Yuzem

  • **
  • 34 Posts
    • View Profile
Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2012, 02:24:49 pm »
It's worth it to me.

That's ok, but it doesn't answer the question.

Either way, is you argument:

1. If reason isn't reliable, I don't like it.
2. If an evil god exits, reason isn't reliable.
3. Therefore, I don't like it... nope, not one bit.
If reason isn't reliable then: What's the difference if we don't have a reason "to explain why belief in a good god is significantly more reasonable than belief in an evil god"?

1

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2012, 09:45:37 am »
Yuzem wrote:
It's worth it to me.

That's ok, but it doesn't answer the question.

Either way, is you argument:

1. If reason isn't reliable, I don't like it.
2. If an evil god exits, reason isn't reliable.
3. Therefore, I don't like it... nope, not one bit.
If reason isn't reliable then: What's the difference if we don't have a reason "to explain why belief in a good god is significantly more reasonable than belief in an evil god"?

None, i guess.  It's a good thing there is a third option: No god.  ;-)
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

2

Amoranemix

  • **
  • 103 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2012, 11:33:33 am »
Quote from: Yuzem
Also, I'm dividing the first argument into two different but similar arguments:
1. Most creators want the best for their creations.
2. God is a creator.
3. Therefore, most probably, God wants the best for his creations.
I'll formulate three objections to your argument :
1) One argument against the problem evil doctor Craig used is that we cannot rely on observational evidence to conclude that God is not omnibenevolent. Doctor Law used the same reasoning to argue that in that case neither can we rely on observational evidence to conclude that God is not omnimalevolent. If we accept those arguments, then we cannot draw any conclusion about God's morality from observational evidence. Yet that is exactly what you are doing.

2) Here is a word of wisdom : do not trust statistics you do not understand.
You are drawing a conclusion about God's morality based on statistical evidence. The argument is too vague to have any scientific value, but I will elaborate. I'll assume the set of creators and creations from which statistical information is drawn consists of all biological lifeforms that are the product of evolution. Inanimate objects are excluded because if someone makes e.g. a missile, then he doesn't want that missile to be happy. Furthermore, the creators and creations you use as statistical evidence have a parent-offspring relation.
Clearly the set of entities and relations from which you drew information is not representative for God and our relation with him : God is not a biological lifeform and we are not his offspring. If most graduates of Oxford University are intelligent, then that does not allow you to conclude that Richard, a graduate from Cambridge, is probably intelligent.

3) Someone or something wanting the best for their children does not make them morally good in general. They may just be good to their children and evil in other ways.

Quote from: Yuzem
1. Most fathers want the best for their children.
2. God is a father.
3. Therefore, most probably, God wants the best for his children.
This argument is irrelevant as God does not have any children, except perhaps Jezus. I doubt you can come up with definitions for father and child that can make your argument work. It is hard to defend that God behaves like a good father towards his human 'children'.

Quote from: Yuzem
Second answer:
1. To do good is preferable than to do evil.
2. Anyone who is aware of what is preferable and is able to do what is preferable does what is preferable.
3. God is aware and able.
4. Therefore God is good, since He does good.
The argument is invalid because the concept 'preferable' is undefined. I don't think there is a defintion that makes the argument work. I'll try one as an example : preferable is what most increasses the well-being of the world. Clearly premise 2 is false.


I undestand too little of Randy Everest's argument to join that debate. For instance, I don't know what a defeater is and I suspect most people don't.


Quote from: Yuzem
I think I can formulate another argument:
1. If god is evil we can't rely on reason.
2. It is false that we can't rely on reason.
3. Therefore, God is not evil.
You admitted later that premise 1 could be false. Hence you would have to reformulate your argument to take that into account.

Quote from: Yuzem
If God is good, then we have good grounds to believe that the tools of reason and moral intuition are adequate to reach some kind of truth and we can trust them, of-course we have to learn to use them correctly and it is worth the effort of trying to reason and trying to distinguish good from evil.
If god is evil, the tools of reason and moral intuition may not be adequate to reach any kind of truth and there is no point in trusting them. Even if we are able to reach some truth, in the end, this god will deceive us, since knowledge is good and he is evil.
We are being told by Christians that the mysterious ways in which God operates are beyond our understanding. If that is a valid argument then so is the argument that evil God's diabolical plans are beyond our understanding. They may well include knowledge. I can think of some expectations I have of good God that he is not meeting and can also think of some expectations of evil God that he is meeting.

Quote from: Yuzem
1. If god is evil we can't rely on moral intuition.
2. It is false that we can't rely on moral intuition.
3. Therefore, God is not evil.
Sound deductive arguments rely on premises that are accepted by the audience. I agree with premise 1, but I do not accept it, and I disagree with premise 2.

Quote from: Yuzem
1. If god is evil, to be, is not preferable then not to be.
2. To be is preferable than not to be.
3. Therefore, God is not evil.
Please define 'preferable'. You can't prove both 1 and 2. Which one will you let go ?

Quote from: Yuzem
Or in another form:
1. If god is evil, life, isn't worth it.
 2.  It is false that life isn't worth it.
 3. Therefore, God is not evil.
You can't seriously believe that is a sound argument.

Quote from: Yuzem
1. If god is evil we can't rely on reason.
2. It is false that we can't rely on reason.
3. Therefore, God is not evil.
You can of-course say that premise 2 is false and hold that we can not rely on reason but I don't think many people would want to take that road.
That's because not many people believe in evil God. I think people follow the following reasoning, rather than yours :
1. If God is evil we can't rely on reason.
2. God is not evil.
3. Therefore, it is false we can't rely on reason.
The key to immortality is first live a life worth remembering. - Bruce Lee

3

stupid_sinner

  • **
  • 250 Posts
  • Saved by grace
    • View Profile
Re: Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2014, 03:13:38 am »
Actually I think the challenge Dr. Law present is a very simple case, and I'm quite disappointed how Dr. Craig fail to give an effective response.

I think the key of understanding the challenge is when Dr. Law say something like (I forget most of it so I will paraphrase it), "The evil god is just the same as the good god. He would create a being with a free will to choose to do bad things." And Dr. Craig didn't respond to it.

Actually, the answer is simple: A EVIL GOD WON'T CREATE A CREATURE WITH A FREE WILL. It's as simple as that. As C.S. Lewis says, one can be good for the sake of goodness and bad for the sake of goodness. But no one can be bad for the sake of badness.
'It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.'

- G.K. Chesterton -

4

Amoranemix

  • **
  • 103 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2014, 02:34:31 am »
Quote from: stupid_sinner
Actually, the answer is simple: A EVIL GOD WON'T CREATE A CREATURE WITH A FREE WILL. It's as simple as that. As C.S. Lewis says, one can be good for the sake of goodness and bad for the sake of goodness. But no one can be bad for the sake of badness.
Why wouldn't an evil god create a creature with free will ?
Your C.S. Lewis quote makes sense for a product of evolution by natural selection, but I don't see why it would hold outside that context.
The key to immortality is first live a life worth remembering. - Bruce Lee

5

stupid_sinner

  • **
  • 250 Posts
  • Saved by grace
    • View Profile
Re: Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2014, 10:01:57 am »
Quote from: stupid_sinner
Actually, the answer is simple: A EVIL GOD WON'T CREATE A CREATURE WITH A FREE WILL. It's as simple as that. As C.S. Lewis says, one can be good for the sake of goodness and bad for the sake of goodness. But no one can be bad for the sake of badness.
Why wouldn't an evil god create a creature with free will ?
Your C.S. Lewis quote makes sense for a product of evolution by natural selection, but I don't see why it would hold outside that context.
Well, why would he create a free will? A free will can choose to do good, which an evil god wouldn't allow to happen.

And C.S. Lewis is actually refuting dualism, even more so the evil god challenge. It was meant to be two separate refutation.
'It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.'

- G.K. Chesterton -

6

Amoranemix

  • **
  • 103 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2014, 07:33:25 am »
Quote from: stupid_sinner
Well, why would he create a free will? A free will can choose to do good, which an evil god wouldn't allow to happen.
Stephen Law already addressed that. A good god wouldn't allow free will either, because someone with free will could choose to do evil. Christians challenge that statement and then that challenge can be parodied.

Quote from: stupid_sinner
And C.S. Lewis is actually refuting dualism, even more so the evil god challenge. It was meant to be two separate refutation.
Feel free to borrow C.S. Lewis' ideas to refute the evil god challenge, if you can.
The key to immortality is first live a life worth remembering. - Bruce Lee

7

jayceeii

  • **
  • 475 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Evil God Challenge - two simple answers?
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2019, 09:24:49 am »
Please excuse my bad English, it isn't my main language.

"The challenge is to explain why belief in a good god is significantly more reasonable than belief in an evil god."

Stephen Law

First answer:
1. Most fathers/creators want the best for their children/creations.
2. God is a father/creator.
3. Therefore, most probably, God wants the best for his children/creations.

We can see that most creators want the best for their creations. A writer will want his writings to be loved by many, to win awards and to be successful, the same could be said for a sculptor, an architect, a painter, or any other creator.
We can also say that most fathers wants their children to be successful and happy.

Second answer:
1. To do good is preferable than to do evil.
2. Anyone who is aware of what is preferable and is able to do what is preferable does what is preferable.
3. God is aware and able.
4. Therefore God is good, since He does good.

Please let me know what you think about these two simple arguments.
Regards.
I’m the bearer of bad news, in that God has been holding this planet as one of animals before now, the religions giving merely a surface appearance of salvation. The modern era is not structurally or socially different from the dinosaur era, in God’s sight, yet. Seemingly covenants were drawn up, but these were always covenants with a herd, not with individuals. Men seeing their ultimate fate would call God evil, but they’d also call God evil for sharing His friendliness, and asking them to step into the light of His ways.

Looking at your first answer, God is the Creator but it is an error to confuse this with a human father. In particular, a father is not responsible for the fate of all, but God is. God wants good for the individuals, but this can conflict with the good of the whole, and the long-term best interests of those individuals as well. In general a father can communicate with his children because they share a common mindset, but God cannot communicate with men because as the Bible did say, His thoughts and ways are radically unlike theirs.

As for the second answer, everything hinges on the definition of “good.” A fact few have noticed but that ends up being critical, is that all evil men define what they do as good, internally. If you talk to each man individually, you discover that there are no evil men! Evil is only seen from the context outside the route each individual is making for himself. Therefore today we find humans claiming to do good and believing they are doing good, where God and the future generations also, would obviously condemn them as very evil.