Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2014, 01:22 AM
Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
So, theists tend to direct god to all good. Intellectual theists don't always do it, but many times, they do.

So, lets put God into perspective from THEIR side of the field.

-There is NO argument when trying to prove God with scientific explanations that point God to being all good. Only powerful and knowledgable.

-If we remove the bible and accept that we are looking for a Deist God, we get a different picture.

So, theists tend to use these arguments for the problem of evil, even with a Deist God and say that he is all good.

The mysterious card: God moves in mysterious ways and we cannot possibly understand his plan but we can trust in him that it will all be for the greater good.

The "character building" argument: If God made it so there was no evil in the world we could not value the good. This helps us grow and appreciate the goodness in the world. (Please elaborate on this for me).

The freewill argument: If there was no killing or suffering, we would not have freewill and would mindless robots. Elaborate on this, too, please.


So, this is VERY sound in the theists position and is completely reasonable to them. But lets flip this around.


The EVIL God hypothesis

There is an all powerful God that is actually very evil and wants to see us suffer. The problem with this is that there is good in the world, so why did not just torture us with a red hot pole?

Well, lets look into it.

Lets take the ideas that the Good God is put under.

Good:
New born babies for example. If God is so evil, why would he have these bundles of joy? Well, babies tend to die all the time, so maybe God put them here so we can suffer terribly if they die.

Why do some people have good lives? For example, a celebrity has millions of dollars, expensive cars, a big house, etc, etc. Some people will get angry at this, feel unappreciated, they might think they deserve it more than they do, etc. A kind of torture.

Why are we not born in terrible pain and agony? Well, we are born healthy to only have it slowly taken away from us. We see the inevitable death coming are way and we don't want to give up this great life we have, while if you were in pain, death would not be so bad.

Basically, take every theological argument for WHY there is good and evil in the world, and flip so it matches an evil God.

The same idea goes for the mystery card. Except the outcome is not supposed to be for the greater good, but its supposed to be bad, and in the end once you die, you will burn forever.

Now, the evil God hypothesis is ridiculous and holds NO merit at all. But at the same time, I am making the SAME arguments as the good God supporters are and there is insufficient proof for both. So let me ask, why do theists hold the good God higher than the evil God WHEN THEY ARE BOTH ON THE SAME SCALE OF PLAUSIBILITY. If the evil God hypothesis is implausible, then so is the good God hypothesis.


I got this idea from Stephen Law during his lecture at Oxford. I am not sure if I represented him perfectly, but I did my best.

Poke at this argument, see if there are fallacies, and more importantly, watch the lecture below!

Food for thought guys! Thanks for reading!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghANDfBcZmk

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 01:36 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
I don't think people are claiming god is evil, more like amoral as he is capable of great evil and great kindness on a whim.
the absolute power adage seems to apply to the monkey king equally as it does to us.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 03:26 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
My point is that if you dispute that God is evil (nobody accepts, and rightly so), then you have to dispute the Good God hypothesis because its the exact same and has the same type of arguments. People just like one over the other


If God is amoral then he cannot be all good, as they claim.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 07:07 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
(16-04-2014 03:26 AM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  My point is that if you dispute that God is evil (nobody accepts, and rightly so), then you have to dispute the Good God hypothesis because its the exact same and has the same type of arguments. People just like one over the other


If God is amoral then he cannot be all good, as they claim.

I think you're onto something there. Basically it's a form of Reductio Ad Absurdum, as I see it.

For a long time I have been quite skeptical of the whole "good vs. evil" model, and have seen it as failing to accurately represent human motives and actions. Very few people actually see their actions as "evil" and embrace "evil" as a motive or justification for their actions. To me, "evil" as a motivator is a huge strawman.

Your turning the tables on their "good" claims, and their underlying assumption of a "good vs. evil" reality, in which they invariably claim to side with "the good", no matter how obviously their actions or the claimed actions of their deities are harmful, is brilliant.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
I think before anyone talks about the attributes of god they should first prove that it exists in the first place else they are begging the question. If you are talking about god being this or that way then you are really saying nothing because no one has ever given a rational argument for its existence. Do that first and then we'll deal with weather or not it is worth admiring.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
Thats the point, if you think an evil God is absurd, then a good is equally as absurd because when you disprove one, you disprove the other. The question is why do theists put a good God so high up on the plausibility scale and an evil God so low when they both have the SAME probability based on empirical evidence that can be INTERPRETED.

If anything, an evil God makes MORE sense due to Occams Razor.

Take two Gods. Both are equal in power. Look at the universe and our world and you can basically conclude he is evil. To conclude he is GOOD, you have to make unnecessary excuses.

They usually attack you on freewill by saying "evil is the consequence of freewill in which people commit moral evils instead of ONLY moral goods if they were not free. There, God has to cut your strings and make you free. This is obviously absurd because you have to take away power from God, but lets play along.

Lets do the same thing and say the evil God can only make you do moral goods if he cuts the string (because if there was no free will, an evil God would make you do evil, rather than good). Why moral good? A kind of phycological torture.

You could make LESS excuses than a good job with your evil God, yet they put him so low on the plausibility scale. As an atheist, I think they are both implausible because they ARE equal.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
(16-04-2014 11:02 AM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  They usually attack you on freewill by saying "evil is the consequence of freewill in which people commit moral evils instead of ONLY moral goods if they were not free. There, God has to cut your strings and make you free. This is obviously absurd because you have to take away power from God, but lets play along.
Besides, how are earthquakes and tsunamis the consequence of that free will thing we're supposed by some to have?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
Those would be NATURAL evils and could easily just say he wants them to happen. They would go under evils such as disease, floods, earthquake, etc.


If we were just robots with no free will, there would probably be natural disasters. They also go under the "character building" idea in the good god section. People die from these things which makes us appreciate the good.


Check out the lecture I posted in the original post. Stephen Law does an awesome job at explaining it.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
Quote:There is NO argument when trying to prove God

I'm just gonna stop you right there because that's all that's needed.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
16-04-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Attacking the God Hypothesis... in a different way.
The Bible says that God created evil. So yeah.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: