As Trent points out, the "evil God" hypothesis rests on the belief that evil is the opposite of good, not a lack of goodness. This theory rests on the idea that evil exists in the world as an antithesis of goodness and not a lack of goodness. It's a Yin-Yang idea.
But It is. A child wanders around a forest without interactions (neutral). A child wanders around a forest and gets kidnapped (evil). Absence of good or evil is also a variable.
@@Daniel2374 In that analogy, that interaction depends on the person the child meets. If that person has some (very) basic decency, they have a pleasant interaction. Or maybe the person really is depraved, but they have a reputation they worked for, so they still refrain the evil act. To go through with it, they need to be lacking a number of good attributes. And the abduction is only possible if the child, who has innate value, is present. Abduction isn't physically possible if there's nobody to abduct; evil is only possible when there's good to harm. But goodness doesn't require evil; nobody had to be harmed for the child to be born. A person's decency doesn't require any evil sacrifice, nor would a person's reputation require that they harmed others.
@@nisonatic u cant have one without the other. There is no relief without anxiousness, there is no hope without lacking, there is no riches without poverty, no congratulations without a fight. Boredom is a lack of struggle and everything would feel slate without good or evil.
@Daniel2374 Yeah, so an all evil God would not be considered morally evil but just God as I already believe. And by virtue would be good anyways. Is it truly evil then?
@@joshmcgill4639 special pleading. I can say Zeus's nature is to exist therefore Zeus must exist. Holy thunder! Saying God is good because the meaning of God is good is stupid. Might aswell say "good is good because good".
This is also what Thanos said. You are saying that evil without purpose is impossible because otherwise your theological position breaks down. I’ve been on a missions trip to Mexico and can tell you that there were people suffering for no reason. And of course, if you don’t believe, your life is worse than meaningless, apparently.
@@haitaelpastor976drawing closer to God is what brings about the greatest good. The more people that do, the more good there is. The idea of free-will exists and thus good needs to come about via the willful act of free creatures
By normal people who don't trade their morality for divine command theory or the concept of might makes right. --------------------------------------------‐------------ "In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this:* ***If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.*** *On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.* In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.* *But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17). *Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."* *"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"* --------------------------------------------------------- Also look up: *"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"* *"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei. *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
This idea of an ‘evil god’ Is old and catholic refutations of it are just as old, the gnostics tried their hand at it now modern day atheists are giving it a go.
Much of the social media arguments have been hatched out for a thousand to thousands of years. People on social media are all acting like these are new and they are all so proud of their supposed “new discoveries.”
@@Xeper616you’re right but you’re presenting this incorrectly. They believe the God we interact with - our creator (the demiurge) is evil. It creates out of ignorance, deceit, and hatred. We don’t interact with the Monad, we have the escape the physical world and reach the Pleroma. So, essentially, they described the most proximal God as being the evil God.
Not really. It's obvious that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat, who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, who can't help the Israelites overcome iron chariots and who evolved over time from one of many tribal gods and patron deities to become "God of the universe" is man made. We're just waiting for you guys to catch on. --------------------------------------------------------- According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d According to the Bible, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher. Do you guys ever investigate properly? --------------------------------------------------------- *Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.* "Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. *But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7) “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23); For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28) Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27) Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30) *He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:* The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34) There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32) He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel. *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62) Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51) *Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also look up: Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades) *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d In essence the act of believing is a leap of faith. God existence can not be proved empirically but with logical argument that are based on their own theology. All other religions have scholars that have the same conviction and still have totally different natural theology, agnosticism is the only scientific, humble view. This knowledge escapes our reach, look at how dumb Mormons look going house to house preaching a conman's book, all honest preachers in essence are the same
By definition this doesn’t seem to follow for me. Law is describing a perfect being that is also evil. A truly all evil “god” would have the worst characteristics, no knowledge, no power, and no eternal existence. All I know is that evil god is not dying for me like my God. An all evil being would have too much pride. Literally maximum pride. My God has maximum love
Nah, this based upon unjustified presuppositions. Knowledge is neither good or bad, it’s what you would do with it that makes you either good or bad. Same goes for power etc, these are not moral attributes. What you guys do is presuppose what God must be, even though you have no true basis for this. An open theist could easily say that he doesn’t consider absolute omniscience as a great making property and what are you gonna say? “No you are wrong!😡😡😡😡” Good argument bro. Nobody in this world can by natural theology simply presuppose or say what God must exactly be, you may you can know he exists and is therefore powerful to a large degree, but you can’t just fill in: God is this, that etc erc. Also, God dying for you is personal belief and not something considered in the debate topic of this video
@@nikhiljaikumar8611 I think he is. He believes good and evil are equal powers rather than evil being merely spoiled goodness. Trent’s rebuttal to his existence of an evil good is exactly why dualism cannot exist. Evil by its nature is inferior to good.
@@shawnboahene5231 On a techincal point, your use of dualism is totally valid in theology (‘dualist’ = someone who believes that Good and Evil - or God and the Devil - are independent and more or less equal forces in the world), but not in philosophy. To a philosopher, dualism is used in an ontological sense. Property dualism. Substance dualism. And in that sense, Christianity is completely dualist: two kinds of stuff, natural and supernatural. Law isn't arguing for theological dualism at all. He's an atheist, he certainly //doesn't// believe these as real forces in the first place. Trent didn't do the best presentation of Law's point about theodicies. Law does not think there is an evil God. He thinks that believers who dismiss evil god with a theodicy of "look at all the good" are right, but that raises questions for the theodices the same believers use in favour of a good god.
@@nikhiljaikumar8611 everyone is kinda dualistic, theres Satan and theres God, thats all. Satan is not as powerfull as God, but because his hate is infinite, given the chance he would destroy everything God just does not allow it, hence he inspires us to do bad, and the more we stray from God, the more evil we become as a species, and the less he interferes in the world in the sense of preventing catatrophes.
@@Onlyafool172 that's not dualism. Christianity teaches that the devil is created by God and has no power that God doesn't allow him- that is definitely not dualism. for the record, I disagree with Christianity and monotheism here.
Attaching morality outside of religion to God is crazy. It's almost like they don't understand omniptence. God IS. That's it. We are good or evil and HE is the judge of that.
@@wulfheort8021 indeed. It's a fascinating commentary on how something purely evil could not create but only corrupt and destroy and would inevitably end up consuming itself. It could never be an equal opposite to the holy and good.
@@michaels7325 Exactly and Tolkien was very aware of that. There isn't a greater fantasy work than his that reflects (Christian) theology and philosophy.
I’ve just started getting into Tolkien’s books. Now, wherever I go on the internet, I am seeing Middle Earth references in the comments. It’s so weird 😂
Alex O'connor is very bright and seems to be arguing in good faith, therefore I won't be surprised if one day he becomes a theist. I was an ardent atheist myself, but having spent what amounts to Alex's entire time on this earth observing and analysing I came to the conclusion that an intelligent and moral creator of the universe must exist. It takes time.
Okay, so let’s say that instead of creating the universe, God was to create just Hell and tile this out to infinity. While that might not be the worst thing possible, it gets pretty close to evil incarnate. We can imagine a perfectly good God doing the same for Heaven. The video relies entirely on the subtle implications of near-synonyms. The omni-traits are not inherently good. Evil is morally, not functionally “worse”. Sure, the world isn’t as evil as it could be, but it’s equally not the best. It doesn’t matter that it’s slightly good.
@@seanpierce9386 Hell is not eternal. Hell will be empty on the General Judgement. Hell exists because of what we certainly know as justice. Lazarus and the rich man is a good example.
@@Misael-Hernandez Then what’s the point of spreading the Gospel? If you get to go yo Heaven anyway, that overrides any brief time spent in Hell. There’s no Biblical or theological precedent for this.
@@seanpierce9386 I did not say we get to go to Heaven anyway. The Gospel is the Good News of the Kingdom of God. It's a free pass to heaven regardless of any state of being whether a heartless person or a sincere one. The only thing left is for us to choose that gift or to reject it, and in this life we cannot say it is over until we pass away, and even when we pass away we are either in Hell, Heaven, or Purgatory. On the last Judgement (General Judgement) everyone will be present and then everything will be made known. If I died not repenting of my sins but choosing to do Evil, then to the lake of fire along with Satan and his demons.
I would say that the greatest gift “of love” is the possibility to let the one you love to freely choose… an all powerful evil “God” would take that gift away and let all people suffer to their maximum, all the time and everywhere. It falls flat as an argument, it simply isn’t logical
No, and it's a pity Trent didn't fully discuss Law's point or the theodicies he thinks work both ways -- including the free will theodicy. ua-cam.com/video/xLnsY5io964/v-deo.html Alex actaully speaks directly to Stephen here. This is lays out the terrain much better than Trent does. You might still think Trent's reponses hold up, but it's worth framing the discussion properly.
That assumes that free will exists and is objectively moral from an outside perspective. Here’s a counterpoint: I would rather be forced to follow God than be sent to Hell. Would that not make it moral for God to not give me free will? (If you consider the request to be an exercise of free will it becomes a paradox.) I don’t really mind if the evil God hypothetical doesn’t work out as long as it leads us to a better understanding of the actual claims being made rather than relying on theological assumptions. They are so frequently hidden away that neither side may recognize it.
How is there a concept of "good" at all if there is no God? Atheists seem to strenuously avoid this question. Like with the idea you can't be moral without God, yet there are plenty moral atheists, right? There is no "moral" at all without God
Because it’s a hypothetical. We assume all the positions of the theist except for claiming God is evil. The point is not to prove anything, but to show that certain arguments theists make (maybe not even all of them) are nonsensical. It’s a counterexample device. For example: How do Christians have a concept of evil if God is not evil? Clearly, evil is the natural state of things, but humans have disobeyed God by becoming good. You simply can’t explain evil with a good God, so it must be false. By the way, contrary to what is said in the video, evil can coexist with the omni-traits. Consider a God who creates only Hell.
@@seanpierce9386 That's really not true. Atheists take their position for granted when if everything is just a random assortment of matter, there is no good or evil. Atheists say we are good therefore Christianity is evil
I've wrestled quite thoroughly with the question of an evil God and have come to my conclusion that evil is too much a stain on perfect power to have any place in perfectly powerful Being. I appreciate your working to bring out that thesis here so that more can see the absolute absurdity of thinking it logically plausible to have an "Ungodly god". Have a very blessed day, dear Mr. Trent Horn!
I've heard this idea pop up a lot recently and I quickly intuited there was some contradiction there. Thanks for putting it all so concisely! This was really a slam dunk in my view haha.
Trent is very wise and smart, I don't understand half of the things he or the video he's watching are saying. Amazing video, Trent, keep up the good work of rebutting the unbelievers! :D
@@VanchaMarch2 He hasn't done anything evil. He is the Creator, so He can do literally anything and not be evil. He also cannot be evil because He is All-Good, He is Love. An evil god would force you to worship him, and if you don't, he sends you to Hell. But God gives you a choice to accept Him as your Savior, and if you don't accept, you send yourself to Hell. You can worship God all you want, but if you haven't accepted His gift of Salvation, that worship would be for nothing. Worshiping God is a good deed, and we are not justified by our good deeds. We are only justified by our faith in Jesus Christ.
@@VanchaMarch2God punishes all of humanity for sins of two people. He killed everyone in the world with a flood. Killed first borns of Egypt.Commanded a Genocide against cananites etc. All these acts are evil
@rahulpaul147 It's frustrating when people, both for and against God's existence, discuss His "morality." Morality is based on acting in accord with human nature. God has a divine nature. Applying the standard for goodness that is meant for us to God is like applying the standard for goodness that is meant for a plant to us. God can take away whatever He freely and generously gave us, and it would be just. We aren't owed health, life, or anything.
@@PrimeTimePaulyRat I only answered that because the person specifically asked for evil acts committed by God. Nobody in this world is owned anything so does that mean we can simply kill someone ? Why can't we apply our morality to God ? If we can't apply our standard then what standard can we apply ?
I believe in God and Catholicism, but I have always found the ontological argument completely unconvincing. The best counter-argument against the ontological argument is to point out that a "perfect girlfriend" would have the good of existence, and would have the good of being right here, however no such person is right here now, therefore the *idea* of perfection does not imply existence. I think this is due to the apparent fact that value is not intrinsic to the material universe. "Perfect" is a statement that implies a value system. There may be a "true" morality, but if there is such a thing, it cannot be derived from purely materialist premises. I think there is such a thing as objective morality, but I also think that it cannot be proven. I have very deep reasons for these suspicions.
An evil god cannot perform good, and a good god cannot perform evil. Free will in itself is a gift, so the idea that an evil god would gift us with free will doesn't check out
God is all evil by his ontological nature, he can't possibly be good. All you're gonna say is that god is "great-making" like Trent does, which is just begging the question. The point at hand is how can you know god is great-making in reality when the world does not seem to show that. It doesn't matter if your theology is internally consistent if it doesn't actually interface with reality.
@@RustyCog Right, and that doesn't matter on its own. I can define god a different way. What matters is whether the definition actually has evidence for it. Show me evidence of this maximally great being, and then I'll care.
@@RustyCog Yeah, statistically more than most christians, hence why I am on a Christian channel trying to understand their viewpoint. I just find all the arguments unconvincing and ultimately evasive in nature. Trent keeps resorting to weird philosophical definitions instead of looking at his scripture, which does not display a maximally great being to being with.
You don't need 27 minutes to rebut Law's bad argument. He says there's too much good to think an evil god exists and too much evil to think a good god exists so by that token there's most definetley an OK god but nobody believes in an OK god so clearly the argument is no use.
First off, thank you Trent. I'm not a good debater and you are teaching me a lot. Question; could the evil god exemple apply to how atheists see our own deaths as in just ceasing to exist forever just as if anything never happened? I've always through this was the most evil philosophical view on death but never really talked about this to anybody. If the connection is not warranted I'm sorry in advance cause as I said I'm not super sharp at explaining coherently and precisely my points. Nevertheless I'm still a relatively new christian, got saved lat year thanks to seeing so much evil in the world. God brought me back. But trully, and this I know, he never left me even as an un-believer. God bless you sir and sorry if I made an unnecessary connection.
I have an interesting thought: Would a being of infinite non-existence, or absolute nothingness, necessarily be absolutely evil? Would the opposite of God, who is the infinite being itself, the infinite non-being, be unavoidably evil that it's the weakest state of seemingly existing? I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts!
God is the standard by which we know and judge good and evil. In some real sense God Himself is beyond good and evil. Maximally Great Being or the ground of all being itself.
I’ve always thought it was interesting how few people believe in an evil God. It seems like people always believe God is good or there is no God at all. But if the arguments for God’s existence are really sound and human beings are generally deciding beliefs based on the evidence, then there should be a least a fair amount of people that believe in an evil God, who are convinced by the arguments for Gods existence but not for the arguments for his goodness. The lack of this kind of belief suggests to me one of two things: 1) either the arguments for Gods existence aren’t that sound unless you already believe God is good which gives you a bias or 2) humans who reject God are not going off of the evidence as much as they think but are rather rejecting the existence of a God they think of as evil. Both are interesting. As a Christian I tend to think of the latter as correct.
I think it's more the place of there not being evidence for it. God is a cumulative case and other evidence doesn't work for an evil god. Also the idea of evil and God contradict in Christan morality. God and good are synonyms to Christians. To say something is good is to say it is godlike. Good actions are in alignment with the abstract good. Which is God. Evil is to go against god meaning a evil god is a god that is not in alignment with himself. Which is to say he is both god and not God. Like saying a square circle exists. It can't be both.
Regarding 2, I think people need to demonstrate that an entity (God) like this first exists before criticizing reactions to it (like the POE/POS). Also lost in these discussions is the simple fact that, whatever God's reasons for allowing certain things we regard as terrible to happen, we may not care what God's reasons are in the first place. Those reasons, whatever they may be, are also partially or entirely unavailable to us, epistemically speaking, anyway; assuming there are such reasons is useless to us on a practical level. The philosopher Sharon Street spoke of this in a cumbersomely titled essay.
@@mitslev4043 Those are good points too. I'm not sure I would be convinced of God for example if I didn't believe he did miracles, but what kind of evil God would do miracles?
@@CollinBoSmithOne who was trying to mislead you, just like a good God points to Himself. You have a point about the lack of an evil God. A good God is a recent phenomenon, relatively speaking. Polytheism used to be dominant, and it had all sorts of evil gods, but it didn’t have much of a tendency to convert nonbelievers. The whole good God thing took off because of the Abrahamic religions, which were quite prolific. So yes, not many people look into it because it’s the default view. Maybe you should look into it. It sounds like you engage well with these types of ideas and it’s very interesting to investigate the roots of your faith. You might be surprised by what you used to think.
Another wrench in this theory is the idea that an evil god would even want free will. God doesn’t allow evil primarily so that it could be used for good, he allows free will as a fundamentally good thing and evil as a byproduct. Even if the evil god gives everyone free will and no one chooses good, just giving them freedom to choose is good.
Why doesn't god create this world we live in to be as pure, good and holy as is in heaven, why need evil to exist at all? I'm not trying to pose the question out of disrespect, it is something that I often reflected on when it comes to religion.
Hi Trent! I have a question! I’m also a Catholic and I think I understand the idea that if a being is completely evil, then it necessarily wouldn’t have any of the good of power, knowledge, etc. And I like your analogy of the worst football player, essentially not someone who cannot perform a SINGLE function of football, but someone who cannot perform ANY function of football. However, I’m now confused. How do we as Catholics conceive Satan? Do we see him as completely malevolent? If so, wouldn’t we disbelieve in his existence, as he would thus not even have the good of existence? Or perhaps do we conceive him as having a kernel of goodness in an otherwise evil being? Or perhaps, do we conceive him as not just lacking one attribute but many? Essentially, Satan has existence, but lacks power, knowledge, etc? But then THIS also confuses me. It appears that Satan has SOME form of omnipresence to see us, because we don’t believe there is someone in the universe that Satan is unaware of the existence of. He would also appear to have SOME form of omniscience to know our fears, desires etc. I don’t think we believe that there is a fear, or sin in my heart that Satan is unaware of. So would we as Catholics thus conceive Satan as a being similar to Laws evil god, someone who has some all good qualities, but not all, namely, omnibenevolence. Much love to all the work you do, - Sincerely, a confused Catholic
I do find the idea behind the evil God challenge to be generally sound. There may be a few minor points of asymmetry, but they are not obvious. For instance, one could argue that the good creator is inherently simpler than the evil creator, and I think this is one of the best arguments. However, we don't observe "simple good creator" because we don't observe simple goodness. We also observe suffering, so we need a more complicated understanding of what it means for God to be good (i.e. with theodicies). So "simple goodness" isn't even on the table for discussion.
Good video but small nitpick. That particular formulation of the ontological argument fails (for both you and law) if you simply raise Kant's objection that existence is not a property. You could reformulate this and say the worst possible being is contingent and not necessary which is also more intuitive. However, I do think Law is somewhat right that a more evil (not technically worse) being is at least more effectively evil doer by having more great making properties, but it seems like a misuse of Ontological Arguments as it could be applied to any given property (i.e. is there a maximally great football player).
Even if existence is defined as having properties, it seems obvious that necessary existence is clearly distinct from mere existence, so necessary existence must be a property even if existence isn't. A ball that happens to be red is clearly different from a ball that cannot be any other color but red, so the ball that must be red clearly has some property that distinguishes it from a ball that is merely red.
@@grantgooch5834 correct. hence why it's a nitpick. Trent's central point could be mapped perfectly fine onto more ironclad ontological argument formulations. I think if there's a problem here is that what Law is describing as a "Maximally Terrible Being" is not what he actually means. What he means is that an evil being is worse by it being more able to effect evil. Which I see his point, but seems like a misapplication of the ontological argument, as it can be built for any arbitrary trait. E.g. a footballer is a better footballer by being omnipotent but you can't use the ontological argument to prove that there exists some almighty footballer
God is a being worthy of being worshipped?? Where's u get that random made up definition lol A maximally powerful being that created the universe is the bare bone definition. Doesn't mean they're worthy of worship. That's a value judgement that is inherently subjective
6:22 "That's because a Good God is intrinsically more likely than an Evil God." ... says who? How would you demonstrate that it's inherently more likely?
“Evil God” is simply a self contradiction. “Evil” is a characterization of will or conduct that is displeasing to God. So “Evil God” would imply that God is pleased by that which displeases him. It cannot follow. Even if one were to say that that which is good and evil would merely switch, it still couldn’t follow. For instance, it pleases God to honor one’s mother and father. One way we do that is through obedience. Parents teach their children to be obedient, children are obedient, and this is pleasing to God. So under the evil god theory, parents would have to instruct their children to be disobedient, which creates an obedience paradox. One cannot obey that instruction or disobey it without simultaneously disobeying or obeying it, respectively. The entire exercise is incoherent. If evil god existed, Neither life, nor faith, nor reason, could exist.
Oh yeah and also the quote by Mary W is something I’ve actually always believed. Human beings choose evil out of ignorance, confusion and distortion. Which to me has always meant that we are inherently good and have merely “forgotten” and can’t see that for whatever reasons. Yet if our inclination is towards seeking a goodness but our view is distorted about that then it seems “evil” to be punished for eternity for that. When our nature is to seek “the good” though being simply confused or misinformed or I’ve noticed some people it’s the pain they have lived in life which clouds their judgement.
That’s understandable to another human being even and as human beings are saddened when we feel “powerless” to help them see the truth. Yet God is all powerful? My belief in God is not challenged by this. My ability to subscribe to say OT God definitely is.
Like, I don’t violate anyone’s free will by showing them good reasoning and self understanding. I’ve done it in my life to varying degrees and “self help” myself to clear up my own distortions. Yet it seems (biblical) God could do more for people if our punishment is so intense and eternal.
"God, why is evil so large and strong in the world? "Man, can you not also cast a shadow monstrous to behold many times your size? This beast is unable to harm you as it obeys your every whim. Do you not also possess such an umbrage?"
Most theists say that true morality is derived from God. So to say that evil god is inconsistent with greatness doesn't make sense. He's consistent with his own greatness, the difference is that we dont like his morality
I don’t understand why evil God would have to have no knowledge, no power, etc. evil God is just the opposite in terms of morality, not in terms of all characteristics of God. This is all seems like word games to define evil God out of existence so good God can stay.
this is on the precedence that evil and good are equal forces. its the same as alleging science and theology are equal forces. they're both located on different paradigms. If the root truth is good, then absence = evil. If the root truth is evil, then absence /= good ---- hasnt this heresy been brought up before?
Go ahead & believe evil problems are greater than the Love we profess to our friends, family, & self. However, it seems to me there is no greater Truth than Love is greater than any problem, evil, or even dimension of space, time, universe, or reality of existence. As a long time atheist myself, I used to believe all faith is blind. Now I realize you must be blind, (often willfully), to not see Love as the Truth that is God. It’s not that my truth or your truth is the One & only, “my way to the highway”. It’s not that any human truth equates with the Truth. We can’t claim to have the Truth. But we can claim the Truth has us. And that’s the act of submission to Christ in the offering at the mass as we receive the blessed sacrament of Holy Communion.
Lewis is wrong in the evil being unable to exist without good it's actually the other way around evil can exist on it'd own whereas good canno exist without evil as it's not a thing in itself
I haven’t finished watching, but how would you help someone whose experience of God through abusive pastors (not their reason specifically) has soured them to “good God” existing?
I feel like the simple answer is if God was evil he wouldnt have come down to save us and everybody would got to Hell anyway. It completely ignores the rest of everything in Christian theology
I decided to refresh my memory by listening to actual philosophers, including Law, before hearing Trent's response. Lets see how he does. 1. I think Joe Schmidt dropped the ball, just as Trent does. Having the property of being maximally evil, by my lights, cannot be weighed as less likely than maximally good. That's cultural conditioning, perhaps. We're not used to imagining an evil god. But just as Joe give no argumentation aside from personal incredulity and loaded language, nor does Trent. Of course. Evil god can be maximially great being. Saying such a god lacks the property of beign all good is simply begging the question. I don't care. And an all good god lacks the property of being maxmimally bad, and is therefore not a maxmimal being. The symmetry is intact. To break the symmetry, you have to already give more weight to goodness than evil, but that's begging the question. I genuinely doubt you can make a formal, academic defense of this without begging the question. So the same symmetry persists. You've struck out here, so has Joe. Maybe he'll respond to this video. I'd be interested to see it. 2. Don't screw around with semantic games. This is incredibly weak sauce. 3. No, Law is correct. Cool, lets say evil god is impossible if it will get you to engage with the problem. I think he wants you to see the theodicies work just as well for an evil god as a good god. And you have done your level best to not include that discussion. In sum. No discussion of the "good god" theodicies Law is implicitly questioning. Trent fails to locate Law's paper within the context of the problem of evil, and how Christians respond to that problem. So I don't think anyone who only watches Trent's video comes away with a grasp of Law's thinking. And look, most viewers are not philosophers so maybe that's inevitable. Trent is being quite selective in what he includes and what he leaves out. Maybe he thinks his audience is dumb, maybe he thinks they can't cope with hearing a fuller discussion, but Trent, your video is an insult to your subscribers. Do better. Give the full picture.
I'm still waiting to be punished by God for stepping the wrong way. Maybe He's more chill than we think. ...What do you mean that means He doesn't exist?
I always pray that I become a successful Catholic Social Media Influencer to spread the teachings and Revelations of the Catholic Church and the entire Christendom. I hope and pray the Devotion to the Eucharist and the Holy Souls in Purgatory helps me. Our Lady of Rosa Mystica, pray for us
Just take the arguments for God's theodicy and turn them on their head. Evil God moves in mysterious ways. Maybe he wants us to experience moments of happiness so that the reversal feels all the more painful. Maybe he wants us to experience pleasure in order to corrupt our progress in character/soul building and cause us greater suffering down the line.
@@infamyguy3187 But in the end people still try to do good. The inverse doesn't work because the standard is that we're wicked people and yet God calls us to do good. But the flip side is that this is an a evil god, still trying to get us to do good, and not evil. One can argue that this god is simply trying to deceive. But if that were the case then he is still not maximizing or prioritizing evil because he's still telling people to do good, and remain good. But this all frankly assuming that 'evil' exists independently from good. Which it does not.
@@Cklert I still think that the symmetry between God and Evil God holds. The Problem of Evil has the theologian trying to give arguments such as attaining greater goods down the line or that suffering builds character/soul. The Problem of Good has the evil theologian giving the exact same arguments just reversed. Fundamentally, I agree that the bigger hurdle for us is the definition 'good' and 'evil'. The idea of evil as a privation just doesn't work for me. A tooth cavity is not a privation. It's Caries bacteria flourishing and the person suffering. Indeed, suffering is much more fundamental to existence than happiness and makes a fairly compelling argument against the orthodox Christian conception of God.
One detail provides a refutation against the evil God notion. A man can live a life filled with pain and still find enough joy to die an unbroken man. If God were evil, every good would only exist to make pain all the worse to endure. This would mean that the absolute end goal of the human experience is to break our spirit and crush our will to even seek out anything good in the world. But yet, every day men pick themselves back up, recover, and go on to enjoy the simple pleasures of the earth. That could never take place if an evil god ruled creation.
A couple of criticisms I have: 1) regarding the “almost maximally good argument”. What if “good” is defined as the absence of “evil”? Wouldn’t that then mean that the Evil God could be maximally great? 2. “Any being who is not morally perfect is not worthy of being worshipped…therefore an Evil God cannot exist. First, what criteria are you using to determine whether God is morally perfect or not? If an atheist claimed that Yahweh is not morally perfect, and therefore cannot be worthy of worship, would you not say that Yaheweh is the moral arbiter, not the atheist? Similarly, how could a human being claim that an Evil God is immoral? Surely the Evil God is the moral arbiter, so his evil is actually the objective GOOD, making him worthy of worship?? I guess what I’m really saying is that by saying and Evil God is not worthy of worship, you are suggesting that objective morality is separate to the Evil God…but your position is that God IS the source of objective morality, is it not?
This is where I think the Young earth creationist position is strongest. It says they evil didn't come into the world until man sinned. But theistic evolutionists would say God created the world with evil like death and suffering from the very beginning before man was created.
I lol’d at the reversals like “evil God allows good in order to bring greater evil out of it.” This idea had real rhetorical potential, it could have been as funny and disrespectful as “Candide.” Atheists have fallen so far
Here is a challenge that cannot be refuted. Imagine that there is a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all loving. Now imagine a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all-hating. If asked which is the true God, then how would you respond? Any argument you can use for one works equally well for the other. This argument shows that God has nothing to do with morality.
The Evil God hypothesis begins with the problem of not understanding the nature of evil. Evil isn't a thing it itself. Evil can only exist as a corruption of good. In other words, Evil is not a thing. Only good is an actual thing. Thus Evil God would need to start by creating good things, which would contradict his nature.
Defining a view to be correct is perhaps the easiest way to prevail in an argument. So easy, virtually anyone can do it casting huge doubt on it's effectiveness.
Already starting off with a false statement. The argument isnt trying to "prove atheism." It's a critique of a particular kind of theist argument and how they try to avoid the problem of evil via appealing to ambiguity.
That's like saying the technique of hammering boards together with nails isn't building a house, it's just putting two boards together. You're just being pedantic, you get the point, and it doesn't invalidate anything else Trent says after. Congrats you managed to obfuscate, poorly.
@@xravenx24fe No, I actually don't get the point. If I have to give my honest opinion, it sounds like Trent gave the game away. He conceives of it as theist against atheist, but it's really just meant to point out a flaw in a specific type of theist argumentation, namely their proclivity to just wave away actual evil because of some unsubstantiated good. The whole point is that if Christians can wave away evil that way, I can just as easily wave away good. Also, my comment was about a specific statement, so obviously I didn't intend for it to invalidate anything after. I have my own thoughts about Trent's arguments, namely that he's largely begging the question by using his definition of god to prove an attribute of god. It's also problematic because even if his theology is internally consistent, he still has to show it can be found in reality, which is really the point of contention. Even if an evil god were impossible, that doesn't negate the fact that Christians cannot provide any real reason why the obvious evil in the world does lead, in all cases, to a greater good without using the same logic to argue that goods can leave to evil. It's just "God is good, so the evil must lead to good." This line of argumentation is obviously useless unless the absolute goodness of god can actually be shown. All of this is just obfuscation of the real question of what exactly is the base level of Christian epistemology.
If there were an "evil god," then evil would actually just be good. Goodness has its origin in God. Whatever is good is good because it was first in some way in God, and nothing in God is evil. In other words, the term "evil God" is a contradiction in terms. To be clear, even if something were different about God's nature such that He preferred our suffering or something like that, that preference would necessarily be good. There is no good or bad in a godless world, just facts.
The biggest problem with the “evil God” argument is that it completely misunderstands the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. Never-mind the fact that they are the same God. The person (almost said character but I remembered God exists) of God in the Old Testament is exactly like the one in the New Testament. He is loving. He is the Judge. This is shown in both the Old and New Testament because Christ, the Son of God, also being God, like His Father rewards the righteous, has mercy on sinners, and punishes the unrepentant. He is the same person throughout the entire thing. Not only that but it’s like everyone said in this comment section. Idiotic Gnostics tried and now dumb little atheists are trying their hand. You wanna know what happens? They always fail. Jesus Christ is Lord☦️
Evil-god contradicts the reality we live in. Pretty much all motion is dictated by Good. People WANT to be good. Even when people do evil it is most often a corruption of good. For example a person robbing another does so because he wants money which can give him access to good things. Or someone having an abortion because they believe it would lessen their suffering. Or an atheist arguing against God because he believes it is the truth and by spreading the "truth" tries to do good. The truth aspect alone defeats the entire argument of evil-god. The truth is absolutely good, and in arguing for an evil-god as a counter against God the atheist tries to be good. If evil-god existed then man would be in the image of evil and would not try to speak the truth. Which makes it an invalid argument since either he tries to be Good by telling the truth or he is trying to be evil by lying, which then means the argument is false, the atheist is left with the only options of God in his infinite Goodness or no God but man still seeks to be good.
Can someone explain how existence is a property of a "maximally great being?" Existence seems rather binary. If you take the opposite, a minimally "great" being: one that has minimal knowledge, minimal power, minimal goodness it does not follow that it should not exist. if anything these types of "beings" or things exist in abundance (viruses, prions, molecules) and seem to be the building blocks for more useful things. I have always found the ontological argument to be a semantic word game. There is no such thing as maximal/minimal existence. It seems either you exist or you don't.
It's interesting. He never seems to define what evil is. Good it seems is best defined as what is in God's will. Evil is going against the nature of things. It makes it nonsensical to say god is evil which would mean to go against God
Since this argument presupposes the privatization theory of evil is false. Why not just focus on that premise to under cut theistic responses to the problem of evil.
In your first challenge, Alex o' Conner in the interview brought up a counterpoint that being all knowing and all powerful would only be good characteristics if the god in question is also maximally good, however, if the god is maximally evil, being all knowing and all powerful would now be characteristics that are more evil. In essence, being all powerful and all knowing are both neutral characteristics and saying it's all good on top of that or all evil on top of that would change the characteristics such that they are either 3 good characteristics or 3 evil ones, meaning it actually does mesh together well. Why did you not address this argument even though you watched the interview? Also, even you can admit that second argument is trash. It's definition arguing semantics: changing the definition of a word to fit your argument. Just like how socialists will redefine capitalism as a "system of working class oppression" (I'm not even joking on that, watch a debate on youtube it's ridiculous).
I think that the reasoning here is too immersed in the catholic world view.Those having that reasoning really dont need this refutation. For example: it is not at all obvious for non-catholics that evil is the same a privation. For a lot of people, evil is whatever counscious being that causes suffering.
@@arnitaxavier9446 God pretty much allows angels and devils to do what they will. He does prevent some things, however. He has great respect for our will.
_"It is always wrong to kill an innocent child"_ *Trent Horn* _...in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving as an inheritance, do not leave anything alive that breathes. Completely destroy them..._ *Deuteronomy 20:13-18* Good God may exist. Evil Bible does exist.
An evil god would not create other beings capable of doing good because one characteristic of evil is enslaving all other beings. Any beings created would be only able to do evil. Therefore, if evil god exists, we would observe a world that is inherently always evil where no one chooses good. Evil does not tolerate any good, ever, and would destroy it immediately. A Good God would create beings capable of free will, because good does not seek to enslave all other beings. He would not, however, force them to choose his will, because forcing someone against their will is evil. Therefore, if Good God exists, we would observe a world that is a mix of both good and evil. Good can tolerate evil for a time, especially if the purpose behind tolerance is to redeem the evil and/or to allow people to escape it. Look at world and we can see what is actually happening. Is there evil? Yes. Is there good? Yes. Ergo, God is Good because while what he creates is Good inherently, he allows the possibility of people to have free will. Creating beings with the potential to do evil is not the same as creating evil, because if the beings always do good, then no evil results. The fact that some choose to do evil is the fault of those created with the will to do either Good or Evil, not the creator's fault. Anyone who claims that God should force people to enslave them to his will .... well, that's a pretty evil thing to say. I don't think even atheists would be happy with such a god. Which is funny, because without Good God, what are we humans but slaves to our DNA and evolution (i.e. evil god)?
1. If God is evil, he could make creatures that see being evil to others as a fun or desirable thing as well, and evil would be considered great. So the maximally evil being would be consistent with maximum greatness. 2. Satanists exist, don't they worship an evil being? If the created beings of an evil God see being evil as a desirable thing, then an evil God becomes worthy of worship. 3. Evil is not necessarily defined as the absence of good. Couldn't "good" just as well be defined as the absence of evil? Evil is better defined as actively wanting to cause suffering to others, not just as absence of goodness.
"Evil is not necessarily defined as the absence of good. Couldn't "good" just as well be defined as the absence of evil? " No because evils things are motivated by some form of good, but there is nothing good that is motivated purely by evil, for evil's sake.
Here's how I see it. God sent Jesus, and Jesus conveyed the message "be moral', and he explained what was moral. His followers did his bidding and look at us now: we know, even from statistics, that indeed there is more good than evil. Criminal people doing evil are the clear minority. We just needed to unfold, understand and implement God's morality. And what about the rest of the world? Well, those who don't follow God's commands tend to live in crappy nations. What happens when WE move away from God? Horrible things start happening. Like cults doing mastectomies on healthy children (aka "gender affirming care"). I'm my view, Christianity has a kind of Midas touch. But of course, no one is forced to obey God's commands, and so won't be touched and turned into the gold of God. It's like seeing a hundred dollar bill on the street and refusing to pick it up.
Intrinsic moral excellence i.e. being worthy of worship is just circular reasoning. What we call evil it just a word to describe perceived moral excellence but that doesn't make our perception of moral excellence correct. So an 'evil' God would have all the qualities of a 'most good' God' except what we perceived as good or bad would be neither but simply what God wanted. As is often argued, God is not good because being good makes Him great, but everything He does is 'good' because of His very nature. Hence any label of good or bad is a matter of perspective and how we chose to describe certain events. Thereby an Evil God would be just as plausible as a good God simply because there would be no difference between the two since the evil moniker is of our making and not of God's. Just because we create a moral standard to which God must adhere in order to be great doesn't make our perception of what is moral in any way valid. So, a most Evil God, or worst possible being, is just a oxymoron in that the most powerful being would not be subject to our moral philosophising. God bless, V
As Trent points out, the "evil God" hypothesis rests on the belief that evil is the opposite of good, not a lack of goodness. This theory rests on the idea that evil exists in the world as an antithesis of goodness and not a lack of goodness. It's a Yin-Yang idea.
But It is.
A child wanders around a forest without interactions (neutral).
A child wanders around a forest and gets kidnapped (evil).
Absence of good or evil is also a variable.
@@Daniel2374 In that analogy, that interaction depends on the person the child meets. If that person has some (very) basic decency, they have a pleasant interaction. Or maybe the person really is depraved, but they have a reputation they worked for, so they still refrain the evil act. To go through with it, they need to be lacking a number of good attributes.
And the abduction is only possible if the child, who has innate value, is present. Abduction isn't physically possible if there's nobody to abduct; evil is only possible when there's good to harm.
But goodness doesn't require evil; nobody had to be harmed for the child to be born. A person's decency doesn't require any evil sacrifice, nor would a person's reputation require that they harmed others.
@@nisonatic u cant have one without the other.
There is no relief without anxiousness, there is no hope without lacking, there is no riches without poverty, no congratulations without a fight.
Boredom is a lack of struggle and everything would feel slate without good or evil.
@Daniel2374 Yeah, so an all evil God would not be considered morally evil but just God as I already believe.
And by virtue would be good anyways. Is it truly evil then?
@@joshmcgill4639 special pleading.
I can say Zeus's nature is to exist therefore Zeus must exist. Holy thunder!
Saying God is good because the meaning of God is good is stupid. Might aswell say "good is good because good".
God would not allow evil to exist, if he could not bring greater good out of it.... St. Augustine said something like this.
This is also what Thanos said. You are saying that evil without purpose is impossible because otherwise your theological position breaks down. I’ve been on a missions trip to Mexico and can tell you that there were people suffering for no reason. And of course, if you don’t believe, your life is worse than meaningless, apparently.
An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God MUST know a myriad ways of bringing good without evil.
@@haitaelpastor976drawing closer to God is what brings about the greatest good. The more people that do, the more good there is.
The idea of free-will exists and thus good needs to come about via the willful act of free creatures
Well.. isn`t "evil God" a contradiction in terms? Evil by who`s standard?
yes
Great point our very definition of good and evil comes from God. By what standards can we judge Him?
@@shawnboahene5231The only standard is then subjective but we all know that if it's subjective then it doesn't matter.
Internal critique. One must not concede a viewpoint to be true to critique it. Consider EAAN
By normal people who don't trade their morality for divine command theory or the concept of might makes right.
--------------------------------------------‐------------
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this:* ***If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.*** *On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.*
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
---------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.
*"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
This idea of an ‘evil god’ Is old and catholic refutations of it are just as old, the gnostics tried their hand at it now modern day atheists are giving it a go.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Gnostics posited an imperfect creator but a perfect God, so not exactly the same
Much of the social media arguments have been hatched out for a thousand to thousands of years. People on social media are all acting like these are new and they are all so proud of their supposed “new discoveries.”
@@den8863 Ecclesiastes is simply based beyond the ages
@@Xeper616you’re right but you’re presenting this incorrectly.
They believe the God we interact with - our creator (the demiurge) is evil. It creates out of ignorance, deceit, and hatred.
We don’t interact with the Monad, we have the escape the physical world and reach the Pleroma.
So, essentially, they described the most proximal God as being the evil God.
Awesome video, Trent. You do truly amazing work.
It's all an excuse so they feel affirmed in their reasoning for not beliving in God.
Not really.
It's obvious that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat, who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, who can't help the Israelites overcome iron chariots and who evolved over time from one of many tribal gods and patron deities to become "God of the universe" is man made.
We're just waiting for you guys to catch on.
---------------------------------------------------------
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
like every argument for theism for believing in god which in the end is just a leap of faith because you cant know the supernatural
@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d According to the Bible, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher.
Do you guys ever investigate properly?
---------------------------------------------------------
*Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.*
"Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. *But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7)
“Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23);
For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.***
Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28)
Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27)
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30)
*He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:*
The sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34)
There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32)
He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel.
*Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin*
Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal)
You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62)
Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing.
*Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel*
Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”
Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51)
*Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.*
------------------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman*
*"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
*"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
*"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"*
(Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades)
*"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity.
*“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d In essence the act of believing is a leap of faith. God existence can not be proved empirically but with logical argument that are based on their own theology. All other religions have scholars that have the same conviction and still have totally different natural theology, agnosticism is the only scientific, humble view. This knowledge escapes our reach, look at how dumb Mormons look going house to house preaching a conman's book, all honest preachers in essence are the same
You are just saying that because you don't want to believe in evil God.
By definition this doesn’t seem to follow for me. Law is describing a perfect being that is also evil. A truly all evil “god” would have the worst characteristics, no knowledge, no power, and no eternal existence.
All I know is that evil god is not dying for me like my God. An all evil being would have too much pride. Literally maximum pride. My God has maximum love
🙏
Nah, this based upon unjustified presuppositions. Knowledge is neither good or bad, it’s what you would do with it that makes you either good or bad. Same goes for power etc, these are not moral attributes. What you guys do is presuppose what God must be, even though you have no true basis for this. An open theist could easily say that he doesn’t consider absolute omniscience as a great making property and what are you gonna say? “No you are wrong!😡😡😡😡” Good argument bro. Nobody in this world can by natural theology simply presuppose or say what God must exactly be, you may you can know he exists and is therefore powerful to a large degree, but you can’t just fill in: God is this, that etc erc.
Also, God dying for you is personal belief and not something considered in the debate topic of this video
Sauron is an evil god
He didn't really die, just took a weekend before coming back. And even if he did, it's like cheating on yourself at Solitaire.
The evil God hypothesis sounds like dualism
Dualism seems clearly correct to me, although Stephen Law is not arguing in favor of dualism.
@@nikhiljaikumar8611 I think he is. He believes good and evil are equal powers rather than evil being merely spoiled goodness. Trent’s rebuttal to his existence of an evil good is exactly why dualism cannot exist. Evil by its nature is inferior to good.
@@shawnboahene5231 On a techincal point, your use of dualism is totally valid in theology (‘dualist’ = someone who believes that Good and Evil - or God and the Devil - are independent and more or less equal forces in the world), but not in philosophy. To a philosopher, dualism is used in an ontological sense. Property dualism. Substance dualism. And in that sense, Christianity is completely dualist: two kinds of stuff, natural and supernatural.
Law isn't arguing for theological dualism at all. He's an atheist, he certainly //doesn't// believe these as real forces in the first place. Trent didn't do the best presentation of Law's point about theodicies. Law does not think there is an evil God. He thinks that believers who dismiss evil god with a theodicy of "look at all the good" are right, but that raises questions for the theodices the same believers use in favour of a good god.
@@nikhiljaikumar8611 everyone is kinda dualistic, theres Satan and theres God, thats all. Satan is not as powerfull as God, but because his hate is infinite, given the chance he would destroy everything God just does not allow it, hence he inspires us to do bad, and the more we stray from God, the more evil we become as a species, and the less he interferes in the world in the sense of preventing catatrophes.
@@Onlyafool172 that's not dualism. Christianity teaches that the devil is created by God and has no power that God doesn't allow him- that is definitely not dualism.
for the record, I disagree with Christianity and monotheism here.
Horn loves the Bill Craig tactic of creating your own esoteric definition of a word like god then using that definition to prove your point 😂
Attaching morality outside of religion to God is crazy. It's almost like they don't understand omniptence.
God IS. That's it. We are good or evil and HE is the judge of that.
Thank you for your wonderful videos! May God bless you and be with you today and always 🙏
Ungoliant consumed herself
And she was not like Eru. She was still a creation, just a mysterious one.
@@wulfheort8021 indeed. It's a fascinating commentary on how something purely evil could not create but only corrupt and destroy and would inevitably end up consuming itself. It could never be an equal opposite to the holy and good.
@@michaels7325 Exactly and Tolkien was very aware of that. There isn't a greater fantasy work than his that reflects (Christian) theology and philosophy.
I’ve just started getting into Tolkien’s books. Now, wherever I go on the internet, I am seeing Middle Earth references in the comments. It’s so weird 😂
@@AshAll3469 We are everywhere. You can't run, you can't hide.
Alex O'connor is very bright and seems to be arguing in good faith, therefore I won't be surprised if one day he becomes a theist. I was an ardent atheist myself, but having spent what amounts to Alex's entire time on this earth observing and analysing I came to the conclusion that an intelligent and moral creator of the universe must exist. It takes time.
If you are christian, what makes you think that Yahweh is in fact the creator?
Your conclusion doesn't imply that christianity is true.
@@alemore1146proof from thousands of philosophers
Excellent summary
Thank you for this.
It makes no logical sense that evil would exist as an independent entity
Yes, God would cease to be God if He had no power over Evil. As a matter of fact, demons submitted to Jesus in the Bible.
Okay, so let’s say that instead of creating the universe, God was to create just Hell and tile this out to infinity. While that might not be the worst thing possible, it gets pretty close to evil incarnate. We can imagine a perfectly good God doing the same for Heaven.
The video relies entirely on the subtle implications of near-synonyms. The omni-traits are not inherently good. Evil is morally, not functionally “worse”. Sure, the world isn’t as evil as it could be, but it’s equally not the best. It doesn’t matter that it’s slightly good.
@@seanpierce9386 Hell is not eternal. Hell will be empty on the General Judgement. Hell exists because of what we certainly know as justice. Lazarus and the rich man is a good example.
@@Misael-Hernandez Then what’s the point of spreading the Gospel? If you get to go yo Heaven anyway, that overrides any brief time spent in Hell. There’s no Biblical or theological precedent for this.
@@seanpierce9386 I did not say we get to go to Heaven anyway. The Gospel is the Good News of the Kingdom of God. It's a free pass to heaven regardless of any state of being whether a heartless person or a sincere one. The only thing left is for us to choose that gift or to reject it, and in this life we cannot say it is over until we pass away, and even when we pass away we are either in Hell, Heaven, or Purgatory. On the last Judgement (General Judgement) everyone will be present and then everything will be made known. If I died not repenting of my sins but choosing to do Evil, then to the lake of fire along with Satan and his demons.
I would say that the greatest gift “of love” is the possibility to let the one you love to freely choose… an all powerful evil “God” would take that gift away and let all people suffer to their maximum, all the time and everywhere.
It falls flat as an argument, it simply isn’t logical
No, and it's a pity Trent didn't fully discuss Law's point or the theodicies he thinks work both ways -- including the free will theodicy.
ua-cam.com/video/xLnsY5io964/v-deo.html
Alex actaully speaks directly to Stephen here. This is lays out the terrain much better than Trent does. You might still think Trent's reponses hold up, but it's worth framing the discussion properly.
That assumes that free will exists and is objectively moral from an outside perspective. Here’s a counterpoint: I would rather be forced to follow God than be sent to Hell. Would that not make it moral for God to not give me free will? (If you consider the request to be an exercise of free will it becomes a paradox.)
I don’t really mind if the evil God hypothetical doesn’t work out as long as it leads us to a better understanding of the actual claims being made rather than relying on theological assumptions. They are so frequently hidden away that neither side may recognize it.
How is there a concept of "good" at all if there is no God? Atheists seem to strenuously avoid this question. Like with the idea you can't be moral without God, yet there are plenty moral atheists, right? There is no "moral" at all without God
Because it’s a hypothetical. We assume all the positions of the theist except for claiming God is evil. The point is not to prove anything, but to show that certain arguments theists make (maybe not even all of them) are nonsensical. It’s a counterexample device.
For example: How do Christians have a concept of evil if God is not evil? Clearly, evil is the natural state of things, but humans have disobeyed God by becoming good. You simply can’t explain evil with a good God, so it must be false.
By the way, contrary to what is said in the video, evil can coexist with the omni-traits. Consider a God who creates only Hell.
@@seanpierce9386 That's really not true. Atheists take their position for granted when if everything is just a random assortment of matter, there is no good or evil. Atheists say we are good therefore Christianity is evil
So everything God does is good because he did it?
@@haitaelpastor976 God would have to be maximally good
@@TheThreatenedSwan You didn't answer the question.
Again: so everything God does is good because he did it?
I've wrestled quite thoroughly with the question of an evil God and have come to my conclusion that evil is too much a stain on perfect power to have any place in perfectly powerful Being. I appreciate your working to bring out that thesis here so that more can see the absolute absurdity of thinking it logically plausible to have an "Ungodly god". Have a very blessed day, dear Mr. Trent Horn!
I've heard this idea pop up a lot recently and I quickly intuited there was some contradiction there. Thanks for putting it all so concisely! This was really a slam dunk in my view haha.
Trent is very wise and smart, I don't understand half of the things he or the video he's watching are saying. Amazing video, Trent, keep up the good work of rebutting the unbelievers! :D
When it comes down to it, the problem of evil is essentially an emotional appeal, not a rational one
I’m hard-pressed to think of any evil things that God has done. What do you have in mind?
@@VanchaMarch2 He hasn't done anything evil. He is the Creator, so He can do literally anything and not be evil. He also cannot be evil because He is All-Good, He is Love. An evil god would force you to worship him, and if you don't, he sends you to Hell. But God gives you a choice to accept Him as your Savior, and if you don't accept, you send yourself to Hell. You can worship God all you want, but if you haven't accepted His gift of Salvation, that worship would be for nothing. Worshiping God is a good deed, and we are not justified by our good deeds. We are only justified by our faith in Jesus Christ.
@@VanchaMarch2God punishes all of humanity for sins of two people. He killed everyone in the world with a flood. Killed first borns of Egypt.Commanded a Genocide against cananites etc. All these acts are evil
@rahulpaul147 It's frustrating when people, both for and against God's existence, discuss His "morality." Morality is based on acting in accord with human nature. God has a divine nature. Applying the standard for goodness that is meant for us to God is like applying the standard for goodness that is meant for a plant to us.
God can take away whatever He freely and generously gave us, and it would be just. We aren't owed health, life, or anything.
@@PrimeTimePaulyRat I only answered that because the person specifically asked for evil acts committed by God.
Nobody in this world is owned anything so does that mean we can simply kill someone ?
Why can't we apply our morality to God ?
If we can't apply our standard then what standard can we apply ?
I believe in God and Catholicism, but I have always found the ontological argument completely unconvincing. The best counter-argument against the ontological argument is to point out that a "perfect girlfriend" would have the good of existence, and would have the good of being right here, however no such person is right here now, therefore the *idea* of perfection does not imply existence.
I think this is due to the apparent fact that value is not intrinsic to the material universe. "Perfect" is a statement that implies a value system. There may be a "true" morality, but if there is such a thing, it cannot be derived from purely materialist premises. I think there is such a thing as objective morality, but I also think that it cannot be proven. I have very deep reasons for these suspicions.
An evil god cannot perform good, and a good god cannot perform evil.
Free will in itself is a gift, so the idea that an evil god would gift us with free will doesn't check out
“Evil God”is an oxymoron
God is all good by his ontological nature
He can’t possibly be evil
God is all evil by his ontological nature, he can't possibly be good.
All you're gonna say is that god is "great-making" like Trent does, which is just begging the question. The point at hand is how can you know god is great-making in reality when the world does not seem to show that. It doesn't matter if your theology is internally consistent if it doesn't actually interface with reality.
@@WaterCat5 God is defined as a or the maximally great being
And since being good is greater than being evil he must be good
@@RustyCog Right, and that doesn't matter on its own. I can define god a different way. What matters is whether the definition actually has evidence for it. Show me evidence of this maximally great being, and then I'll care.
@@WaterCat5 before I answer I want to ask, have you ever looked for evidence?
@@RustyCog Yeah, statistically more than most christians, hence why I am on a Christian channel trying to understand their viewpoint. I just find all the arguments unconvincing and ultimately evasive in nature. Trent keeps resorting to weird philosophical definitions instead of looking at his scripture, which does not display a maximally great being to being with.
You don't need 27 minutes to rebut Law's bad argument. He says there's too much good to think an evil god exists and too much evil to think a good god exists so by that token there's most definetley an OK god but nobody believes in an OK god so clearly the argument is no use.
First off, thank you Trent. I'm not a good debater and you are teaching me a lot. Question; could the evil god exemple apply to how atheists see our own deaths as in just ceasing to exist forever just as if anything never happened? I've always through this was the most evil philosophical view on death but never really talked about this to anybody. If the connection is not warranted I'm sorry in advance cause as I said I'm not super sharp at explaining coherently and precisely my points. Nevertheless I'm still a relatively new christian, got saved lat year thanks to seeing so much evil in the world. God brought me back. But trully, and this I know, he never left me even as an un-believer. God bless you sir and sorry if I made an unnecessary connection.
I have an interesting thought:
Would a being of infinite non-existence, or absolute nothingness, necessarily be absolutely evil? Would the opposite of God, who is the infinite being itself, the infinite non-being, be unavoidably evil that it's the weakest state of seemingly existing?
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts!
Thank you for another logical presentation, Trent. The arguments make sense for a good God; they do not make sense for an evil god.
But they make more sense for NO God.
God is the standard by which we know and judge good and evil. In some real sense God Himself is beyond good and evil. Maximally Great Being or the ground of all being itself.
I’ve always thought it was interesting how few people believe in an evil God. It seems like people always believe God is good or there is no God at all. But if the arguments for God’s existence are really sound and human beings are generally deciding beliefs based on the evidence, then there should be a least a fair amount of people that believe in an evil God, who are convinced by the arguments for Gods existence but not for the arguments for his goodness. The lack of this kind of belief suggests to me one of two things: 1) either the arguments for Gods existence aren’t that sound unless you already believe God is good which gives you a bias or 2) humans who reject God are not going off of the evidence as much as they think but are rather rejecting the existence of a God they think of as evil. Both are interesting. As a Christian I tend to think of the latter as correct.
I think it's more the place of there not being evidence for it. God is a cumulative case and other evidence doesn't work for an evil god. Also the idea of evil and God contradict in Christan morality. God and good are synonyms to Christians. To say something is good is to say it is godlike. Good actions are in alignment with the abstract good. Which is God. Evil is to go against god meaning a evil god is a god that is not in alignment with himself. Which is to say he is both god and not God. Like saying a square circle exists. It can't be both.
Regarding 2, I think people need to demonstrate that an entity (God) like this first exists before criticizing reactions to it (like the POE/POS). Also lost in these discussions is the simple fact that, whatever God's reasons for allowing certain things we regard as terrible to happen, we may not care what God's reasons are in the first place. Those reasons, whatever they may be, are also partially or entirely unavailable to us, epistemically speaking, anyway; assuming there are such reasons is useless to us on a practical level. The philosopher Sharon Street spoke of this in a cumbersomely titled essay.
@@mitslev4043 Those are good points too. I'm not sure I would be convinced of God for example if I didn't believe he did miracles, but what kind of evil God would do miracles?
@@CollinBoSmithOne who was trying to mislead you, just like a good God points to Himself.
You have a point about the lack of an evil God. A good God is a recent phenomenon, relatively speaking. Polytheism used to be dominant, and it had all sorts of evil gods, but it didn’t have much of a tendency to convert nonbelievers. The whole good God thing took off because of the Abrahamic religions, which were quite prolific. So yes, not many people look into it because it’s the default view.
Maybe you should look into it. It sounds like you engage well with these types of ideas and it’s very interesting to investigate the roots of your faith. You might be surprised by what you used to think.
I would need to hear this guy's refutation of evil as an absence or a privation of the good before considering his argument.
Another wrench in this theory is the idea that an evil god would even want free will. God doesn’t allow evil primarily so that it could be used for good, he allows free will as a fundamentally good thing and evil as a byproduct. Even if the evil god gives everyone free will and no one chooses good, just giving them freedom to choose is good.
Why doesn't god create this world we live in to be as pure, good and holy as is in heaven, why need evil to exist at all? I'm not trying to pose the question out of disrespect, it is something that I often reflected on when it comes to religion.
Impeccably argued, Trent!
Hi Trent!
I have a question!
I’m also a Catholic and I think I understand the idea that if a being is completely evil, then it necessarily wouldn’t have any of the good of power, knowledge, etc. And I like your analogy of the worst football player, essentially not someone who cannot perform a SINGLE function of football, but someone who cannot perform ANY function of football. However, I’m now confused. How do we as Catholics conceive Satan? Do we see him as completely malevolent? If so, wouldn’t we disbelieve in his existence, as he would thus not even have the good of existence? Or perhaps do we conceive him as having a kernel of goodness in an otherwise evil being? Or perhaps, do we conceive him as not just lacking one attribute but many? Essentially, Satan has existence, but lacks power, knowledge, etc? But then THIS also confuses me. It appears that Satan has SOME form of omnipresence to see us, because we don’t believe there is someone in the universe that Satan is unaware of the existence of. He would also appear to have SOME form of omniscience to know our fears, desires etc. I don’t think we believe that there is a fear, or sin in my heart that Satan is unaware of. So would we as Catholics thus conceive Satan as a being similar to Laws evil god, someone who has some all good qualities, but not all, namely, omnibenevolence. Much love to all the work you do,
- Sincerely, a confused Catholic
I once heard on Relevant Radio that God loves Satan, that's why Satan exists, but Satan cannot love Him back.
I do find the idea behind the evil God challenge to be generally sound. There may be a few minor points of asymmetry, but they are not obvious.
For instance, one could argue that the good creator is inherently simpler than the evil creator, and I think this is one of the best arguments. However, we don't observe "simple good creator" because we don't observe simple goodness. We also observe suffering, so we need a more complicated understanding of what it means for God to be good (i.e. with theodicies).
So "simple goodness" isn't even on the table for discussion.
Good video but small nitpick. That particular formulation of the ontological argument fails (for both you and law) if you simply raise Kant's objection that existence is not a property. You could reformulate this and say the worst possible being is contingent and not necessary which is also more intuitive. However, I do think Law is somewhat right that a more evil (not technically worse) being is at least more effectively evil doer by having more great making properties, but it seems like a misuse of Ontological Arguments as it could be applied to any given property (i.e. is there a maximally great football player).
Even if existence is defined as having properties, it seems obvious that necessary existence is clearly distinct from mere existence, so necessary existence must be a property even if existence isn't.
A ball that happens to be red is clearly different from a ball that cannot be any other color but red, so the ball that must be red clearly has some property that distinguishes it from a ball that is merely red.
@@grantgooch5834 correct. hence why it's a nitpick. Trent's central point could be mapped perfectly fine onto more ironclad ontological argument formulations.
I think if there's a problem here is that what Law is describing as a "Maximally Terrible Being" is not what he actually means. What he means is that an evil being is worse by it being more able to effect evil. Which I see his point, but seems like a misapplication of the ontological argument, as it can be built for any arbitrary trait.
E.g. a footballer is a better footballer by being omnipotent but you can't use the ontological argument to prove that there exists some almighty footballer
God is a being worthy of being worshipped?? Where's u get that random made up definition lol
A maximally powerful being that created the universe is the bare bone definition.
Doesn't mean they're worthy of worship. That's a value judgement that is inherently subjective
Right!
We live in a time of very very bad philosophy. Excellent video knocking down what should be considered a child’s argument against theism.
Nah, it's just Lucifer whispering in his ear to say such horrible things to God. Glory to God for you, Mr Horn!😊😊❤❤❤
"It's different because... Duh, reasons"
6:22 "That's because a Good God is intrinsically more likely than an Evil God."
... says who? How would you demonstrate that it's inherently more likely?
“Evil God” is simply a self contradiction. “Evil” is a characterization of will or conduct that is displeasing to God. So “Evil God” would imply that God is pleased by that which displeases him. It cannot follow.
Even if one were to say that that which is good and evil would merely switch, it still couldn’t follow. For instance, it pleases God to honor one’s mother and father. One way we do that is through obedience. Parents teach their children to be obedient, children are obedient, and this is pleasing to God. So under the evil god theory, parents would have to instruct their children to be disobedient, which creates an obedience paradox. One cannot obey that instruction or disobey it without simultaneously disobeying or obeying it, respectively.
The entire exercise is incoherent. If evil god existed, Neither life, nor faith, nor reason, could exist.
Oh yeah and also the quote by Mary W is something I’ve actually always believed. Human beings choose evil out of ignorance, confusion and distortion. Which to me has always meant that we are inherently good and have merely “forgotten” and can’t see that for whatever reasons. Yet if our inclination is towards seeking a goodness but our view is distorted about that then it seems “evil” to be punished for eternity for that. When our nature is to seek “the good” though being simply confused or misinformed or I’ve noticed some people it’s the pain they have lived in life which clouds their judgement.
That’s understandable to another human being even and as human beings are saddened when we feel “powerless” to help them see the truth. Yet God is all powerful? My belief in God is not challenged by this. My ability to subscribe to say OT God definitely is.
Like, I don’t violate anyone’s free will by showing them good reasoning and self understanding. I’ve done it in my life to varying degrees and “self help” myself to clear up my own distortions. Yet it seems (biblical) God could do more for people if our punishment is so intense and eternal.
"God, why is evil so large and strong in the world?
"Man, can you not also cast a shadow monstrous to behold many times your size? This beast is unable to harm you as it obeys your every whim. Do you not also possess such an umbrage?"
Most theists say that true morality is derived from God. So to say that evil god is inconsistent with greatness doesn't make sense. He's consistent with his own greatness, the difference is that we dont like his morality
"There are ideas that are so dumb only an intelectual could believe".
I know God is good because he is my friend, he loves me, and he helps me every day.
I don’t understand why evil God would have to have no knowledge, no power, etc. evil God is just the opposite in terms of morality, not in terms of all characteristics of God.
This is all seems like word games to define evil God out of existence so good God can stay.
this is on the precedence that evil and good are equal forces. its the same as alleging science and theology are equal forces. they're both located on different paradigms. If the root truth is good, then absence = evil. If the root truth is evil, then absence /= good ---- hasnt this heresy been brought up before?
Go ahead & believe evil problems are greater than the Love we profess to our friends, family, & self. However, it seems to me there is no greater Truth than Love is greater than any problem, evil, or even dimension of space, time, universe, or reality of existence.
As a long time atheist myself, I used to believe all faith is blind. Now I realize you must be blind, (often willfully), to not see Love as the Truth that is God.
It’s not that my truth or your truth is the One & only, “my way to the highway”. It’s not that any human truth equates with the Truth. We can’t claim to have the Truth. But we can claim the Truth has us. And that’s the act of submission to Christ in the offering at the mass as we receive the blessed sacrament of Holy Communion.
Lewis is wrong in the evil being unable to exist without good it's actually the other way around evil can exist on it'd own whereas good canno exist without evil as it's not a thing in itself
Jeet Kune Do Apologetics.
Define evil in the absence of God.
I haven’t finished watching, but how would you help someone whose experience of God through abusive pastors (not their reason specifically) has soured them to “good God” existing?
Long and patient counter example?
If they have had that horrible personal experience, then no amount of apologetics would work. That trauma has to be processed.
I feel like the simple answer is if God was evil he wouldnt have come down to save us and everybody would got to Hell anyway. It completely ignores the rest of everything in Christian theology
Awesome video Trent. Can you do a video rebutting messianic christianity? I’d like to hear a fleshed out take from you on the matter.
I think it should be a basic rhetorical rule that thought experiments aren't sufficient proof for ontological ideas.
The athiest makes an objective moral claim despite saying that an objective morality does not exist. 🤔
The biggest problem is, as I see it, what specifically is the nature of this evil god?
No. That’s the point. Evil god=. No Hedons.Evil God= no ‘Non Ons’. Evil God = MALVONS.😱
I decided to refresh my memory by listening to actual philosophers, including Law, before hearing Trent's response. Lets see how he does.
1. I think Joe Schmidt dropped the ball, just as Trent does. Having the property of being maximally evil, by my lights, cannot be weighed as less likely than maximally good. That's cultural conditioning, perhaps. We're not used to imagining an evil god. But just as Joe give no argumentation aside from personal incredulity and loaded language, nor does Trent. Of course. Evil god can be maximially great being. Saying such a god lacks the property of beign all good is simply begging the question. I don't care. And an all good god lacks the property of being maxmimally bad, and is therefore not a maxmimal being. The symmetry is intact. To break the symmetry, you have to already give more weight to goodness than evil, but that's begging the question. I genuinely doubt you can make a formal, academic defense of this without begging the question. So the same symmetry persists. You've struck out here, so has Joe. Maybe he'll respond to this video. I'd be interested to see it.
2. Don't screw around with semantic games. This is incredibly weak sauce.
3. No, Law is correct. Cool, lets say evil god is impossible if it will get you to engage with the problem. I think he wants you to see the theodicies work just as well for an evil god as a good god. And you have done your level best to not include that discussion.
In sum. No discussion of the "good god" theodicies Law is implicitly questioning. Trent fails to locate Law's paper within the context of the problem of evil, and how Christians respond to that problem. So I don't think anyone who only watches Trent's video comes away with a grasp of Law's thinking. And look, most viewers are not philosophers so maybe that's inevitable. Trent is being quite selective in what he includes and what he leaves out. Maybe he thinks his audience is dumb, maybe he thinks they can't cope with hearing a fuller discussion, but Trent, your video is an insult to your subscribers. Do better. Give the full picture.
I'm still waiting to be punished by God for stepping the wrong way. Maybe He's more chill than we think.
...What do you mean that means He doesn't exist?
Man Gnosticism never goes away does it?
Is Trent Horn still going to be debating a mormon sometime soon? And what is the topic of debate?
I always pray that I become a successful Catholic Social Media Influencer to spread the teachings and Revelations of the Catholic Church and the entire Christendom. I hope and pray the Devotion to the Eucharist and the Holy Souls in Purgatory helps me.
Our Lady of Rosa Mystica, pray for us
HappyEvil=GoodUnhappy
This is a more realistic problem in my opinion.
And God is all Good
If God evil why not eternal suffering every single second of every day
Just take the arguments for God's theodicy and turn them on their head. Evil God moves in mysterious ways. Maybe he wants us to experience moments of happiness so that the reversal feels all the more painful. Maybe he wants us to experience pleasure in order to corrupt our progress in character/soul building and cause us greater suffering down the line.
You mean hell?
@@infamyguy3187 But in the end people still try to do good.
The inverse doesn't work because the standard is that we're wicked people and yet God calls us to do good. But the flip side is that this is an a evil god, still trying to get us to do good, and not evil. One can argue that this god is simply trying to deceive. But if that were the case then he is still not maximizing or prioritizing evil because he's still telling people to do good, and remain good.
But this all frankly assuming that 'evil' exists independently from good. Which it does not.
@@Cklert I still think that the symmetry between God and Evil God holds. The Problem of Evil has the theologian trying to give arguments such as attaining greater goods down the line or that suffering builds character/soul. The Problem of Good has the evil theologian giving the exact same arguments just reversed.
Fundamentally, I agree that the bigger hurdle for us is the definition 'good' and 'evil'. The idea of evil as a privation just doesn't work for me. A tooth cavity is not a privation. It's Caries bacteria flourishing and the person suffering. Indeed, suffering is much more fundamental to existence than happiness and makes a fairly compelling argument against the orthodox Christian conception of God.
One detail provides a refutation against the evil God notion. A man can live a life filled with pain and still find enough joy to die an unbroken man. If God were evil, every good would only exist to make pain all the worse to endure. This would mean that the absolute end goal of the human experience is to break our spirit and crush our will to even seek out anything good in the world. But yet, every day men pick themselves back up, recover, and go on to enjoy the simple pleasures of the earth. That could never take place if an evil god ruled creation.
Soul Breaking.
For evil god, evil is his good. For good God, good is his good. Simetry already breaks.
I think a balanced god could solve the problem, that we experience good and evil.
It is incredible how smart people are mentioning this not logical thing. God help us with all of this kind of 🤮thinking
It’s almost like…God came down to earth…and this God lived a sinless, perfect life… revealing how good God’s nature is.
A couple of criticisms I have:
1) regarding the “almost maximally good argument”. What if “good” is defined as the absence of “evil”? Wouldn’t that then mean that the Evil God could be maximally great?
2. “Any being who is not morally perfect is not worthy of being worshipped…therefore an Evil God cannot exist.
First, what criteria are you using to determine whether God is morally perfect or not? If an atheist claimed that Yahweh is not morally perfect, and therefore cannot be worthy of worship, would you not say that Yaheweh is the moral arbiter, not the atheist? Similarly, how could a human being claim that an Evil God is immoral? Surely the Evil God is the moral arbiter, so his evil is actually the objective GOOD, making him worthy of worship??
I guess what I’m really saying is that by saying and Evil God is not worthy of worship, you are suggesting that objective morality is separate to the Evil God…but your position is that God IS the source of objective morality, is it not?
Waiting for joe’s response 😂
This is where I think the Young earth creationist position is strongest. It says they evil didn't come into the world until man sinned. But theistic evolutionists would say God created the world with evil like death and suffering from the very beginning before man was created.
It's only evil for beings with rational souls to die. Non-rational souls are not immortal.
I lol’d at the reversals like “evil God allows good in order to bring greater evil out of it.” This idea had real rhetorical potential, it could have been as funny and disrespectful as “Candide.” Atheists have fallen so far
“A maximally evil being, than whom no worse can be conceived, who therefore must exist”… this could have been a magnificent piss take
Here is a challenge that cannot be refuted. Imagine that there is a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all loving. Now imagine a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all-hating. If asked which is the true God, then how would you respond? Any argument you can use for one works equally well for the other. This argument shows that God has nothing to do with morality.
The Evil God hypothesis begins with the problem of not understanding the nature of evil. Evil isn't a thing it itself. Evil can only exist as a corruption of good. In other words, Evil is not a thing. Only good is an actual thing. Thus Evil God would need to start by creating good things, which would contradict his nature.
Defining a view to be correct is perhaps the easiest way to prevail in an argument. So easy, virtually anyone can do it casting huge doubt on it's effectiveness.
Already starting off with a false statement. The argument isnt trying to "prove atheism." It's a critique of a particular kind of theist argument and how they try to avoid the problem of evil via appealing to ambiguity.
That's like saying the technique of hammering boards together with nails isn't building a house, it's just putting two boards together. You're just being pedantic, you get the point, and it doesn't invalidate anything else Trent says after. Congrats you managed to obfuscate, poorly.
@@xravenx24fe No, I actually don't get the point. If I have to give my honest opinion, it sounds like Trent gave the game away. He conceives of it as theist against atheist, but it's really just meant to point out a flaw in a specific type of theist argumentation, namely their proclivity to just wave away actual evil because of some unsubstantiated good. The whole point is that if Christians can wave away evil that way, I can just as easily wave away good.
Also, my comment was about a specific statement, so obviously I didn't intend for it to invalidate anything after. I have my own thoughts about Trent's arguments, namely that he's largely begging the question by using his definition of god to prove an attribute of god. It's also problematic because even if his theology is internally consistent, he still has to show it can be found in reality, which is really the point of contention.
Even if an evil god were impossible, that doesn't negate the fact that Christians cannot provide any real reason why the obvious evil in the world does lead, in all cases, to a greater good without using the same logic to argue that goods can leave to evil. It's just "God is good, so the evil must lead to good." This line of argumentation is obviously useless unless the absolute goodness of god can actually be shown. All of this is just obfuscation of the real question of what exactly is the base level of Christian epistemology.
@@xravenx24fe hammering two boards together isn’t building a house. OP wasn’t being pedantic, the analogy isn’t designed to prove atheism.
If there were an "evil god," then evil would actually just be good.
Goodness has its origin in God. Whatever is good is good because it was first in some way in God, and nothing in God is evil.
In other words, the term "evil God" is a contradiction in terms.
To be clear, even if something were different about God's nature such that He preferred our suffering or something like that, that preference would necessarily be good. There is no good or bad in a godless world, just facts.
The biggest problem with the “evil God” argument is that it completely misunderstands the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. Never-mind the fact that they are the same God. The person (almost said character but I remembered God exists) of God in the Old Testament is exactly like the one in the New Testament. He is loving. He is the Judge. This is shown in both the Old and New Testament because Christ, the Son of God, also being God, like His Father rewards the righteous, has mercy on sinners, and punishes the unrepentant. He is the same person throughout the entire thing. Not only that but it’s like everyone said in this comment section. Idiotic Gnostics tried and now dumb little atheists are trying their hand. You wanna know what happens? They always fail. Jesus Christ is Lord☦️
So the freewill that God gave us is basically the evil god that they're describing
Evil-god contradicts the reality we live in.
Pretty much all motion is dictated by Good. People WANT to be good. Even when people do evil it is most often a corruption of good. For example a person robbing another does so because he wants money which can give him access to good things. Or someone having an abortion because they believe it would lessen their suffering. Or an atheist arguing against God because he believes it is the truth and by spreading the "truth" tries to do good.
The truth aspect alone defeats the entire argument of evil-god. The truth is absolutely good, and in arguing for an evil-god as a counter against God the atheist tries to be good. If evil-god existed then man would be in the image of evil and would not try to speak the truth. Which makes it an invalid argument since either he tries to be Good by telling the truth or he is trying to be evil by lying, which then means the argument is false, the atheist is left with the only options of God in his infinite Goodness or no God but man still seeks to be good.
Good God contradicts it equallu
Can someone explain how existence is a property of a "maximally great being?" Existence seems rather binary. If you take the opposite, a minimally "great" being: one that has minimal knowledge, minimal power, minimal goodness it does not follow that it should not exist. if anything these types of "beings" or things exist in abundance (viruses, prions, molecules) and seem to be the building blocks for more useful things. I have always found the ontological argument to be a semantic word game. There is no such thing as maximal/minimal existence. It seems either you exist or you don't.
It's interesting. He never seems to define what evil is. Good it seems is best defined as what is in God's will. Evil is going against the nature of things. It makes it nonsensical to say god is evil which would mean to go against God
Oh no, now Joe Schmidt is gonna release another 3 hour video that could of taken 30 minutes
Since this argument presupposes the privatization theory of evil is false. Why not just focus on that premise to under cut theistic responses to the problem of evil.
In your first challenge, Alex o' Conner in the interview brought up a counterpoint that being all knowing and all powerful would only be good characteristics if the god in question is also maximally good, however, if the god is maximally evil, being all knowing and all powerful would now be characteristics that are more evil. In essence, being all powerful and all knowing are both neutral characteristics and saying it's all good on top of that or all evil on top of that would change the characteristics such that they are either 3 good characteristics or 3 evil ones, meaning it actually does mesh together well. Why did you not address this argument even though you watched the interview?
Also, even you can admit that second argument is trash. It's definition arguing semantics: changing the definition of a word to fit your argument. Just like how socialists will redefine capitalism as a "system of working class oppression" (I'm not even joking on that, watch a debate on youtube it's ridiculous).
I think that the reasoning here is too immersed in the catholic world view.Those having that reasoning really dont need this refutation. For example: it is not at all obvious for non-catholics that evil is the same a privation. For a lot of people, evil is whatever counscious being that causes suffering.
This rebuttal starts at the wrong point. If someone sees good as a "problem" to be solved then the issue is the person and not the argument.
Evil in the world just proves the existence of sin and the devil
@SydneyBell-eh6je how do you know? Jesus talked about the devil. You know better than Jesus??? 😂
@SydneyBell-eh6je oh my goodness. I can't reason with a crazy person. I hope you get the mental help you need.
@@jackieo8693 Does this imply that God has no control over the Devil?
@@arnitaxavier9446 God pretty much allows angels and devils to do what they will. He does prevent some things, however. He has great respect for our will.
_"It is always wrong to kill an innocent child"_ *Trent Horn* _...in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving as an inheritance, do not leave anything alive that breathes. Completely destroy them..._ *Deuteronomy 20:13-18* Good God may exist. Evil Bible does exist.
If existing is good, an evil God would not create the universe.
If he was evil he would have turned the sun off long ago
An evil god would not create other beings capable of doing good because one characteristic of evil is enslaving all other beings. Any beings created would be only able to do evil. Therefore, if evil god exists, we would observe a world that is inherently always evil where no one chooses good. Evil does not tolerate any good, ever, and would destroy it immediately.
A Good God would create beings capable of free will, because good does not seek to enslave all other beings. He would not, however, force them to choose his will, because forcing someone against their will is evil. Therefore, if Good God exists, we would observe a world that is a mix of both good and evil. Good can tolerate evil for a time, especially if the purpose behind tolerance is to redeem the evil and/or to allow people to escape it.
Look at world and we can see what is actually happening. Is there evil? Yes. Is there good? Yes. Ergo, God is Good because while what he creates is Good inherently, he allows the possibility of people to have free will. Creating beings with the potential to do evil is not the same as creating evil, because if the beings always do good, then no evil results. The fact that some choose to do evil is the fault of those created with the will to do either Good or Evil, not the creator's fault.
Anyone who claims that God should force people to enslave them to his will .... well, that's a pretty evil thing to say. I don't think even atheists would be happy with such a god. Which is funny, because without Good God, what are we humans but slaves to our DNA and evolution (i.e. evil god)?
1. If God is evil, he could make creatures that see being evil to others as a fun or desirable thing as well, and evil would be considered great. So the maximally evil being would be consistent with maximum greatness.
2. Satanists exist, don't they worship an evil being? If the created beings of an evil God see being evil as a desirable thing, then an evil God becomes worthy of worship.
3. Evil is not necessarily defined as the absence of good. Couldn't "good" just as well be defined as the absence of evil? Evil is better defined as actively wanting to cause suffering to others, not just as absence of goodness.
"Evil is not necessarily defined as the absence of good. Couldn't "good" just as well be defined as the absence of evil? "
No because evils things are motivated by some form of good, but there is nothing good that is motivated purely by evil, for evil's sake.
Isn’t evil God just the devil?
Here's how I see it.
God sent Jesus, and Jesus conveyed the message "be moral', and he explained what was moral.
His followers did his bidding and look at us now: we know, even from statistics, that indeed there is more good than evil. Criminal people doing evil are the clear minority.
We just needed to unfold, understand and implement God's morality.
And what about the rest of the world? Well, those who don't follow God's commands tend to live in crappy nations.
What happens when WE move away from God? Horrible things start happening. Like cults doing mastectomies on healthy children (aka "gender affirming care").
I'm my view, Christianity has a kind of Midas touch. But of course, no one is forced to obey God's commands, and so won't be touched and turned into the gold of God.
It's like seeing a hundred dollar bill on the street and refusing to pick it up.
Intrinsic moral excellence i.e. being worthy of worship is just circular reasoning. What we call evil it just a word to describe perceived moral excellence but that doesn't make our perception of moral excellence correct. So an 'evil' God would have all the qualities of a 'most good' God' except what we perceived as good or bad would be neither but simply what God wanted. As is often argued, God is not good because being good makes Him great, but everything He does is 'good' because of His very nature. Hence any label of good or bad is a matter of perspective and how we chose to describe certain events. Thereby an Evil God would be just as plausible as a good God simply because there would be no difference between the two since the evil moniker is of our making and not of God's. Just because we create a moral standard to which God must adhere in order to be great doesn't make our perception of what is moral in any way valid. So, a most Evil God, or worst possible being, is just a oxymoron in that the most powerful being would not be subject to our moral philosophising.
God bless,
V