In Defence of Evil God

Enquiries on Atheism

God is good and loving. We all know that, right? In fact, some theists ‘know’ that so vehemently that if God were to kill everybody in a global flood, or create a worm that must burrow into human eye balls, said theist will find defining the words “good” and “loving” much more flexible than the assertion “God is good and loving”. Many theists go a step further, saying that God is necessarily good and loving. Their argument is often derived from the ontological argument, where a ‘maximally great being’ is defined as existing.

Although I can see why goodness is, y’know, good‒great, even‒it is not objectively so. Being good and loving is subjectively great. Even if I change the ontological argument to talk about ‘maximally positively great’ beings, we don’t get around the issue of goodness being subjective. By changing the argument to talk about ‘positively great’ beings, we remove…

View original post 503 more words

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “In Defence of Evil God”

  1. I can appreciate the argument you are positing. These philosophical arguments can become so wrapped up in creating there offense that they don’t notice the gaping holes made that are difficult to defend. Now I’ve not once used the ‘greatest God conceived’ bit because in reality it doesn’t really explain much to your average joe. And if you can’t do that, what’s the point. If you can’t make your case plainly on whichever side of the argument you find yourself, it at times boarders on egotism. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand the need for extensive and highly thought out arguments, but the majority of the time, said arguments just find themselves batted back and forth in the world of hyperacademia. There are ways to attack this argument, but without attempting to be rude, I don’t think you have done so. We can discuss all day long what it means to be a maximally loving god. But that’s a huge jump to say that said god would be an infinitely hot god and such. They are two entirely different things. One is a qualitative statement as where the other is a quantitative statement. Just for a moment, let’s say god is a maximally loving god (whatever that means in reality), that would not by definition make him a maximally wet god. There are a number of reasons to clarify this but it’s 1am and I work in the morning. If you’d like to continue this conversation, feel free to message me back. Thanks for your time and have a great day.

    1. The point is a “maximally great” God. It is impossible to defend the premise that “maximally great” necessarily means “maximally moral”, because it is not just qualitative, but also subjective and circular (unless you subscribe to a secular definition of morality).
      However, a maximal being would be infinitely hot and wet and dense. These are positive maximal qualities. However, that is not the topic of my discussion. I am defending the existence of an evil God.

      1. Actually, I agree with you that maximally great does not necessarily equate maximally moral because no one know what maximally great means in atangible sense. But if you would permit me a bit of latitude, I will be getting to the central point of your argument soon. I simply needed clarification as to why maximally great in regards to an infinite immaterial quality (greatness) would require that said diety by necessity would need to me maximally anything when it comes to the material world. Respectfully, that line of reasoning escapes me. Sorry about the delay by the way.

        1. Heat and density are not actually physical. They are properties of the physical. But so is consciousness (and therefore morality). Power is also a quality of the physical (work done, force applied etc).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s