tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2286440595456843532..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The Evil God challenge - skeptical theist responseStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65599081315586807192013-05-17T07:01:04.193+00:002013-05-17T07:01:04.193+00:00Put it like this - a logical incoherence would mer...Put it like this - a logical incoherence would merely push the evil God hypothesis even further down the scale of reasonableness. But it's very low anyway, just on empirical grounds. So why is the good god hypothesis any higher than that?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53739884830075083012013-05-17T06:54:50.527+00:002013-05-17T06:54:50.527+00:00Josh - wouldn't matter if there was an incoher...Josh - wouldn't matter if there was an incoherence. There are various problems with this move but most damning is - even if there was a logical incoherence, if it is true nevertheless that we would reject the evil god anyway on empirical grounds even if there was no incoherence, then why do we not reject the good god hypothesis? <br /><br />Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-63238072314021322522013-05-13T19:53:28.812+00:002013-05-13T19:53:28.812+00:00"But in reality we have no experience of anyo..."But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons- either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it- money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power, and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness... In other words, badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled." - CS Lewis, Mere Christianity<br /><br />In effect, the idea of an "all-evil" God is logically incoherent. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08805618803425750850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83015577389009836222013-05-04T07:00:49.869+00:002013-05-04T07:00:49.869+00:00How mice prove useless in testing killer diseases....How <a href="http://www.gofastek.com/fhs/mice/" rel="nofollow">mice</a> prove useless in testing killer diseases. Click www.gofastek.com for more information.<br /><br />Cindy<br />www.gofastek.comCindyhttp://www.gofastek.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59775968916293409252011-11-16T13:48:41.654+00:002011-11-16T13:48:41.654+00:00Hi professor Law, thanks for pointing me here. Int...Hi professor Law, thanks for pointing me here. Interesting read.<br /><br />In this post, you argue that people should be skeptical about the theodicities pertaining to the evidential problem of evil (re: 'good god') because "it’s not good enough to show [...] that if there’s such a God, there will probably be some evils the justifying good for which will be unknown to us. You need to establish much more than that before you can justifiably sweep hundreds of millions of years of horror [...] under the carpet of “god’s mysterious ways”."<br /><br />I would simply note that this argument, though it may be successful, technically does not support your "evil god challenge", whether it be the "evil god challenge" that you defend in your paper, or the enhanced version that you seem to be defending on your blog. (See my comment on your post "Feser saga continues".)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21912624749200792372011-11-14T21:07:16.039+00:002011-11-14T21:07:16.039+00:00That's great Justicar - thanks very much indee...That's great Justicar - thanks very much indeed. The sound was really awful, I know.<br /><br />I will give a post on it.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65780492155373192262011-11-14T21:05:15.910+00:002011-11-14T21:05:15.910+00:00Dr. Law, I have taken the liberty of revising the ...Dr. Law, I have taken the liberty of revising the public copy of your debate with Craig to improve the audio (normalizing you so that you're audible), filtering out some of the background noise and redacting the moderators opening remarks. Should you wish to have a copy with improved audio, I've posted it on my forums whereat you (or indeed anyone) may either listen to or download it as is relevant.<br /><br />http://www.jetlagandgaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=22&p=52#p52Justicarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11271259122971289909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11082519084785612652011-11-14T20:48:28.428+00:002011-11-14T20:48:28.428+00:00Proof Law,
For your criticism of Feser's stat...Proof Law,<br /><br />For your criticism of Feser's statements on pages 161-165 to work you have to <b>not define evil</b> as privation and treat it as ontologically identical but opposite with good.<br /><br />Which would be successful if that is the case in regards to good vs evil. But if evil is still privation then your argument still makes no sense. Since a evil god could not exist & also could not create.<br /><br />Oh sir what would you do without the fallacy of equivocation and the undistributed middle?<br /><br />Well at least you are trying.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25503491774211381472011-11-13T03:13:27.831+00:002011-11-13T03:13:27.831+00:00A falling short (sin), or privation (evil) [sin=ev...A falling short (sin), or privation (evil) [sin=evil], of the way things are supposed to be (the good), cannot exist unless there really is a way things are supposed to be. So--first exists the way things are supposed to be, without which a falling short (sin), or privation (evil), is impossible (again, sin=evil). That good--that 'way'--is God. God, because he is omnipotent, cannot fall short of himself, cannot be a privation of himself, cannot depart from the way things are supposed to be (himself). Such falling short, privation, departing--all of those things are weakness.Maryann Spikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11252412506351650920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18053419037203381832011-11-12T09:13:12.093+00:002011-11-12T09:13:12.093+00:00Brigadier
I said: "And do you really, seriou...Brigadier<br /><br />I said: "And do you really, seriously draw the conclusion that, for all you know, those aliens parading around with our kids' heads on sticks may be kind and compassionate? When I said this was borderline insane, I wasn't kidding."<br /><br />You say: Again, this is ambiguous. Do you mean the deeds are kind and compassionate, or their characters? Or their motives? Or what? There's some serious moral philosophy to do here, which you aren't doing."<br /><br />Answer. Their characters. Obviously. What's actually going on here is that you are coming very close to being faced with the absurdity of what your are saying and are rather desperately trying to erect a smokescreen. Hmm. Well, it's all very complicated isn't it..."<br /><br />No. It really isn't. Though you're trying to make it so,for obvious reasons.<br /><br />You: "And it's easy to think of scenarios on which what the aliens do is fine. Perhaps they have come to kill us in order to trap our souls and transport them to an eternal paradise, or because they know another alien race is coming who want to torture us eternally and these are mercy-killings, etc."<br /><br />My reply: Easy to think up, yes. Probable, no. Which is my point.<br /><br />(I note that if you interpret the parading as implicating that they take joy in their killing, then this would be evidence of bad character""<br /><br />I don't mean that. Though even if they did appear to take joy in it, there might be an unknown reason for that compatible with their actually being compassionate (by nature), on your ludicrous view.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41790021595050828932011-11-11T21:39:19.079+00:002011-11-11T21:39:19.079+00:00Is the Evil God Challenge modifiable to cover any ...Is the Evil God Challenge modifiable to cover any of the Christian Gods other supposed attributes? e.g the all-knowing bit? <br />Can we point to the stupidity in the world and say well this is evidence that God's a bit dim. I am thinking here of a sort of flip side of the argument from design. Plenty of examples are used to illustrate that various "design like" features of the world are sub-optimal in some way. The usual thrust of this is that there is no designer. What if we simply accept that there is, but He is not very skilled?wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39296441939336467952011-11-11T20:06:54.664+00:002011-11-11T20:06:54.664+00:00As an aside, as a general matter it's not very...As an aside, as a general matter it's not very good form to foist false dilemmas on people. Would a good god create this world? No. Would an evil one? No. Would an imperfect but sort of good sort of bad god create it? You betcha - and I'm happy believing in that godMarcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80052339374100748602011-11-11T20:03:27.066+00:002011-11-11T20:03:27.066+00:00No - you're misconstruing me. I never suggest...No - you're misconstruing me. I never suggested we have evidence that god us good. You're working with a false dilemma. I merely argued that our evidence does not support the EVIL god hypothesis. My own view is that our evidence supports a god in the middle - a non-Christian god that is neither very good nor very evil, but rather an imperfect being like the rest of us. My evidential argument against the EVIL god still stands, your false dilemma notwithstanding.Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91434582270158848832011-11-11T18:43:12.855+00:002011-11-11T18:43:12.855+00:00but the "evil god challenge" is based on...but the "evil god challenge" is based on the assumption that one can rule out god's attribute of being good or evil based on the amount of good and evil in the world.<br />craig says that he doesn't determine or rule out whether god is good or evil based on the amount of good and evil in the world but uses some other criteria. if law wants to defeat craig's god shouldn't he attack craig's "other criteria"? I mean law himself admits that christians at least "rule in" a good god using some other criteria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59603146978026388342011-11-11T18:23:51.444+00:002011-11-11T18:23:51.444+00:00Do not confuse "there could be something else...Do not confuse "there could be something else" with "there is something else". <br /><br />The evil god challenge was used in the debate where Dr. Craig's god was at issue. If you want to argue for some non-Christian god then the evil god challenge may or may not apply depending on the attributes claimed for that god. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15659450588808054862011-11-11T17:47:03.234+00:002011-11-11T17:47:03.234+00:00"There may be something (e.g. deist type god)..."There may be something (e.g. deist type god)"<br />oh.. so then the admittance is that there is a god then. OK.. my mistake. I thought the "evil god challenge" was an argument that showed there was nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80538782755010028272011-11-11T17:14:56.783+00:002011-11-11T17:14:56.783+00:00"Well, it has some criteria that makes it pot..."Well, it has some criteria that makes it potentially benign and some criteria that makes it potentially malignant. Well.. i guess the tumour doesn't really exist"<br /><br />No. What is shown is that the tumor can not be benign and the tumor cannot be malignant. Other options (e.g. foreign object) are not ruled out.<br /><br /> There may be something (e.g. deist type god) but it is not the Christian god which must by definition be all good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86170286043010557192011-11-11T16:46:50.448+00:002011-11-11T16:46:50.448+00:00"If you accept there is too much good for an ..."If you accept there is too much good for an all evil god and by the same logic too much evil for an all good god then Dr. Law has won his argument and the Christian god does not exist."<br /><br />Interesting approach, I wonder if you would want your doctor to practice medicine using such logic. Wow... you have a tumour. Well, it has some criteria that makes it potentially benign and some criteria that makes it potentially malignant. Well.. i guess the tumour doesn't really exist. Have a nice day.!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88984053547142735482011-11-11T16:20:06.264+00:002011-11-11T16:20:06.264+00:00Yes, you're still just not seeing it, or, alte...Yes, you're <i>still</i> just not seeing it, or, alternately, not wanting to accept it. Here's a simple thought experiment. Suppose you were a good god - a truly good one. Would you creat[e] THIS world? Surely not. There are many, many better worlds to choose from. This world has a lot of evil in it - you would have to be terminally insensitive to the amount of evil in this world to take the good god hypothesis epistemically seriously. If<br />God exists he may be less than perfect, he may be subtle, but sorry, there's just too much evil for him to be patently good.<br /><br />I flipped your argument and it remains just as plausible an appeal. This is the EGC, and you can't escape it by appealing to the good in the world as a falsification of an evil god unless you can say why the evil in the world is not a falsification of a good god.John Griffithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170970083381813525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14417343981859798742011-11-11T15:35:36.975+00:002011-11-11T15:35:36.975+00:00If you accept there is too much good for an all ev...If you accept there is too much good for an all evil god and by the same logic too much evil for an all good god then Dr. Law has won his argument and the Christian god does not exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54130370705784458412011-11-11T14:44:29.594+00:002011-11-11T14:44:29.594+00:00I'm still just not seeing it. Here's a si...I'm still just not seeing it. Here's a simple thought experiment. Suppose you were an evil god - a truly evil one. Would you creat THIS world? Surely not. There are many, many worse worlds to choose from. This world has a lot of good in it - you would have to be terminally insensitive to the amount of good in this world to take the evil god hypothesis epistemically seriously. If<br />God exists he may be less than perfect, he may be subtle, but sorry, there's just too much good for him to be patently evil.Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89546231116396935192011-11-11T00:48:15.186+00:002011-11-11T00:48:15.186+00:00Continued from prior post
Outside of their definit...Continued from prior post<br />Outside of their definition of god what evidence or argument does the theist offer to show the creator is all-knowing or omnipresent or in any way distinguishable from a timeless, spaceless, very powerful, personal evil creator? I am assuming the ontological argument, even at its best, fails to convince the skeptic that you can define something into existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90152959549140144912011-11-11T00:47:33.859+00:002011-11-11T00:47:33.859+00:00It seems to me that all the evil god challenge doe...It seems to me that all the evil god challenge does is just shoot down ONE particular (alleged) trait of the xian god.<br /><br />Problem is, there are xians out there who don't care what god acts like. Some guys <a href="http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2011/10/free-pro-life-apologetics-course.html?showComment=1319487933015#c4085859377044000420" rel="nofollow">won't care</a> that god sends babies to hell (not all xians believe this, but they're not very consistent considering that they all worship the same perfect being!)<br /><br />Against those people, the "evil god" argument won't work, because whatever god does is by definition "good". Even if it'd be considered evil from our viewpoint.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18123003891171421522011-11-11T00:26:34.863+00:002011-11-11T00:26:34.863+00:00Would the evil god challenge be clearer to the the...Would the evil god challenge be clearer to the theist but as effective if it were called the evil creator challenge with its attributes limited to those Craig claims for his first two arguments (i.e. timeless, spaceless, very powerful, and personal)? The challenge remains to justify why the belief in the all good god is more reasonable than belief in the evil creator. By not claiming all the usual attributes, arguments around the compatability of these attributes with evil go away. The theist must still prove why any of the excluded attributes is both necessarily true in our world and more likely for good god than evil creator. The fact that the attribute is normally associated with god is not as far as I can tell an argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33536143212382693732011-11-10T17:22:00.692+00:002011-11-10T17:22:00.692+00:00Suppose a good God is impossible. Then the hypothe...Suppose a good God is impossible. Then the hypothesis that such a deity exists receives no evidential support whatsoever. However, (and therefore), bare-theism is evidence for an evil God. That is, the probability of an evil God is greater on bare-theism than it otherwise would be. Remember, bare-theism can't confirm an all good God.<br /><br />Can still be flipped, which is the challenge. On what grounds do you find an evil god impossible but not a good god impossible. Special pleading?John Griffithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170970083381813525noreply@blogger.com