Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Could God Be Evil?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Could God Be Evil?

    What if the big guy is really the bad guy?

    The link can be found here.

    --------

    How do we know the ultimate is really good? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Yesterday, someone contacted me wanting to look at a claim about gnostic gods including the idea that YHWH is really the evil god of the Old Testament. This was a popular idea at the start when Christianity was on the rise. As I thought about it, I do plan on writing more about that tomorrow, but I think it's important to start by going to our time for some good metaphysics. Philosopher Stephen Law has what he calls the Evil God Challenge.

    It's interesting to point out that the Evil God Challenge doesn't rebut theism. Theism would still be true. The question to ask is how do you know that this ultimate being isn't evil? Have you just assumed that He is good?

    For some philosophical schools, this could be a problem. For someone who comes from a Thomist tradition, it is not. Often times many people have this idea about goodness that God is the standard of goodness and that the good is whatever corresponds to the nature of God or His will. The problem is if you don't know what goodness itself is, then you're just replacing an unknown with another unknown.

    It also doesn't make much sense. "This is a good pizza." What does that mean? This is a pizza that matches God's nature or will? What about a good book or action? The idea just doesn't seem to fit.

    If you're a Thomist, you get your idea of goodness from Aristotle. The good is that at which all things aim. (By the way, this is also something that can be said back to the Euthyphro dilemma. It's amazing that that dilemma was answered just a generation after Plato and so many skeptics still throw it out like nothing has been said about it.) Aquinas would take this a step further and say that all things aim for perfection. They aim to be. This is called actualization.

    You see, for Aquinas, all created things have potential and actuality. Potential is some capacity for change. Actuality is when they do change and describes how they are now. I am sitting as I write this. I have the potential to stand. If I stand, I actualize that potential.

    For Aquinas then, goodness is being. Insofar as something is, it is good. We are good when we act according to the nature God meant for us to have. That is why an evil act is considered inhuman. It is the misuse of good that results in evil. This would apply even to the devil for Aquinas. He has being, intelligence, and will. These are good things. The devil is said to be evil, and rightly so, because of how he uses them.

    So what about God? God is being without limits. He describes Himself as "I AM." If you want to know what it means to be, you look at God. He has no potential for change. He is pure being. Everything else is dependent on Him. Even an eternal universe would be dependent on Him.

    If you want to know how this makes sense, picture how it would be if you had an eternal existence. Now you also have an eternal existence in front of a mirror that is eternally existence. You have been living for all eternity in front of this eternal mirror. Does the image in the mirror exist eternally because of you or would it exist there if you moved away?

    This also means that ultimately, God is good since He doesn't possess any lacking in His nature. If He does, then He is not God and whatever does possess that is God. The bottom line is that when you reach the end of the chain of being, well you find God right there.

    This is why the Evil God Challenge doesn't make much sense to me. I've only given a brief snapshot of this of course. For those interested in more, I recommend reading a more sophisticated Thomist like Edward Feser's Aquinas.

    Tomorrow, we'll see how this works with Gnosticism.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    What if the big guy is really the bad guy?

    The link can be found here.

    --------

    How do we know the ultimate is really good? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Yesterday, someone contacted me wanting to look at a claim about gnostic gods including the idea that YHWH is really the evil god of the Old Testament. This was a popular idea at the start when Christianity was on the rise. As I thought about it, I do plan on writing more about that tomorrow, but I think it's important to start by going to our time for some good metaphysics. Philosopher Stephen Law has what he calls the Evil God Challenge.

    It's interesting to point out that the Evil God Challenge doesn't rebut theism. Theism would still be true. The question to ask is how do you know that this ultimate being isn't evil? Have you just assumed that He is good?

    For some philosophical schools, this could be a problem. For someone who comes from a Thomist tradition, it is not. Often times many people have this idea about goodness that God is the standard of goodness and that the good is whatever corresponds to the nature of God or His will. The problem is if you don't know what goodness itself is, then you're just replacing an unknown with another unknown.

    It also doesn't make much sense. "This is a good pizza." What does that mean? This is a pizza that matches God's nature or will? What about a good book or action? The idea just doesn't seem to fit.

    If you're a Thomist, you get your idea of goodness from Aristotle. The good is that at which all things aim. (By the way, this is also something that can be said back to the Euthyphro dilemma. It's amazing that that dilemma was answered just a generation after Plato and so many skeptics still throw it out like nothing has been said about it.) Aquinas would take this a step further and say that all things aim for perfection. They aim to be. This is called actualization.

    You see, for Aquinas, all created things have potential and actuality. Potential is some capacity for change. Actuality is when they do change and describes how they are now. I am sitting as I write this. I have the potential to stand. If I stand, I actualize that potential.

    For Aquinas then, goodness is being. Insofar as something is, it is good. We are good when we act according to the nature God meant for us to have. That is why an evil act is considered inhuman. It is the misuse of good that results in evil. This would apply even to the devil for Aquinas. He has being, intelligence, and will. These are good things. The devil is said to be evil, and rightly so, because of how he uses them.

    So what about God? God is being without limits. He describes Himself as "I AM." If you want to know what it means to be, you look at God. He has no potential for change. He is pure being. Everything else is dependent on Him. Even an eternal universe would be dependent on Him.

    If you want to know how this makes sense, picture how it would be if you had an eternal existence. Now you also have an eternal existence in front of a mirror that is eternally existence. You have been living for all eternity in front of this eternal mirror. Does the image in the mirror exist eternally because of you or would it exist there if you moved away?

    This also means that ultimately, God is good since He doesn't possess any lacking in His nature. If He does, then He is not God and whatever does possess that is God. The bottom line is that when you reach the end of the chain of being, well you find God right there.

    This is why the Evil God Challenge doesn't make much sense to me. I've only given a brief snapshot of this of course. For those interested in more, I recommend reading a more sophisticated Thomist like Edward Feser's Aquinas.

    Tomorrow, we'll see how this works with Gnosticism.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    God could be anything you want to make him out to be, of course you want him to be good, so you make him out to be good. You argue that evil is a lack of the good, or something to that effect, but you could just as easily argue the opposite, i.e. that good is a lack of evil. God could be anything, and since we have no idea, we can choose to define him however we want.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      God could be anything you want to make him out to be, of course you want him to be good, so you make him out to be good. You argue that evil is a lack of the good, or something to that effect, but you could just as easily argue the opposite, i.e. that good is a lack of evil. God could be anything, and since we have no idea, we can choose to define him however we want.
      Evil, by its very definition, is a negation. In what possible way could it be said that good is a lack of evil?

      Comment


      • #4
        Evil, by its very definition is a negation of what? Think about it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Evil, by its very definition is a negation of what? Think about it.
          I've thought about it. Evil, by its very definition is a negation of good. A negation (in the sense we're using it) is typically defined as the "The absence or opposite of something actual or positive." In no sense can it be said that "evil" is a positive. Not that I know of at any rate.

          Especially as moral goodness is defined in philosophical theology, while we can imagine a world where only pure moral goodness prevails, one in which only pure moral evil prevails, is, I think, harder to conceive of.

          Comment


          • #6
            You claim that God can't be the standard for goodness then proceed to say that God is the standard for goodness. All you've done is change your justification for 'why', and it's not particularly convincing. What if, say, we don't define goodness as being? Why should we accept that definition?
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Especially as moral goodness is defined in philosophical theology, while we can imagine a world where only pure moral goodness prevails, one in which only pure moral evil prevails, is, I think, harder to conceive of.
              If it's harder to conceive, it's only because the beings on such a world would self-annihilate. It's not that it's less likely to exist, but that it wouldn't last very long.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                You claim that God can't be the standard for goodness then proceed to say that God is the standard for goodness. All you've done is change your justification for 'why', and it's not particularly convincing. What if, say, we don't define goodness as being? Why should we accept that definition?
                God isn't the standard. God is the foundation of goodness. Why should we accept goodness as being? Part of it is that the good is desirable for its own sake and all things desire their own well-being in that sense.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  God isn't the standard. God is the foundation of goodness. Why should we accept goodness as being? Part of it is that the good is desirable for its own sake and all things desire their own well-being in that sense.
                  That "good is desirable for its own sake" doesn't even make sense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    If it's harder to conceive, it's only because the beings on such a world would self-annihilate. It's not that it's less likely to exist, but that it wouldn't last very long.
                    What would evil look like in a world absolutely devoid of good? What would "evil" even mean, do you think?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      God isn't the standard. God is the foundation of goodness.
                      Then God is nothing. He can't be described as good or evil if he is the foundation.


                      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      Why should we accept goodness as being? Part of it is that the good is desirable for its own sake and all things desire their own well-being in that sense.
                      That's not an answer. Desirable for its own sake doesn't explain goodness as being. And this usage of well-being and being is mixing terms.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        What would evil look like in a world absolutely devoid of good? What would "evil" even mean, do you think?
                        The two are complementary concepts. You don't get one without the other. Asking "what does this mean in that world" makes no sense. The hypothetical purely good or purely evil is rooted in our world, a world where both good and evil exist. One can conceive of a world where only things we call 'good' exist just as easily as one can conceive of a world where only 'evil' things exist.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                          Then God is nothing. He can't be described as good or evil if he is the foundation.
                          Why not? God is the fount of all goodness and all goodness flows from Him as does all being.




                          That's not an answer. Desirable for its own sake doesn't explain goodness as being. And this usage of well-being and being is mixing terms.
                          All things desire to be. Desirable for its own sake is just the start of goodness and not really goodness as being.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Creating a good thing is in itself a good. How could a pure evil deity actually create anything?
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              Why not? God is the fount of all goodness and all goodness flows from Him as does all being.
                              God could just as soon be the fount of all evil and all evil flows from him. Goodness then, would just be a lack of evil. Your idea of the good is dependent upon your definition of god, in other words the conclusion is in the premise-"God is good, therefore evil is a lack of the good." But, there is no reason that you couldn't just as soon define "God as evil, and therefore good would be a lack of evil."

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              54 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X