An Evil God - How Would the World Differ?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: How would the world differ from the world we live in, if there was an all- or extremely-powerful god, but its goal was to hurt people, break them, and make them suffer to maximum extent possible?

Do try to find concrete examples even if you think there really is such a god running our world. I admit it's a serious possibility and I can find a major one.

[elphidium55]

I do not see why there would be a logically necessary for the way the world "has to be" based on whether god is good or bad. Yes, our intuition is that good-god would create a good world and evil-god would create an evil world. But obviously that is not the case. The world, as we have it, seems to be filled with both natural goodness and natural evil (by natural, I mean goodness/evil that is not the result of human agency).

Here are two popular ways of dealing with this quandry.

By way of theodicy: Here we construct reasons for why good-god would permit evil and evil-god would allow goodness.

By denying some feature of what we take to be good and evil. Here we provide reasons for why we believe good-god does not create gratuitous evil and evil-god does not create gratuitous goodness. What looks to be evil is ultimately good and what looks to be good is ultimately evil. We, as fallible beings, cannot know what the ultimate purpose is for apparently gratuitous evil and good acts. So we must be skeptical in our judgments regarding these.

Notice there seems to a parity for these arguments - what works for one side works for the other side.

[alexxcJRO]

I do not see why there would be a logically necessary for the way the world "has to be" based on whether god is good or bad. Yes, our intuition is that good-god would create a good world and evil-god would create an evil world. But obviously that is not the case. The world, as we have it, seems to be filled with both natural goodness and natural evil (by natural, I mean goodness/evil that is not the result of human agency).

Here are two popular ways of dealing with this quandry.

By way of theodicy: Here we construct reasons for why good-god would permit evil and evil-god would allow goodness.

By denying some feature of what we take to be good and evil. Here we provide reasons for why we believe good-god does not create gratuitous evil and evil-god does not create gratuitous goodness. What looks to be evil is ultimately good and what looks to be good is ultimately evil. We, as fallible beings, cannot know what the ultimate purpose is for apparently gratuitous evil and good acts. So we must be skeptical in our judgments regarding these.

Notice there seems to a parity for these arguments - what works for one side works for the other side.

I have looked at all theodicies. All are a joke. Do not explain the existence of E I exemplified in my previous post.

Free will theodicy. Joke.
Corruption of the universe, original sin theodicy. Joke.
Satan free willed creature causing naturals evils theodicy. Joke.
Natural evils are part of natural law theodicy. Joke.
That natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment theodicy. Joke.
Evolutionary theodicy. Joke.
Soul-making, moral character building and virtuous acts theodicy. Joke.
And so on.

The fact that
-we have instances of suffering that happen randomly, indiscriminately to both the innocent and guilty, to both non-moral agents and moral agents; that happened before there were any moral agents; that scream complete indifference and not compatible with any imagined purpose or idea: moral character building, soul-making, punishing the guilty;
-there was/is no corruption of the universe, original sin, divine beings causing natural evils(such imaginings Haven been debunked by science and modern scientific discoveries);
can only point to the non-existence of any omniperfect good, personal God.

This is also enforced by The Problem of Confusion, The Problem of Genuine Disbelief, The Problem of Psychopathy.

[elphidium55]

What is affirmed without arguments can be denied without arguments. Thus ...

Free will theodicy. Not a Joke.
Corruption of the universe, original sin theodicy. Not a Joke.
Satan free willed creature causing naturals evils theodicy. Not a Joke.
Natural evils are part of natural law theodicy. Not a Joke.
That natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment theodicy. Not a Joke.
Evolutionary theodicy. Not a Joke.
Soul-making, moral character building and virtuous acts theodicy. Not a Joke.
And so on.

As a philosophical naturalist (aka atheist), I am disinclined towards accepting any theodicy as a solution to the problem of evil. However, I arrive at this conclusion after engaging with what I take to be at least some serious thinkers with serious proposals for theodicy. I think arguments for theodicy are wrong -- I just don't think they are jokes.

[alexxcJRO]

What is affirmed without arguments can be denied without arguments. Thus ...

Free will theodicy. Not a Joke.
Corruption of the universe, original sin theodicy. Not a Joke.
Satan free willed creature causing naturals evils theodicy. Not a Joke.
Natural evils are part of natural law theodicy. Not a Joke.
That natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment theodicy. Not a Joke.
Evolutionary theodicy. Not a Joke.
Soul-making, moral character building and virtuous acts theodicy. Not a Joke.
And so on.

As a philosophical naturalist (aka atheist), I am disinclined towards accepting any theodicy as a solution to the problem of evil. However, I arrive at this conclusion after engaging with what I take to be at least some serious thinkers with serious proposals for theodicy. I think arguments for theodicy are wrong -- I just don't think they are jokes.

You are correct: "What is affirmed without arguments can be denied without arguments."
But at this point desperately trying to save Humpty Dumpty(aka omniperfect personal monotheistic God) and put him back together is a joke. Humpty Dumpty cannot be resuscitated cuz' not because it is dead it was never alive. The delusion that somehow it can be put together its kind of a tragic comedy as this point.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

With evil in charge, you wouldn’t have the pleasure of asking if evil is in charge. All pleasures would be gone. And there is a place where a powerful evil being is in charge. There is no pleasure nor comfort nor companionship. Every human suffers every moment and doesn’t even have the comfort of suffering together. They would love to pass a word to another human and even that’s not allowed

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

With evil in charge, you wouldn’t have the pleasure of asking if evil is in charge. All pleasures would be gone. And there is a place where a powerful evil being is in charge. There is no pleasure nor comfort nor companionship. Every human suffers every moment and doesn’t even have the comfort of suffering together. They would love to pass a word to another human and even that’s not allowed

A faith claim - not to say a helthreat claim - without a shred of decent support.

While reading the above exchanges the old problem seems to be in evidence - a priori godfaith. That is why Christian, Bible and religious apologetics uses Theodicy and free will argument. Quite simple, they are excuses as to why the world looks like there is no god there. Excuses, and more excuses, and once that is pointed out, there is no reason for anyone to accept these excuses (even without getting to the question of which god is being excused) unless one wants religious bias confirmed.

But the other view is to NOT postulate a god (name your own) that did anything, let alone everything. Then the argument places the burden of proof on the God -claimant, to produce reasons why we should credit a god of any kind with the way the world looks, not excuses why it doesn't look like there is a god there.

And again, as is always the case, faithbased denial does not win.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

With evil in charge, you wouldn’t have the pleasure of asking if evil is in charge. All pleasures would be gone. And there is a place where a powerful evil being is in charge. There is no pleasure nor comfort nor companionship. Every human suffers every moment and doesn’t even have the comfort of suffering together. They would love to pass a word to another human and even that’s not allowed

A faith claim - not to say a helthreat claim - without a shred of decent support.

While reading the above exchanges the old problem seems to be in evidence - a priori godfaith. That is why Christian, Bible and religious apologetics uses Theodicy and free will argument. Quite simple, they are excuses as to why the world looks like there is no god there. Excuses, and more excuses, and once that is pointed out, there is no reason for anyone to accept these excuses (even without getting to the question of which god is being excused) unless one wants religious bias confirmed.

But the other view is to NOT postulate a god (name your own) that did anything, let alone everything. Then the argument places the burden of proof on the God -claimant, to produce reasons why we should credit a god of any kind with the way the world looks, not excuses why it doesn't look like there is a god there.

And again, as is always the case, faithbased denial does not win.

The question posed is a 100% faith claim. So all of the responses must be faith responses. To complain about this is to not understand what faith is.

Can you please try to make your responses more brief? The above is the usual atheist insults based on ignorance, but brevity would be an improvement.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

With evil in charge, you wouldn’t have the pleasure of asking if evil is in charge. All pleasures would be gone. And there is a place where a powerful evil being is in charge. There is no pleasure nor comfort nor companionship. Every human suffers every moment and doesn’t even have the comfort of suffering together. They would love to pass a word to another human and even that’s not allowed

A faith claim - not to say a helthreat claim - without a shred of decent support.

While reading the above exchanges the old problem seems to be in evidence - a priori godfaith. That is why Christian, Bible and religious apologetics uses Theodicy and free will argument. Quite simple, they are excuses as to why the world looks like there is no god there. Excuses, and more excuses, and once that is pointed out, there is no reason for anyone to accept these excuses (even without getting to the question of which god is being excused) unless one wants religious bias confirmed.

But the other view is to NOT postulate a god (name your own) that did anything, let alone everything. Then the argument places the burden of proof on the God -claimant, to produce reasons why we should credit a god of any kind with the way the world looks, not excuses why it doesn't look like there is a god there.

And again, as is always the case, faithbased denial does not win.

The question posed is a 100% faith claim. So all of the responses must be faith responses. To complain about this is to not understand what faith is.

Can you please try to make your responses more brief? The above is the usual atheist insults based on ignorance, but brevity would be an improvement.

It isn't a faith - claim so much as a hypothetica lfor discussion, like a solipsistic universe. If any relevance it touches on why the world is how it is, given the god -claim.

I didn't tell you where to aim your guns, don't tell me where I should aim mine. (Arthur Wellesley)

My responses contain just as much as there needs to be, and if you don't like it, tough. It's also tough that pot -kettle accusations get your case (whatever it is..I didn't even see one...nowhere.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

With evil in charge, you wouldn’t have the pleasure of asking if evil is in charge. All pleasures would be gone. And there is a place where a powerful evil being is in charge. There is no pleasure nor comfort nor companionship. Every human suffers every moment and doesn’t even have the comfort of suffering together. They would love to pass a word to another human and even that’s not allowed

A faith claim - not to say a helthreat claim - without a shred of decent support.

While reading the above exchanges the old problem seems to be in evidence - a priori godfaith. That is why Christian, Bible and religious apologetics uses Theodicy and free will argument. Quite simple, they are excuses as to why the world looks like there is no god there. Excuses, and more excuses, and once that is pointed out, there is no reason for anyone to accept these excuses (even without getting to the question of which god is being excused) unless one wants religious bias confirmed.

But the other view is to NOT postulate a god (name your own) that did anything, let alone everything. Then the argument places the burden of proof on the God -claimant, to produce reasons why we should credit a god of any kind with the way the world looks, not excuses why it doesn't look like there is a god there.

And again, as is always the case, faithbased denial does not win.

The question posed is a 100% faith claim. So all of the responses must be faith responses. To complain about this is to not understand what faith is.

Can you please try to make your responses more brief? The above is the usual atheist insults based on ignorance, but brevity would be an improvement.

It isn't a faith - claim so much as a hypothetica lfor discussion, like a solipsistic universe. If any relevance it touches on why the world is how it is, given the god -claim.

So you admit the matter of God is NOT a faith matter? Really? Or do you propose that it’s like a discussion of the tooth fairy and her preferred molars? Or what Aragon and Legolas liked for breakfast?

I didn't tell you where to aim your guns, don't tell me where I should aim mine. (Arthur Wellesley)

My responses contain just as much as there needs to be, and if you don't like it, tough. It's also tough that pot -kettle accusations get your case (whatever it is..I didn't even see one...nowhere.

My posts are A LOT shorter. I am able to express my position in a few sentences not many paragraphs. Wordsmith runs in the family.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

With evil in charge, you wouldn’t have the pleasure of asking if evil is in charge. All pleasures would be gone. And there is a place where a powerful evil being is in charge. There is no pleasure nor comfort nor companionship. Every human suffers every moment and doesn’t even have the comfort of suffering together. They would love to pass a word to another human and even that’s not allowed

So every pleasant memory would be gone?