Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Evil God Challenge

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

quietbear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Malaysia

14 Feb 2026, 9:56 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Quote:
The evil God challenge is a philosophical thought experiment. The challenge is to explain why an all-good God is more likely than an all-evil God. Those who advance this challenge assert that, unless there is a satisfactory answer to the challenge, there is no reason to accept that God is good or can provide moral guidance.


So, I've gotta ask, for believers, why do you believe an all-Good God is more likely than an all-Evil God, specifically what do you base this assumption on beyond claims made by earlier worshippers of your god?

Personally, I don't have a god in this fight, as I don't believe in any gods, whether good, evil, neutral or any other alignment but I'm curious why those who believe in gods always seem to presume a good god.


The question itself on depends on "good" and "evil". There's really no way a person can objectively state anything is good or evil in the individual view of a thing, and certainly not in the all seeing view of every possible aspect of a thing as well as everything dependent on that particular thing through out all of time. I think this type of discussion would usually come from the question of "why is there evil in the world", which is essentially a question of: why is an all knowing and all powerful being not acting as my complete and subordinate servant to ensure that only my whims and desires are met at all times and in all situations. Why is earth not my heaven that I don't need to do anything to deserve.



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

14 Feb 2026, 10:13 pm

quietbear wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Quote:
The evil God challenge is a philosophical thought experiment. The challenge is to explain why an all-good God is more likely than an all-evil God. Those who advance this challenge assert that, unless there is a satisfactory answer to the challenge, there is no reason to accept that God is good or can provide moral guidance.


So, I've gotta ask, for believers, why do you believe an all-Good God is more likely than an all-Evil God, specifically what do you base this assumption on beyond claims made by earlier worshippers of your god?

Personally, I don't have a god in this fight, as I don't believe in any gods, whether good, evil, neutral or any other alignment but I'm curious why those who believe in gods always seem to presume a good god.


The question itself on depends on "good" and "evil". There's really no way a person can objectively state anything is good or evil in the individual view of a thing, and certainly not in the all seeing view of every possible aspect of a thing as well as everything dependent on that particular thing through out all of time. I think this type of discussion would usually come from the question of "why is there evil in the world", which is essentially a question of: why is an all knowing and all powerful being not acting as my complete and subordinate servant to ensure that only my whims and desires are met at all times and in all situations. Why is earth not my heaven that I don't need to do anything to deserve.


Yeah clearly a lot of projecting human traits/behaviour onto these "all powerful deities". Quite obvious the authors of every holy book is male. Veracity of those authors writing isn't far removed from L Ron Hubbard or John Smith. All about marketing and striking a chord I guess. Probably also helps pointing a sword or gun at somebodies face to buy into the whole package.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

14 Feb 2026, 10:55 pm

quietbear wrote:
The question itself on depends on "good" and "evil". There's really no way a person can objectively state anything is good or evil in the individual view of a thing, and certainly not in the all seeing view of every possible aspect of a thing as well as everything dependent on that particular thing through out all of time. I think this type of discussion would usually come from the question of "why is there evil in the world", which is essentially a question of: why is an all knowing and all powerful being not acting as my complete and subordinate servant to ensure that only my whims and desires are met at all times and in all situations. Why is earth not my heaven that I don't need to do anything to deserve.


I don't really agree with the direction you go in.

I don't think people recognizing the inconsistency of a being capable of stopping all suffering, but choosing to not still possessing the 4 omnis amounts to them wanting that being to be a complete and subordinate servant.

That being resembles more of a Demiurge than an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent god.

Sacrificing any one of those claims resolves the issue.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


quietbear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Malaysia

14 Feb 2026, 11:34 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
quietbear wrote:
The question itself on depends on "good" and "evil". There's really no way a person can objectively state anything is good or evil in the individual view of a thing, and certainly not in the all seeing view of every possible aspect of a thing as well as everything dependent on that particular thing through out all of time. I think this type of discussion would usually come from the question of "why is there evil in the world", which is essentially a question of: why is an all knowing and all powerful being not acting as my complete and subordinate servant to ensure that only my whims and desires are met at all times and in all situations. Why is earth not my heaven that I don't need to do anything to deserve.


I don't really agree with the direction you go in.

I don't think people recognizing the inconsistency of a being capable of stopping all suffering, but choosing to not still possessing the 4 omnis amounts to them wanting that being to be a complete and subordinate servant.

That being resembles more of a Demiurge than an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent god.

Sacrificing any one of those claims resolves the issue.


Why is there an assumption that the 4 omni's are in required attributes of God, and what definitions of those words are you working with?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

14 Feb 2026, 11:54 pm

quietbear wrote:
Why is there an assumption that the 4 omni's are in required attributes of God, and what definitions of those words are you working with?


I don't believe they're required, I don't believe precluding a Good god that possesses all four precludes any god.

As for definitions, the standard ones.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


quietbear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Malaysia

15 Feb 2026, 12:09 am

funeralxempire wrote:
quietbear wrote:
Why is there an assumption that the 4 omni's are in required attributes of God, and what definitions of those words are you working with?


I don't believe they're required, I don't believe precluding a Good god that possesses all four precludes any god.

As for definitions, the standard ones.


Is there a standard definition for those? Omnipresent for some people can mean God's essence is everywhere and in everything, in the physical sense or the sense of god's essence. Some will go to extremes and say everything is God and God is everything. Others could say that it just means omnipresent in god's knowledge. God is not part of creation nor does He become part of creation.

The omnibenevolence part just ends up being the issue that you've brought up. What is perfectly good, and from who's perspective and understanding. From the understanding and viewpoint of the omniscient or of the creation?

I would say God has all 4 omni's, with the correct understanding of those.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2026, 12:18 am

quietbear wrote:
Is there a standard definition for those?


Let's use the definitions provided by Wiktionary going forward, for simplicity's sake.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


quietbear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Malaysia

15 Feb 2026, 7:43 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
quietbear wrote:
Is there a standard definition for those?


Let's use the definitions provided by Wiktionary going forward, for simplicity's sake.


Well, by those short definitions and their minimal examples, they wouldn't all apply, nor do the examples even align with each other. Omnibenevolent's entry has "The omnibenevolent God, by definition, was unable to withhold forgiveness from his people" which brings up problems of going against the biblical scriptures these definitions focus on as well as going against the definition of omnipotent and its reference to unlimited authority. A more balanced view of benevolence of God is his pledge to himself that his mercy prevails over his wrath. The wikitionary definition of god being unable to withhold forgiveness seems excessive and would negate the purpose of any religion or anyone avoiding evil action in their life.

However to get back to your original question of what a believer would base their belief in an all Good God on (excluding learning from prior generations; is this including scripture as well?)... If there is already an established answer in the religion itself, are you asking if adherents of a religion are making up their own splinter of the religion based on their own reasoning or desires? I would think the question of belief in an all good God would only really have 2 possible answers

1) It has an established doctrinal basis based on whatever was the basis for that doctrine to be establish (revelation, borrowing from prior faiths, philosophising, scholarly works, etc)
2) the personal god that a person has made up in their own mind is all good, which is essentially a person establishing a personal religion even if it borrows from aspects of others.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

16 Feb 2026, 12:22 am

quietbear wrote:
1) It has an established doctrinal basis based on whatever was the basis for that doctrine to be establish (revelation, borrowing from prior faiths, philosophising, scholarly works, etc)
2) the personal god that a person has made up in their own mind is all good, which is essentially a person establishing a personal religion even if it borrows from aspects of others.


A god possessing those four traits is standard Christian doctrine.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


quietbear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Malaysia

16 Feb 2026, 9:25 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
quietbear wrote:
1) It has an established doctrinal basis based on whatever was the basis for that doctrine to be establish (revelation, borrowing from prior faiths, philosophising, scholarly works, etc)
2) the personal god that a person has made up in their own mind is all good, which is essentially a person establishing a personal religion even if it borrows from aspects of others.


A god possessing those four traits is standard Christian doctrine.


A doctrine not worth following imo. The main source of those doctrines openly says he's lying about God to get followers. Most of the prophet's teachings were tossed aside.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

17 Feb 2026, 8:40 am

quietbear wrote:
A doctrine not worth following imo. The main source of those doctrines openly says he's lying about God to get followers. Most of the prophet's teachings were tossed aside.


So, you're more a choose-your-own-adventure-Christian, or just being a contrarian for contradiction's sake?


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


quietbear
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Malaysia

17 Feb 2026, 8:43 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
quietbear wrote:
A doctrine not worth following imo. The main source of those doctrines openly says he's lying about God to get followers. Most of the prophet's teachings were tossed aside.


So, you're more a choose-your-own-adventure-Christian, or just being a contrarian for contradiction's sake?


Where did you get the idea that I'm christian?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

17 Feb 2026, 11:57 pm

quietbear wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
quietbear wrote:
A doctrine not worth following imo. The main source of those doctrines openly says he's lying about God to get followers. Most of the prophet's teachings were tossed aside.


So, you're more a choose-your-own-adventure-Christian, or just being a contrarian for contradiction's sake?


Where did you get the idea that I'm christian?


My apologies, I must have misinterpreted something and built the wrong impression from there.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

18 Feb 2026, 11:46 pm

I'd ignore the binary and say that any being comes from the wellspring of it's own necessities, ie. consciousness is functionalist. It's going to be the product of where it's been and where it is (leaving genes out momentarily because that's a substrate specific thing which may not always be the case for all things conscious). It's interactions with smaller agents will reflect where it is. It's likely to have both warm and cold attributes, just that much more likely than we could assign good or evil to it we wouldn't even find it's mind intelligible because our fitness landscape is too different. It would be like sorting out whether Nima Arkani Hamed's amplituhedron is good or evil, we generally don't apply moral valence to math.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

19 Feb 2026, 1:31 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'd ignore the binary and say that any being comes from the wellspring of it's own necessities, ie. consciousness is functionalist. It's going to be the product of where it's been and where it is (leaving genes out momentarily because that's a substrate specific thing which may not always be the case for all things conscious). It's interactions with smaller agents will reflect where it is. It's likely to have both warm and cold attributes, just that much more likely than we could assign good or evil to it we wouldn't even find it's mind intelligible because our fitness landscape is too different.


I other words god (and his attributes) can't exist without my perception of being conscious.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

20 Feb 2026, 9:41 pm

cyberdora wrote:
I other words god (and his attributes) can't exist without my perception of being conscious.

I don't consider that kind of ontology persuasive though, a bit like how people die all the time and the universe keeps existing.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.