The Evil God Challenge

[Erebus]

I think it's fair to say that most members will be familiar with The Problem of Evil. Variations of it pop up on the forum fairly regularly. What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

To get definitions out of the way, the challenge involves two concepts of God. The first is a good God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The second is an evil God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent creator of the universe.

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a bonus question, to what extent can arguments against the evil God's existence be reversed to apply to the good God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

There's probably a good reason for this.

(There's also the great granola concept, the horrendous pizza concept, the mediocre melon concept, the ...)​

 

[Hawkins]

This ties to how humans get to the fact of an existence. Say if the aliens exist and they have a reason to hide from humans then how humans can get to know their existence. It is by those who encountered them by chance that we can get to know their existence. God is more likely because humans encountered such a God and wrote down their testimonies on the info acquired from this God.

It is also possible that an evil god exists, but we don't have those encountered such a god and left their testimonies on how bad he is. While humans can only do what we can, but what we can't. There's not much we can do under the circumstance. We have testimonies from those encountered a good God who demanded us to do something, it is said that it's for us to be redeemed. We thus have something to do within our ability. If the evil god didn't leave anything for us to do, we have nothing to do within our ability.

The good God has all the ability to disable an evil one to leave his evil book. Even the evil one thus needs to pretend to be the good one to deceive. Deception is needed due to the lack of ability. You don't need deception as a tool if you have the power to get to the same thing. You don't need to scam money if you have all the power to get to the money directly.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think it's fair to say that most members will be familiar with The Problem of Evil. Variations of it pop up on the forum fairly regularly. What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

To get definitions out of the way, the challenge involves two concepts of God. The first is a good God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The second is an evil God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent creator of the universe.

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a bonus question, to what extent can arguments against the evil God's existence be reversed to apply to the good God?

The evil gods have fallen, and are in lower realms, such as on earth or in hell

 

[halbhh]

I think it's fair to say that most members will be familiar with The Problem of Evil. Variations of it pop up on the forum fairly regularly. What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

To get definitions out of the way, the challenge involves two concepts of God. The first is a good God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The second is an evil God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent creator of the universe.

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a bonus question, to what extent can arguments against the evil God's existence be reversed to apply to the good God?

I define "good" as that which causes people to flourish in an enjoyable life with more love, more peace (less killing and conflict), more energy (instead of depression, addictions...).

The most well known God is the one the Teacher Jesus referred to, who commanded:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Which I've tested skeptically and extensively in a number of times and places, cities, and situations and varieties.

It works very well to sharply improve/increase love and peace and energy, I found, compared to other ideas I tried out (I tested over and over, since I thought perhaps I'd gotten just lucky, at first).

Consider --

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


As you can see, the Teacher Jesus taught this as one of the 2 central or greatest commandments from God for how we humans should live on Earth, which is indicative then of the character of God, as in question.

Therefore, God is good, by outcome. That's what I discovered.

(I don't ultimately put too much faith in philosophical reasoning without testing, no matter that I enjoy such very much, because reason/logic only elaborates the premise used (just restates the premise in a transform). One needs to test and get the real life outcomes.)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it's fair to say that most members will be familiar with The Problem of Evil. Variations of it pop up on the forum fairly regularly. What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

To get definitions out of the way, the challenge involves two concepts of God. The first is a good God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The second is an evil God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent creator of the universe.

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a bonus question, to what extent can arguments against the evil God's existence be reversed to apply to the good God?

People who identify with negativity look for someone to relieve them of their negativity; they need the opposite. The purpose is to identify with a positive loving god despite their negativity. To see god or call god an evil god would mean they would not have a way to release their negative (or sinful) nature. The creator has to be someone they love rather than fear.

 

[Erebus]

There's probably a good reason for this.

(There's also the great granola concept, the horrendous pizza concept, the mediocre melon concept, the ...)​

I take it you don't think much of the challenge then. Would you care to explain why?

 

[Erebus]

People with the negative more so when looking for someone to relieve them of their negativity, they need the opposite. The purpose is to identify with a positive loving god despite their negativity. To see god or call god an evil god would mean they would not have a way to release their negative (or sinful) nature. The creator has to be someone they love rather than fear.

This is an interesting take. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that what we believe about God is more important than what God actually may be? Put another way, if God is indeed evil, there would be no benefit for us in viewing him as such.

 

[halbhh]

This is an interesting take. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that what we believe about God is more important than what God actually may be? Put another way, if God is indeed evil, there would be no benefit for us in viewing him as such.

If a god is evil (harmful to our lives), then one usually would not want to follow it out of self interest. We want instead what is best for our lives here and now.

See post #5 above for how to find out what the character of a god is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is an interesting take. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that what we believe about God is more important than what God actually may be? Put another way, if God is indeed evil, there would be no benefit for us in viewing him as such.

I'm not sure what god is outside of one's belief about him (does, says, history, purpose, traditions, etc). It seems god exists as a result or reflection of a person's belief and relationship with that belief (or faith).

The last part I didn't get. If god is indeed evil, there'd be no benefit of viewing that he is evil? There'd be no sense in believing god is evil if he actually is evil?

I see more benefit in those who believe god is good because it reflects who people want to be (loving, kind, etc) rather than who people (believers) believe that they are (sinful, trapped, blind). If god were evil, they'd be in fear in the dark. Since god is love, they have hope or faith they'd be no darkness anymore/heaven.

 

[WalterTrull]

I think it's fair to say that most members will be familiar with The Problem of Evil. Variations of it pop up on the forum fairly regularly. What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

To get definitions out of the way, the challenge involves two concepts of God. The first is a good God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The second is an evil God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent creator of the universe.

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a bonus question, to what extent can arguments against the evil God's existence be reversed to apply to the good God?

False Dichotomy

 

[halbhh]

I'm not sure what god is outside of one's belief about him

Typically one can find some statements or instructions or commands, basically. ... And those can be tested (!). (without any belief needed at all, except in the concepts of testing and comparison)

Teachings from such as Lao Tzu, or Christ, or Rumi -- you can discern (sometimes just easily find) propositions to test.

 

[bobhikes]

I think it's fair to say that most members will be familiar with The Problem of Evil. Variations of it pop up on the forum fairly regularly. What doesn't get as much attention is a related concept: The Evil God Challenge.

To get definitions out of the way, the challenge involves two concepts of God. The first is a good God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The second is an evil God who is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent creator of the universe.

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a bonus question, to what extent can arguments against the evil God's existence be reversed to apply to the good God?

The problem with evil, is rather easy to solve with either a good or bad God. The only thing that matters is this life is how you get through it. This is the testing ground for your next life. You are being judged on your actions with good and bad things happening to you. If you pass the test (Follow Gods rules) you win in the next life if it a good god. If its an evil god you lose in both places. I would bet that an evil God would probably make this life a heaven so that the God could really turn the screws in the next life.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

While there sure is evil in this world, goodness outshines evil. If God was evil, the whole would be literal hell, but that is not the case.

 

[HonestJoe]

The challenge itself is fairly straightforward: Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

I'd suggest they're equally unlikely (arguably impossible). The issue isn't the "benevolent" or "malevolent" but the "omni". An all-knowing, all-powerful god could (and presumably would) achieve whatever they wanted so if a god wanted either an unconditionally and entirely evil universe or an unconditionally and entirely good universe, that is what we'd have.

It seems clear that we actually have a universe somewhere in between, especially considering anything beyond Earth which is, as far as we can tell, a boring expanse of amoral nothingness. If there is a god who intended to apply any specific morality upon the universe, the only conclusion could be that they have completely failed.

 

[Erebus]

I'm not sure what god is outside of one's belief about him (does, says, history, purpose, traditions, etc). It seems god exists as a result or reflection of a person's belief and relationship with that belief (or faith).

The last part I didn't get. If god is indeed evil, there'd be no benefit of viewing that he is evil? There'd be no sense in believing god is evil if he actually is evil?

I see more benefit in those who believe god is good because it reflects who people want to be (loving, kind, etc) rather than who people (believers) believe that they are (sinful, trapped, blind). If god were evil, they'd be in fear in the dark. Since god is love, they have hope or faith they'd be no darkness anymore/heaven.

Your first sentence comes fairly close to my own views on deity to be honest. With that in mind, I agree that my statement, "if God is indeed evil, there would be no benefit for us in viewing him as such." isn't really applicable to that view. I'd misunderstood where you were coming from.

While I would say that this concept of God isn't really what the challenge is aimed at, I also think that a pragmatic argument about the benefits of believing in a good God vs an evil one has some merit. Essentially, the question of that deity's existence is of lesser concern than the effects belief in it might have.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Also, evil is caused due to some innate weaknesses and deficiencies. God cannot have such weaknesses and deficiencies for it would become impossible to maintain the affairs of heaven and earth in such precise order and harmony. The whole system would be chaotic if God was fallible

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your first sentence comes fairly close to my own views on deity to be honest. With that in mind, I agree that my statement, "if God is indeed evil, there would be no benefit for us in viewing him as such." isn't really applicable to that view. I'd misunderstood where you were coming from.

While I would say that this concept of God isn't really what the challenge is aimed at, I also think that a pragmatic argument about the benefits of believing in a good God vs an evil one has some merit. Essentially, the question of that deity's existence is of lesser concern than the effects belief in it might have.

Yes. You'll find the reason one says god exist isn't because it's a deity floating or anything like Zues, but a cause they (people throughout history) give and experience of it that makes it exist. It's probably why people can't explain it, don't want to, have language that makes it obscure to those who don't know it (and personal to those who do), and other words, perspectives, etc that are only true or exist to the persons that believe in it (and agreed to by peers who side with their interpretations of it).

 

[dybmh]

Why is it more likely that the good God exists rather than the evil one?

Looking beyond human nature, based on the diversity of life on this planet, it seems more likely to me that God is benevolent rather than malevolent. ( too optimistic? )

 

[halbhh]

The problem with evil, is rather easy to solve with either a good or bad God. The only thing that matters is this life is how you get through it. This is the testing ground for your next life. You are being judged on your actions with good and bad things happening to you. If you pass the test (Follow Gods rules) you win in the next life if it a good god. If its an evil god you lose in both places. I would bet that an evil God would probably make this life a heaven so that the God could really turn the screws in the next life.

Consider that last sentence assumption -- you've got the malefic version there actually (tricking people to harm them), and it seems self-contradicting also in that a 'good' god would not of course try to trick people to harm them (unless the individuals to be tricked were themselves acting in evil in some pronounced (unusually strong, far worse than average) way).