The Evil God Challenge

[rational experiences]

O pi in light burning to carbon point/gases places . dot point in pi O, moves to rib - at time 3 to fall into G spiral back to O....the higher God, on the face of the deep of the water.

Pi O in the sky.

Science made God fall out....as God in the heavens split its cell O into D/D.

G O D remained in the higher heavens cooled, the D fell by value L, wavelength wing, to ground, veil/wavelength burnt and broke up on the fall into EVIL.....so the Devil was cooled. O circles on the ground.

Evil as caused by the conjurer/formula the Father of the devil a scientist....the only cause....GOD never fell....God the teaching always remained in the higher heavens.

Father, son and Holy Ghost the 3 status was taught as a constant, so that the males who harmed their life/mind would not believe self a devil or that they came from a devil....due to their realization of pi O no longer existing....why it was taught for a Healer spiritual reason.

 

[Link]

Here is another proof.

Morality and Logic is a Necessary truth.
Morality and Logic requires perception.
A Necessary Perception exists.

A Necessary being is Absolute in Life.
A Necessary Perception of all levels of necessary morality is only possible by a Necessary being.

Now what is clear is that all levels of morality ASCEND in the perception of God all the way up to God (Absolute Morality).

While evil being descending can only be low, rebellious or acts of weakness and hence cannot be absolute in nature.

This proof of course not only shows how we know God is Good, but also proves and reminds of God's existence with respect to the nature of morality and logic.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

In response to @Hellbound Serpiente's point about a fallible God resulting in a chaotic system, I'm curious to know how you feel a chaotic system would differ from what we have now?

The same way quantum level differs from what we have at macroscopic level. Now, I am not very scientifically well-versed, but I am fairly sure things that don't make sense happen at quantum level all the time, such is not the case at macroscopic level. It's like order is born out of chaos.

 

[Ponder This]

Ah, I'm with you now!

It's definitely an interesting argument and I agree to an extent. Something that effectively predates the very concept of good and evil perhaps can't be said to be inherently good or evil. At least, it would have been neither good nor evil prior to the creation of those concepts. However, would it not still be possible for such an entity to then choose to embody one of those concepts after their creation?

How so? If he can choose to embody one or the other at any time, then he could choose to be the other at any time. So all we would say is that he was evil and not that he is evil (or will be evil).

If to be evil is to demonstrate weakness, then omnimalevolence is incompatible with omnipotence. It definitely seems like a solid argument against the existence of the omnipotent evil God. The flaw I see in it though is that the presence of evil in the world would seem to make it applicable to the good God too.

Applicable how?
It seems the argument is something like this: if you can do evil, then you can inflict harm to yourself. If you can't do harm to yourself, then you can't do evil. If God cannot harm Himself, then God cannot be evil.

The corresponding argument for not good would have to show God cannot benefit Himself. But doesn't the existence of Creation benefit Him, else why did He create it?

The presence of good or evil in the world doesn't seem relevant.

 

[Erebus]

The same way quantum level differs from what we have at macroscopic level. Now, I am not very scientifically well-versed, but I am fairly sure things that don't make sense happen at quantum level all the time, such is not the case at macroscopic level. It's like order is born out of chaos.

I'm afraid I'm not particularly scientifically well-versed myself! If I understand you correctly though, are you saying something to the effect that in a chaotic universe me raising my arm may result in that arm dispersing in random directions?

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Chaotic universe would be like our dream world --- Devoid of logic, sense, laws, principles.

 

[Erebus]

How so? If he can choose to embody one or the other at any time, then he could choose to be the other at any time. So all we would say is that he was evil and not that he is evil (or will be evil).

Think of it like this:

The evil God may have created evil and then chosen to embody it. He has the ability to choose omnibenevolence instead but doesn't do so. To qualify as omnimalevolent he would need to consistently choose evil.

Applicable how?
It seems the argument is something like this: if you can do evil, then you can inflict harm to yourself. If you can't do harm to yourself, then you can't do evil. If God cannot harm Himself, then God cannot be evil.

The corresponding argument for not good would have to show God cannot benefit Himself. But doesn't the existence of Creation benefit Him, else why did He create it?

The presence of good or evil in the world doesn't seem relevant.

This would require the view that evil can only entail causing harm to oneself which I don't think is what's being argued. Putting aside the argument of whether an inability to harm yourself is incompatible with omnipotence, it's possible that a god might be unable to harm itself but perfectly capable of harming others. Furthermore, I would suggest that causing harm to others while suffering no harm yourself is pretty solid grounds for being described as evil.

Regarding how the existence of creation might benefit an evil God, the most obvious answer to my mind would be that it provides an outlet for sadism.

 

[viole]

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?

if an evil God existed, we would have a problem to explain why there is some good in the world. A problem of Good, so to speak.

ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

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.

Would it?
I think that to experience the biggest suffering you would need to miss the feeling of experiencing well-being. An evil god is entirely compatible with our reality, although not omni-evil.

 

[Link]

Without God's perfect judgment, good and evil is impossible.
IF evil is exists, then God's perfect judgment is there giving it's numbering and accountability.
Therefore it's paradoxical for God to be evil when it requires judgment of perfect absolute being to see it for what it is and for it to exist.

 

[1213]

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

Because Bible and its good teachings exists, I don’t think evil God exists instead of good God.

 

[The Hammer]

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 would argue that there are no Evil Gods, only evil men, the Gods have always been good. What evils would befall the Earth if we were out of the picture?

 

[Ponder This]

The evil God may have created evil and then chosen to embody it. He has the ability to choose omnibenevolence instead but doesn't do so. To qualify as omnimalevolent he would need to consistently choose evil.

If it is a choice to embody it, then why is it not also a choice not to embody it?
Because he can choose not to embody it, it means that we cannot say he will always choose to embody it.
If he creates it and then embodies it, it suggests that he is not inherently it, but rather only it by choice. If we say that he chose it for all time, then we have to question if it was really a choice to begin with - that perhaps he was inherently it all along.

This would require the view that evil can only entail causing harm to oneself which I don't think is what's being argued. Putting aside the argument of whether an inability to harm yourself is incompatible with omnipotence, it's possible that a god might be unable to harm itself but perfectly capable of harming others. Furthermore, I would suggest that causing harm to others while suffering no harm yourself is pretty solid grounds for being described as evil.

Regarding how the existence of creation might benefit an evil God, the most obvious answer to my mind would be that it provides an outlet for sadism.

The premise was:

to be evil is to demonstrate weakness

If he cannot harm himself by doing evil, then how is being evil demonstrably weak?
The whole notion that he can do harm to others without doing harm to himself suggests that doing evil is not demonstrably weak.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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

As a Christian, I say this. God is God. Because He is God, whatever opposes Him is in opposition to Him and thus 'evil'.

Picture a black family who are members of NAACP living on a street. Directly on the other side of the street are a white family who are members of NAAWP. Who are the 'evil' ones? If you ask them, it will be those across the street.

What it boils down to is 'who has the power' to live up to their 'God status' and has the willingness to demonstrate it?'

There is no answer to 'why is it more likely that the good God exist's'. We can't know. For the Bible believer, we are only glad that He does.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Erebus]

If it is a choice to embody it, then why is it not also a choice not to embody it?
Because he can choose not to embody it, it means that we cannot say he will always choose to embody it.
If he creates it and then embodies it, it suggests that he is not inherently it, but rather only it by choice. If we say that he chose it for all time, then we have to question if it was really a choice to begin with - that perhaps he was inherently it all along.

To be clear, if we're ascribing omnimalevolence to something then that thing will always do evil whether or not it has the option to do good. So your options are for a god that was inherently evil to begin with or a god that created evil and then chose to be consistently evil itself. Either interpretation is perfectly acceptable for the thought experiment.

If he cannot harm himself by doing evil, then how is being evil demonstrably weak?
The whole notion that he can do harm to others without doing harm to himself suggests that doing evil is not demonstrably weak.

Weakness doesn't only denote vulnerability to harm, it can also refer to limitations or flaws. The arguments as I understood them were that evil can only come from a weak character, that anything truly powerful would have no need for evil.

Now is that true? I don't know. It seems a valid perspective to me but it's still just one perspective. You could argue the reverse if you were so inclined by saying that the capacity to do evil denotes that you have power over those you harm. Viewed that way, evil is perfectly compatible with a truly powerful being.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Yet earth is all you know...so how can you be so certain? And where did they fall from?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It's not.

Just as people make the excuse that any apparently evil action attributed to God might have a hidden good motive, it would be just as easy to presume that any apparently good action might have a hidden evil motive.

Or we could flip Leibniz's theodicy on its head: instead of assuming that this is the best of all possible worlds, why wouldn't we be just as justified in assuming that this is the worst of all possible worlds?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yet earth is all you know...so how can you be so certain? And where did they fall from?

Who said all i know is the earth? Spiritual Cultivation is to realize this Earth and the Cosmos is not the only world. But in different dimension
Fallen from Heavenly realm.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who said all i know is the earth? Spiritual Cultivation is to realize this Earth and the Cosmos is not the only world. But in different dimension
Fallen from Heavenly realm.

Okay, tell me in detail everything you know about this "different dimension fallen from the Heavenly realm," and while you're at it, let's hear about the heavenly realm, too.

Details will help the more ignorant among us understand, and I''m sure you'd like to help us with that.

 

[Erebus]

Or we could flip Leibniz's theodicy on its head: instead of assuming that this is the best of all possible worlds, why wouldn't we be just as justified in assuming that this is the worst of all possible worlds?

An interesting point.

The notion that an evil God would result in hell on earth has been brought up a couple of times. If this is indeed the worst possible world then hell on earth is precisely what we have. Now it's true that I can certainly imagine far worse worlds than this and it's perhaps not unreasonable to argue that a truly omnimalevolent deity would create the worst imaginable world. However, that too can flipped as I can also imagine far better worlds than this.

This is one of the reasons* I found The Evil God Challenge to be an interesting cousin of the Problem of Evil. Arguing against the existence of an omnimalevolent deity isn't all that difficult. Doing so in a way that can't be flipped onto an omnibenevolent deity is far trickier.


*Another reason is that I'm a horror enthusiast and the notion of an all-powerful but malevolent deity strikes me as an incredibly effective horror concept.