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.

[Purple Knight]

My answer is something you wouldn't expect: It's too easy to break the law and get away with it. So with an evil god, I think it would be harder to break the law.

This is because, if a god was truly interested in suffering, he'd want as many glass ceilings as possible. They have to be crystal-clear. He'd love the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. In fact, fewer and fewer. This is a point for him and not against him. He wants us to be able to see what we cannot have. So mass media, world connectivity, combined with a vast concentration of wealth and property in the hands of fewer and fewer maximises suffering like nothing else imaginable.

However, it's too easy to cheat and steal, and there are not enough consequences. It's too easy to scam. Scams are rampant and people get rich. The world is quite good at limiting upward mobility but only if you use legal channels. It's too easy to break the law, hurt someone, and simply break through it and steal what is on the other side of that glass ceiling. This is something I feel a truly malevolent god would limit, because it's an easy chance to do something everybody wants, and at the same time, hurt the most people.

Now, a good god would also limit cheating and stealing, but he'd do it in a world where legal access to happiness was easier. So I see rampant and unpunished breaking of laws and obtainment of goods as possibly evidence for a good god (but kind of weak), and evidence against an evil god if he had any power at all, but it's probably the best evidence for no god at all and lazy lawmakers.

[1213]

Question for Debate: How would the world differ from the world we live in,...

You wouldn't have freedom for example to mock God.

[bjs1]

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?

We would all be in constant, excruciating pain. There would be no warmth, comfort, kindness or love.

We would have no concept of goodness. Evil is corruption of good, so if there is a good God then we could understand both good and its corruption (evil). If God was evil then we would know only corruption and the very concept of goodness would be unknown, unexperienced, and meaningless.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

The world would be exactly is it is NOW. Minus babies laughter, labrador puppies, butteflies, music , orgasms, sunsets ...and chocolate.

Eternal torture in hell after death would actually exist.

Why is Satan called "The God of this world"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23#p901623

In what sense does Satan "rule the world"?
viewtopic.php?p=1068633#p1068633

Grand puppeteer
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 93#p900093

[Purple Knight]

The world would be exactly is it is NOW. Minus babies laughter, labrador puppies, butteflies, music , orgasms, sunsets ...and chocolate.

We would all be in constant, excruciating pain. There would be no warmth, comfort, kindness or love.

We would have no concept of goodness. Evil is corruption of good, so if there is a good God then we could understand both good and its corruption (evil). If God was evil then we would know only corruption and the very concept of goodness would be unknown, unexperienced, and meaningless.

I don't entirely agree with these. Whatever was constant, would just be how it was. To have a concept of being in misery, we have to sometimes be out of misery. Nobody suffers because they don't have a labrador puppy unless they have seen a labrador puppy. Without the concept of comfort or love, we wouldn't want it. We couldn't. That's why an evil god has to give us all a little taste. I've said in another thread that I don't buy the argument from suffering, which argues that a good god could eliminate all suffering. I don't think that's the case, and even if it is the case, logically we cannot know because we can't conceive of a world without suffering. We need the comparison to ask the question. If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must also say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water. And we can't even conceive that comparison if we've spent our lives buried hip-deep in swans.

Therefore, both minimising and maximising suffering are tricky business.

You wouldn't have freedom for example to mock God.

This is actually the one I really like. Using freedom, we could eschew an evil master, especially if he didn't directly interfere much. We could say, look, these rules, they're bollocks, they hurt all of us, let's not have them.

I'm not above noticing that it's permitted to make fun of Christianity and Christians but not so much other religions.

Now, this does lead to a paradox. He who allows freedom, invites the erosion of his own power. He who does not allow freedom, keeps his power. While the American government will use the power it has to protect those who insult and disagree with it, the American media will use the power it has to punish those who disagree with it. Consequently, the government has lost real power, which has been gained by the press. This will always happen until we have a thinking populace that understands that the first thing, the very first thing, must be to support those who allow you freedom, and fight those who make it a point to punish you for disagreeing. Otherwise, well, you make your own bed.

[JehovahsWitness]

The world would be exactly is it is NOW. Minus babies laughter, labrador puppies, butteflies, music , orgasms, sunsets ...and chocolate.

I don't entirely agree with these. Whatever was constant, would just be how it was. To have a concept of being in misery, we have to sometimes be out of misery.

Fair enough, we would all get a labrador puppy and then after we have loved it for a month our children would be forced to cut it open and eat its heart. There are a million ways to torture a human and all of them exist in this satanic, MK Ultra luciferian lead, Gaza permitting world of the present with its dark aged twisted tortures of its history. This world reflects its evil god .... and your point is?

Seriously what is your point? Do you have one?

[Purple Knight]

The world would be exactly is it is NOW. Minus babies laughter, labrador puppies, butteflies, music , orgasms, sunsets ...and chocolate.

I don't entirely agree with these. Whatever was constant, would just be how it was. To have a concept of being in misery, we have to sometimes be out of misery.

Fair enough, we would all get a labrador puppy and then after we have loved it for a month our children would be forced to cut it open and eat its heart. There are a million ways to torture a human and all of them exist in this satanic, MK Ultra luciferian lead, Gaza permitting world of the present with its dark aged twisted tortures of its history. This world reflects its evil god .... and your point is?

Seriously what is your point? Do you have one?

Just to make people introspect. I actually think certain things point to an evil god not existing.

Not only do I think it's too easy to steal, because an evil god's ideal world would have everything as a glass ceiling, perfectly clear and perfectly indestructible. I also think that there is less personal accountability in the world than there would be, if it were run by an evil god. Sometimes people acknowledge that not everything that happens to a person is his fault. An evil god would not desire that. He'd want as much misery as possible, and for everyone to feel as if they brought it on themselves while simultaneously being unable to escape it. Addiction probably fits that model, trapping people in a state where they're both utterly to blame and almost completely unable to free themselves, but few other things do.

There are clearly some easy moves an evil god could make, to make life worse for us, but he doesn't. This points to an evil god's weakness or non-existence.

Or maybe I'm just better than Satan at being Satan.

[JehovahsWitness]

Seriously what is your point? Do you have one?

Just to make people introspect. I actually think certain things point to an evil god not existing.

As you can see from my POSTS and LINKS, we Jehovahs Witnesses have not only thought about it but de have found in the bible satisfying answers to the concrete questions you never seem to have any interest in asking. The question of evil is not a mere intellectual game to those of us who have lost loved ones to it or to the many millions that are currently suffering because of it, so thank you for your encouragement for be more "introspect" on the question I'm sure it will help the next rape victim that comes across your amusing and oh so clever ramblings.

There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently

William Shakespeare

JW

[alexxcJRO]

I don't entirely agree with these. Whatever was constant, would just be how it was. To have a concept of being in misery, we have to sometimes be out of misery. Nobody suffers because they don't have a labrador puppy unless they have seen a labrador puppy. Without the concept of comfort or love, we wouldn't want it. We couldn't. That's why an evil god has to give us all a little taste. I've said in another thread that I don't buy the argument from suffering, which argues that . I don't think that's the case, and even if it is the case, logically we cannot know because we can't conceive of a world without suffering. We need the comparison to ask the question. If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must also say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water. And we can't even conceive that comparison if we've spent our lives buried hip-deep in swans.

Therefore, both minimising and maximising suffering are tricky business.

No philosopher worth his salt today argues Problem of Evil as "a good god could eliminate all suffering".

The monotheistic omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being: perfectly-maximally good, personal god=G is debunked by the existence of E= Gratuitous evils, Gratuitous suffering: Instances where gratuitous evils, gratuitous suffering happen -> the innocent-non-moral agents(infants and/or non-human animals and/or severely mentally impaired) suffer indiscriminately, randomly because of non-moral/natural evils(cancer, genetic diseases, psychopathy, earthquakes, hurricanes, asteroids, natural forest fires->features of the universe) and no moral agent notices it.
It is argued G would create the best possible world in the good sense. Since I can imagine a better world in the good sense then this -> without E then G does not exist.

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop E.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop E has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop E, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then E would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then E does not exist.
P7. E exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.


One can make a Problem of Good as well where G is an monotheistic omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent being: perfectly-maximally evil/malevolent god.
It is argued G would create the best possible world in the evil sense. Since I can imagine a worst world then this G does not exist.