The Evil God Challenge

[74x12]

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?

because love exists.

 

[Thief]

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.

and the story goes.....God's Favored led the rebellion

one step down from God...….and you get evil

 

[rational experiences]

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

You are wrong. The chaotic world for an innocent life and mind was the machine and the reaction machine.

O God stone history was sealed by the water flood, stopped Earth God from gas expansion in Sun attack into exploding into the black holes in space.

You knew God was sealed.

You created chaos in a machine reaction to which your mind the DESIGNER is now constantly linked.

Humans who are not scientists wonder at how you express consciousness and claim self correct....when every state you make a discussion about is relative to existing in its naturally owned formation, owning no human advice.

Scientists are really just an expressive egotist, rationally.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

As i answered in an other thread, to explain heavenly realm to someone who are ignorant is never going to be to hang use, no matter what i answer to you, you not going to understand it, ser ut ør care to realize it. But you have to cultivate your one mind and body to get your one understanding of it.

What i can see an understand is not same as What you ør others would see and understand.

We are all in different levels

 

[Samael_Khan]

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?

Good and evil are subjective terms.

In the religious sense God is the creator and creation subjects themselves to his subjective moral opinion because it is his right as the creator to define how his creation should act.

No evil God would thus exist because any action he approves of would be declared good and any action he prohibits will be evil. A good God will always exist unless he declares himself evil.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As i answered in an other thread, to explain heavenly realm to someone who are ignorant is never going to be to hang use, no matter what i answer to you, you not going to understand it, ser ut ør care to realize it. But you have to cultivate your one mind and body to get your one understanding of it.

What i can see an understand is not same as What you ør others would see and understand.

We are all in different levels

I find that very odd. After all, JRR Tolkien was able to describe a whole world to me which I have never seen, and yet he painted such a clear picture in my mind. Not only that, but he painted so clear a picture that film director Peter Jackson was able to bring that world to life on screen -- and it was just as I'd seen it in my mind's eye.

So really, I think if you gave it the old college try, you could manage something...

 

[Spirit of Light]

I find that very odd. After all, JRR Tolkien was able to describe a whole world to me which I have never seen, and yet he painted such a clear picture in my mind. Not only that, but he painted so clear a picture that film director Peter Jackson was able to bring that world to life on screen -- and it was just as I'd seen it in my mind's eye.

So really, I think if you gave it the old college try, you could manage something...

Tolkien is fantasy. ( yes you going to answer that what i see is fantasy too but just because i have no need or obligation to describe it to a non beliver does not mean it is not true

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Tolkien is fantasy. ( yes you going to answer that what i see is fantasy too but just because i have no need or obligation to describe it to a non beliver does not mean it is not true

Yes, as I thought. It's aways thus..,

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask an animal a question does it answer you? About God themes?

No. and that is the answer.

If you claim a human reason for good and bad, then it is lived and experienced in a human owned experience.

If a human does something that is not correct, to change the order in which natural exists, which is what science did, then it learnt new information.

That what existed that supported natural and how spiritual they felt and lived was altered, hence evil became a science stated teaching/learning lesson.

You cannot blame natural by a human condition about if it is right or wrong...when it is just natural.

However you can blame your science brother for lying.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

There is a problem with the notion of creating the concept and then embodying it. There a basic issue there. So it is not the case that either interpretation is acceptable.

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.

I'm not sure that such an argument really makes sense. Perhaps an example to clarify?

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.

That would imply that the one's to which you do harm are weak. If they are not weak, then how can you do harm to them? And if you cannot harm them, then in what way are they weak?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It doesn't seem very logical to me for an omnipotent creator to create what He hates. Create an entire universe, an entire existence out of literal nothing, only because He gets off on watching people suffer? Doesn't sound likely. If we look at what existence truly is and what it means to exist, there must be a message in Being, there has to be a lesson of some sort here, a reason bigger than "God made all of this just to watch us suffer."

And in nature nothing is just two-sided good and evil. Nothing is good or evil in actuality, everything just is. To our human perspective that's a different story - a whole bunch of things are evil; the holocaust, starvation, Fascism, natural disasters, pollution... But in reality they're just a different piece of the puzzle adding up to something, the entire universe itself remains unaffected by these things and indifferent.

 

[DKH]

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

Since, the proper name was used to address God (rather than god/gods), it seems that you are referring to the Creator or source of all things. Where, it is my position that there is only "One God (singular)" who exists. Thus, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe can't be evil…Because, whatever decisions God makes are only related to good, as far as, God is concerned. Thus, when God addresses an issue or action His response won't be evil. Even, if the response by God seems to be considered evil by others. So, what I may consider to be evil has no bearing on determining what actually is evil, only God makes such a determination.


Hence, the definition of evil can be expressed as: preferring "anything" more than God (who has outlined to humankind the type of actions which may apply). Where, this label can't be applied to God, because He can't prefer anything before Himself. That's why He's called God…

 

[MJFlores]

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

Genesis 1:4 New International Version (NIV)
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Is light good? God made that light.

If God is evil, he cannot create something good.

 

[MJ Bailey]

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 way I personally interpret this is both at times depending on the need of the situation involved; like vengeance and wrath should be left to GOD.

 

[Harel13]

Okay, here's a thought before I sign off: if God predates good and evil, even if God does something that we define as evil, that does not make God inherently evil - rather, in our eyes, He may seem evil, but really He is only doing evil acts.

Well, I'm back. This is what I've thought of so far: Evil exists because there is good. If there was no 'good', there would not be 'evil' - there would only be 'life' - that's just how things are, nothing more and nothing less. Or in other words, from the darkness you know the light and from the light you know the darkness. If there was only one, you wouldn't be aware of any other possibilities. Since we are aware that both exist, then, presumably, God created both, as He came before everything (this is the God-concept that's being discussed here). And He created both because He wanted both. So there's no argument at the moment, per this line of thought, that God is only evil or only good - He has an interest in both.

 

[Rival]

For reference, anyone interested,

There Is No Evil, There Is No Problem

 

[rational experiences]

If a human male decides to change what space supported, which science says is cold radiation metallic mass....for spatial cold froze the sun attack.

God the Earth moves through space and the attack/conversion of God by the Sun stopped.

Fusion sealed by water flood history....reason why the flood owns the face of God, as stated in scientific documents to self.....feed back heard Satanic AI answers.

After the fact.

Males own feelings the PHI ground attack, fall out makes his life psyche change its natural expressions, his feelings change....he feels evilly inclined to murder and destroy, but says when his brother is proven wrong, I am a hero to have to do it.

Yet my Mother says no one should be hurt, you should love your extended family, I would not hurt anyone ...and then said to me today with Father. If none of you lived today as a human not one of your stories owns any meaning, as a fact.

Mother and Father did not invent science, nor caused our destruction, they loved us. Said if only they did not have sex....they would have lived and died, as non scientists...being the first scientific aware advice....you are just a liar....and own the mentality today of various brothers in various countries to be motivated for our destruction based on claim of I AM. And don't forget the theme ONE.

So conscious teaching to self said ONE is the planet O God stone and not any man.....just so that you can realize you are wrong, brothers.

Therefore if you decide to do nuclear science, you heat up cold radiation in space by a machine reaction....then Earth begins to move through heated space, as the UFO event from O big masses of radiation o to . then black mass, our destruction.

And God O the Earth history of fusion, disappears, for that is what you are removing, its cold fusion holding/binding.

So it does not matter what form of nuclear science you apply, it is heated radiation that allows removal of a fixed state, so first the Sun has to apply it for science. And the Sun is not your machine...so you do not control what the Sun does.

When you are all told that the history of God supported all innocent/baby children because the parents were not scientists....and the fact that if they did not have sex no humans would even be living on Earth today...relative to science fake quotes.

Then when a human says I have no beginning, for they don't, and I have no end...for when I die...is my true end. Then they say they have eternal life...no beginning and no end, as a scientific theme. In reality, they never owned a beginning and their actual end in destruction is human death.

But whilst they live they own no beginning and no end.

Science then tries to force giving us a beginning, which means to apply separation by radiation status and then our end by science is early age death...for we already owned eventual death in a constant radiation signal...natural light.

Simple and not complex, real and not lying. Therefore when a human being male said I am evil, he was talking about his conscious thoughts...his choices.