https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/is-god-good-bst.html

If you start from the presupposition that everything God does is 'good' and that objective truth comes from God, then any counter argument will be nonsensical. The 'evil God' argument exists for the purposes of undermining your underlying presuppositions - not to propose that there is an actual 'evil God'.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

If you start from the presupposition that everything God does is 'good' and that objective truth comes from God, then any counter argument will be nonsensical. The 'evil God' argument exists for the purposes of undermining your underlying presuppositions - not to propose that there is an actual 'evil God'.

---

My witness it is not just a presupposition but actual truth. God is good and all truth comes from Him.

dermdoc said:

---

My witness it is not just a presupposition but actual truth.

---

Is that a statement of opinion or of fact?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

My witness it is not just a presupposition but actual truth.

---

Is that a statement of opinion or of fact?

---

For me it is a fact based on faith.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

My witness it is not just a presupposition but actual truth.

---

Is that a statement of opinion or of fact?

---

For me it is a fact based on faith.

---

I'm struggling for the right way to interpret this. An objective fact is true regardless of the observer - so the phrase 'for me' is a tricky thing to say in a discussion about what is objectively true. That phrase is perfectly acceptable in a discussion about your personal truths, however. And in that context, I have no objection.

Ultimately, the reason I engaged here is this:

If you take the position that you KNOW your beliefs are objective, actual truth based on your experience and your faith, then it allows no room for discussion, debate, or dissent. Any opinion or statement that I can make that disagrees with your views can simply be discarded as objectively and factual wrong and not reflective of reality on the basis that it disagrees with your 'witness'. This is an attitude that values ones own experience over the experience of others. And this is why I often accuse religious persons of being arrogant.

If you take the position that these are personal truths that you believe reflect objective truth, then I think there exists the nuance and opportunity to also value experiences from others that do not confirm your own.

Understand, its difficult for me to read many of your posts as anything other than declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong. And I know I'm right because my experience is superior to yours. And I know your wrong because I cannot be wrong." I don't think this is your intent. But, its why I struggle with how to respond to some of your posts.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

My witness it is not just a presupposition but actual truth.

---

Is that a statement of opinion or of fact?

---

For me it is a fact based on faith.

---

I'm struggling for the right way to interpret this. An objective fact is true regardless of the observer - so the phrase 'for me' is a tricky thing to say in a discussion about what is objectively true. That phrase is perfectly acceptable in a discussion about your personal truths, however. And in that context, I have no objection.

Ultimately, the reason I engaged here is this:

If you take the position that you KNOW your beliefs are objective, actual truth based on your experience and your faith, then it allows no room for discussion, debate, or dissent. Any opinion or statement that I can make that disagrees with your views can simply be discarded as objectively and factual wrong and not reflective of reality on the basis that it disagrees with your 'witness'. This is an attitude that values ones own experience over the experience of others. And this is why I often accuse religious persons of being arrogant.

If you take the position that these are personal truths that you believe reflect objective truth, then I think there exists the nuance and opportunity to also value experiences from others that do not confirm your own.

Understand, its difficult for me to read many of your posts as anything other than declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong. And I know I'm right because my experience is superior to yours. And I know your wrong because I cannot be wrong." I don't think this is your intent. But, its why I struggle with how to respond to some of your posts.

---

I am not trying to say I am right and you are wrong. I have had an encounter with Jesus and I know He is right.

It is all about faith.

And as a Christian, I am trying to be a witness to you about that faith. My encounter with Christ has changed my life for the better.

Quote:

---

The 'evil God' argument exists for the purposes of undermining your underlying presuppositions

---

I'm not familiar with this argument. What is it?

Dr. Venkman said:

---

Quote:

---

The 'evil God' argument exists for the purposes of undermining your underlying presuppositions

---

I'm not familiar with this argument. What is it?

---

The original article that Derm posted references a couple of "evil" related arguments against God.

In one version of the argument, you start from an assumption that there is a powerful and all-good God that created existence and thus gets to define what is good and what is bad. The argument tries to then set up a feeling of dissonance between the described actions of God according to the Bible or according to church teachings with what we intuitive believe to be 'good' or 'bad'. Said actions could include OT violence or the proposition of Hell and eternal punishment as examples.

In another version of the argument, more formally known at 'The Evil God Challenge', one could utilize the exact same cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments to support a proposition that an evil God exists who wishes to maximize suffering in the universe. There is a symmetry between the arguments of an evil God and a good God, however, most people would say that the idea of an evil God is absurd and enormously unlikely. And because of the symmetry in arguments between the good God / evil God, we can therefore also say that the existence of a good God is equally absurd and unlikely.

The article also makes a very brief reference to simply the argument of the problem of evil or unnecessary suffering.

Ultimately, these arguments do not exist because atheists believe that an evil God actually exists. They exist as a tool for arguing that the reality we observe is inconsistent with what we would expect if we lived in a reality that included an all-powerful and all-good God.

One of the things that I am uncomfortable with in the article is that I believe the article makes the argument for something like Divine Command Theory. If 'good' is simply defined by the will of God, then we might as well say 'God is God' instead of 'God is good'. If morality is not something external to God, but rather derived from God, then what is moral is simply arbitrarily whatever God says is good. God could command that your children be tortured for eternity in Hell . . . and that would be objectively, absolutely, universally, unequivocally, and unquestionably good. And there would be zero reasonable or rational or emotional arguments you could make against the action. Divine Command Theory removes the value of all human knowledge, experience, and reason from the discussion and makes us all slaves to the will of God.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dr. Venkman said:

---

Quote:

---

The 'evil God' argument exists for the purposes of undermining your underlying presuppositions

---

I'm not familiar with this argument. What is it?

---

The original article that Derm posted references a couple of "evil" related arguments against God.

In one version of the argument, you start from an assumption that there is a powerful and all-good God that created existence and thus gets to define what is good and what is bad. The argument tries to then set up a feeling of dissonance between the described actions of God according to the Bible or according to church teachings with what we intuitive believe to be 'good' or 'bad'. Said actions could include OT violence or the proposition of Hell and eternal punishment as examples.

In another version of the argument, more formally known at 'The Evil God Challenge', one could utilize the exact same cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments to support a proposition that an evil God exists who wishes to maximize suffering in the universe. There is a symmetry between the arguments of an evil God and a good God, however, most people would say that the idea of an evil God is absurd and enormously unlikely. And because of the symmetry in arguments between the good God / evil God, we can therefore also say that the existence of a good God is equally absurd and unlikely.

The article also makes a very brief reference to simply the argument of the problem of evil or unnecessary suffering.

Ultimately, these arguments do not exist because atheists believe that an evil God actually exists. They exist as a tool for arguing that the reality we observe is inconsistent with what we would expect if we lived in a reality that included an all-powerful and all-good God.

One of the things that I am uncomfortable with in the article is that I believe the article makes the argument for something like Divine Command Theory. If 'good' is simply defined by the will of God, then we might as well say 'God is God' instead of 'God is good'. If morality is not something external to God, but rather derived from God, then what is moral is simply arbitrarily whatever God says is good. God could command that your children be tortured for eternity in Hell . . . and that would be objectively, absolutely, universally, unequivocally, and unquestionably true. And there would be zero reasonable or rational or emotional arguments you could make against the action. Divine Command Theory removes the value of all human knowledge, experience, and reason from the discussion and makes us all slaves to the will of God.

---

I think saying "God is God" and "God is good" go together. I believe sometimes the things we think are "good" or for our "good" are actually not. We can not make God into whom we want Him to be.

And your last paragraph is why I am not a Calvinist. Yes, God is ultimately sovereign, but because of His love for us gives us free will where we can accept Him. Or reject Him.

I believe the most abundant life filled with joy and peace, despite good or bad circumstances, can only be achieved by faith in Jesus Christ.

There is such security when you realize you are created by God, that He loves you unconditionally, and you get to spend eternity with Him.

Quote:

---

In another version of the argument, more formally known at 'The Evil God Challenge', one could utilize the exact same cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments to support a proposition that an evil God exists who wishes to maximize suffering in the universe. There is a symmetry between the arguments of an evil God and a good God, however, most people would say that the idea of an evil God is absurd and enormously unlikely. And because of the symmetry in arguments between the good God / evil God, we can therefore also say that the existence of a good God is equally absurd and unlikely.

---

I don't see a symmetry just like "the sun is bright" doesn't mean "the sun is dark" is an equally plausible argument.

Dr. Venkman said:

---

Quote:

---

In another version of the argument, more formally known at 'The Evil God Challenge', one could utilize the exact same cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments to support a proposition that an evil God exists who wishes to maximize suffering in the universe. There is a symmetry between the arguments of an evil God and a good God, however, most people would say that the idea of an evil God is absurd and enormously unlikely. And because of the symmetry in arguments between the good God / evil God, we can therefore also say that the existence of a good God is equally absurd and unlikely.

---

I don't see a symmetry just like "the sun is bright" doesn't mean "the sun is dark" is an equally plausible argument.

---

I don't think the analogy works. 'bright' and 'dark' can be defined in measurable terms and then we can observe the sun to see how it compares to the descriptions of the terms we've defined. The nature of God, the nature of good, and how to determine whether God is good is far less agreed upon.

Evil God Challenge

The link above is a video description of this argument if you are interested. I tried to find something shorter and this speaker tends to repeat the same things. . . . but it works as a pretty clear explanation.

I do not put any stock into this argument as evidence of the nature of God to be one way or the other. Please don't think that I am championing this argument as proof that God is evil. However, I think this argument serves as an interesting rebuttal to the Christian proposition of the necessity of a 'Good God' and to the Christian responses to the problem of evil.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dr. Venkman said:

---

Quote:

---

In another version of the argument, more formally known at 'The Evil God Challenge', one could utilize the exact same cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments to support a proposition that an evil God exists who wishes to maximize suffering in the universe. There is a symmetry between the arguments of an evil God and a good God, however, most people would say that the idea of an evil God is absurd and enormously unlikely. And because of the symmetry in arguments between the good God / evil God, we can therefore also say that the existence of a good God is equally absurd and unlikely.

---

I don't see a symmetry just like "the sun is bright" doesn't mean "the sun is dark" is an equally plausible argument.

---

I don't think the analogy works. 'bright' and 'dark' can be defined in measurable terms and then we can observe the sun to see how it compares to the descriptions of the terms we've defined. The nature of God, the nature of good, and how to determine whether God is good is far less agreed upon.

---

No, I mean it's not a matter of measurement, but the argument.

"God is light" is not an equal argument for "God is darkness".
"God is a consuming fire" is not an equal argument for "God is 0 Kelvin."
"God is wise" is not an equal argument for "God is foolish."
God is love. God is good. God is pure.

Light, fire, wisdom, love, good, pure are all "things." The others are simply the absence of that thing. So the arguments that "God is light" and "God is darkness" are not symmetrical.

To say "God is evil" would be similar to arguing that the sun is dark. To which I ask, ok where does our daylight come from then?

If I were to ask you to defend the proposition that God is maximally good while focusing on the problem of evil, you would be able to list multiple reasons for why God would permit evil. I could then make an argument that God is maximally evil with a focus on the 'problem of good'. And in making this argument for an evil God that permits good, my list of reasons for the evil God could almost exactly resemble your list. This is the symmetry.

As the author of the video says multiple times, if you are able to discount the possibility of an evil God based on the existence of good, then you should similarly be able to discount the possibility of a good God because of the existence of evil.

The point of the 'Evil God Challenge' thought experiment is to say that religious justification for the existence of evil in a universe with a Good God is insufficient because it is applied with bias.

Again, I think the video is worth watching if you are interested in the argument. I don't think your post above really addresses the video.

If you see light, you can trace its source (or at least know there is a source). If you see darkness, there's no curiosity to seek out where it comes from because darkness isn't anything. It is not symmetrical.

So in this hypothetical world where "God" is maximally evil, where does the good originate? Since evil is simply the void of good, what is the source of good? You say he permits it. From whom? Does he have an archnemesis?

Dr. Venkman said:

---

If you see light, you can trace its source (or at least know there is a source). If you see darkness, there's no curiosity to seek out where it comes from because darkness isn't anything. It is not symmetrical.

So in this hypothetical world where "God" is maximally evil, where does the good originate? Since evil is simply the void of good, what is the source of good? You say he permits it. From whom? Does he have an archnemesis?

---

I think I see. . . .Light is a physical phenomenon. And darkness describes a lack of that physical phenomena.

You may wish to apply this same logic to good and evil by describing goodness as the thing and evil as the lack of that thing. I accept this logic as reasonable within the context of Christianity. However, It is certainly not justifiable in the same manner as a physical phenomenon. Goodness isn't a physical natural thing we can put in a test tube to measure and test. Neither is evil, for that matter. This is why I think the analogy does not work when applied to the metaphysical.

You have asserted that evil is the absence of good. But I can assert that evil is the thing and that goodness is defined as the lack of evil. And who would be correct? How would you devise a method for determining who is correct?

So - to answer your last paragraph: For the maximally evil God, God is evil and all evil derives from Him. Goodness is simply the absence of evil. The source of goodness in a universe with an evil God is the same as the source of evil in a universe with a good God. And the evil God permits goodness for all the same reasons as the good God permits evil.

I think you're just playing a game of semantics at this point.

What's your point, Kurt?

Yes, you've described a symmetry. But that doesn't make it real or valid. How do you test whether your hypothesis is accurate vs. the opposite, that God is in fact good and real and that evil is merely the absence of God/good?

No big point, it's just a discussion. Dr V asked about evil God arguments and I did my best to outline a couple and post a link to someone who could explain it better than I can.

Either you think the evil God challenge/argument has merit or it doesn't. You are welcome to add what you think about the video - I'm interested in different opinions. It's not meant to prove anything or to be falsifiable. It's only meant to make you consider something from a different angle.

Edit: just about everything we discuss here cannot he tested or proven. If it could be, there would be little need for this board.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

I'm using the original King James version to fit the discussion better. Note that the "evil" mentioned here is the same as that in the original problem of "evil". In this context "evil" means "suffering, misfortune, disaster, calamity, etc", and newer versions translate it in that way. It is only in this way tha the problem of evil even makes any sense. If God is all good and all powerful, then why does suffering, misfortune, disaster, calamity, etc exist? Isaiah is clear that God purposefully creates these things. I've opined on that plenty on other threads, so I won't get bogged down now.

Given that, the thought experiment is nonsensical. You could posit a God that maximizes suffering and misfortune, and so what? For a God that created suffering in the first place, what difference is a matter of degree? For your counter thought experiment to make sense, you'd have to treat good or evil as unavoidable side effects of the maximization of the other. However, when the existence of happiness and suffering are both intentional, then both the problem of evil and the counter example problem of good lose all context

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

I'm using the original King James version to fit the discussion better. Note that the "evil" mentioned here is the same as that in the original problem of "evil". In this context "evil" means "suffering, misfortune, disaster, calamity, etc", and newer versions translate it in that way. It is only in this way tha the problem of evil even makes any sense. If God is all good and all powerful, then why does suffering, misfortune, disaster, calamity, etc exist? Isaiah is clear that God purposefully creates these things. I've opined on that plenty on other threads, so I won't get bogged down now.

Given that, the thought experiment is nonsensical. You could posit a God that maximizes suffering and misfortune, and so what? For a God that created suffering in the first place, what difference is a matter of degree? For your counter thought experiment to make sense, you'd have to treat good or evil as unavoidable side effects of the maximization of the other. However, when the existence of happiness and suffering are both intentional, then both the problem of evil and the counter example problem of good lose all context

---

From my reading, evil here should probably be more accurately translated as calamity.

I enjoyed this discussion

https://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Given that, the thought experiment is nonsensical. You could posit a God that maximizes suffering and misfortune, and so what? For a God that created suffering in the first place, what difference is a matter of degree? For your counter thought experiment to make sense, you'd have to treat good or evil as unavoidable side effects of the maximization of the other. However, when the existence of happiness and suffering are both intentional, then both the problem of evil and the counter example problem of good lose all context

---

I'm not sure that I fully understand your meaning. It seems to me that the degree of evil could be an important distinction. But, I would say that the more important distinction is the moral intention of permitting evil.

Compare a good God that permits evil for the purposes of promoting human spiritual growth or for allowing for 'higher-order' goods that come from overcoming evil with an evil God that permits evil and suffering as the primary goal for humanity. The thought experiment is meant to consider two different Gods with very different moral intention, not just the degree to which they permit a mixture of good and evil. The degree of evil is secondary to the intention.

The thought experiment doesn't require that good or evil be unavoidable side effects of the other. Instead, it suggests that a mixture of good and evil in the world could be accounted for by either a good God (who allows some evil for a greater good) or an evil God (who allows some good for a greater evil). The point of the argument is that the same kind of justifications can be applied in either case. Ultimately the argument exists for the purpose of challenging the idea that belief in a good god is somehow more reasonable.

Again, I don't put a lot of any stock in this argument in terms of its ability to predict the likelihood of existence of either a good or evil God. If anything, I think it says something about a human bias against adopting uncomfortable realities. We assume that if God does exist, it must be a good God. Not because its more rational, but because we are more adverse to considering an evil God.

Good post. I think the very broad and variable definitions of "good" become a problem here, even if we agree upon the historical definition of "evil". After all, defining "good" is one of the oldest problems in philosophy if not the oldest. To most people, good is happiness. To the Epicureans, good is the absence of suffering, and the points above about light and dark become relevant. To the Stoics, good is performing one's duty to the best of your ability. To a Cynic, good is humility. To a Jew, following good is Torah. To a Christian, good is the will of God. You can criticize the Christian God based on other definitions of good, but since Christians don't hold those definitions you won't get far.

That's why the problem of evil has such resonance with Christians and other monotheists. God is good by default. So then why does suffering exist? Going back to Job, it's a fundamental cognitive dissonance for believers. The problem of evil has never been used as a proof of God existence like the ontological argument was. So turning the problem of evil into a problem of good thought experiment really doesn't have a purpose. For the religious, God is assumed and inherently good. For the non-religious, God isn't even real. No one is trying to convince anyone that God exists and is evil, and no religion believes that God is evil and agonizes over the goodness in the world.

As a Christian, we are all laboring over the problem of evil and trying to reconcile the vast amount of suffering in the world with a good and loving God. Then an atheist comes along and says, "I've formulated a problem of good which is the inverse of the problem of evil. Take that, Christian!" To which I express confusion, shrug my shoulders, give an encouraging thumbs up, and move back to serious moral quandries

Yup, I was curious about whether or not definitions of 'good' would be questioned. I was trying to keep the terms good and evil in a more colloquial context of kindness / loving versus harmful / malice. But, I accept that being precise about what we mean by the terms can complicate the argument.

Hopefully, nothing I've said in this post is interpreted as a "Take that!". I see this all as an interesting thought experiment that asks us to examine our assumptions. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Hopefully, nothing I've said in this post is interpreted as a "Take that!". I see this all as an interesting thought experiment that asks us to examine our assumptions. Nothing more.

---

In no way was I meaning to accuse you of this. I always get the impression of honesty, curiousity, and good faith from your posts. It was more of a general comment to the person who formulated the idea.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Hopefully, nothing I've said in this post is interpreted as a "Take that!". I see this all as an interesting thought experiment that asks us to examine our assumptions. Nothing more.

---

In no way was I meaning to accuse you of this. I always get the impression of honesty, curiousity, and good faith from your posts. It was more of a general comment to the person who formulated the idea.

---

10-4. I don't know much about the origin of the argument. Google says it was an Oxford philosophy professor named Stephen Law, but I don't know anything about him.

Relevant

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/god_is_so_good/