
You were the one who initially said that this discussion cannot be had without a definition of "good" (and I agree).
Now, you defined good as God and God as good, whereas the statement "the Bible shows God to be good" implies that there is some standard that allows us to evaluate God´s goodness (other than just having defined it that way).
If God is the definition of good, there is no way for the bible (or anything) to show God to be not good, no matter how it depicts him.

Okay.

 

[ananda]

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?

In Buddhism, it is said that there are good deities, evil deities, or somewhere in between; and all, at their core, act according to ignorance.