Stephen laws response to the self defeat argument against sensory skepticism can be actually responded to like this. An evil God wants to maximize evil and actually deceiving people doesn’t do that. In cases where an evil doer knows that they are going to, know that they are and know that they did something evil is way worse than someone who merely is deceived in doing an evil. So, knowledge makes certain situations morally worse. And even in some cases where a person with a delusion performs an evil and after coming down from that delusion realized they performed and evil action makes things much worse for the people involved and the knower. So knowledge is expected in the evil God hypothesis because knowledge of evil makes things much worse
I feel like one way to meet his challenge is that God has another attribute: he judges. A Good God judges us based on whether we worship him and follow his laws; if we do, we get paradise; if we don't, we get hell. the Evil God, however, how he is judging us? If we do evil, do we get hell for doing evil so he can make us suffer? or do we get paradise; but, if we get paradise, that means he is not making us suffer. This means that God loses his decision making ability and thus forces him to throw us into hell. a contradiciton
Maybe he can offer this. Well, the evil God does judge by letting you choose evil, evil people will make it to the side of this evil God in the afterlife where they can enjoy inflicting infinite torture to the ones who died Good people. So he does judge but judges those who did the Bad as being worthy of having the worse of the people in the world by his side in eternity and them selfishly fulfilling the infinite torture of the ones who died good.
Why not the hypothesis that God is both good and evil? All secret societies and ancient religions taught that. Including Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Even the Bible in Isaiah says that the Lord is both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is the shadow side of God.
Sure. Seems like a neutral God to me. Neither benevolent nor evil, just the guy who facilitates existence. So at that point you’d just be worshipping cosmic logos. And then you’d find yourself as a pantheist/pandeist.
I dont think the questioner has had an experience of an evil event, so their only viewpoint is from a Good God viewpoint, its exactly the same as where a Good God causes evil to a Child with cancer, an evil God could grant the child life and character whereby at the end of their life tourturing their soul for eternity. The Expression Stephen was saying was that Child who grows up getting good events and character development feels evil to a higher degree after they have died.
5 mins. into this interview but all Stephen Law did so far was to poison the well instead of explaining what the evil god challenge is. This is so painful to watch. Maybe I should just read his paper on this and start watching Oppy and other reputable atheist academics instead.
Stephen laws response to the self defeat argument against sensory skepticism can be actually responded to like this. An evil God wants to maximize evil and actually deceiving people doesn’t do that. In cases where an evil doer knows that they are going to, know that they are and know that they did something evil is way worse than someone who merely is deceived in doing an evil. So, knowledge makes certain situations morally worse. And even in some cases where a person with a delusion performs an evil and after coming down from that delusion realized they performed and evil action makes things much worse for the people involved and the knower. So knowledge is expected in the evil God hypothesis because knowledge of evil makes things much worse
I feel like one way to meet his challenge is that God has another attribute: he judges. A Good God judges us based on whether we worship him and follow his laws; if we do, we get paradise; if we don't, we get hell. the Evil God, however, how he is judging us? If we do evil, do we get hell for doing evil so he can make us suffer? or do we get paradise; but, if we get paradise, that means he is not making us suffer. This means that God loses his decision making ability and thus forces him to throw us into hell. a contradiciton
Maybe he can offer this. Well, the evil God does judge by letting you choose evil, evil people will make it to the side of this evil God in the afterlife where they can enjoy inflicting infinite torture to the ones who died Good people. So he does judge but judges those who did the Bad as being worthy of having the worse of the people in the world by his side in eternity and them selfishly fulfilling the infinite torture of the ones who died good.
Incredible how strong that Bubble can be.
Why not the hypothesis that God is both good and evil? All secret societies and ancient religions taught that. Including Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Even the Bible in Isaiah says that the Lord is both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is the shadow side of God.
Sure. Seems like a neutral God to me. Neither benevolent nor evil, just the guy who facilitates existence. So at that point you’d just be worshipping cosmic logos. And then you’d find yourself as a pantheist/pandeist.
I dont think the questioner has had an experience of an evil event, so their only viewpoint is from a Good God viewpoint, its exactly the same as where a Good God causes evil to a Child with cancer, an evil God could grant the child life and character whereby at the end of their life tourturing their soul for eternity. The Expression Stephen was saying was that Child who grows up getting good events and character development feels evil to a higher degree after they have died.
It's the problem of good AND evil 49:08
5 mins. into this interview but all Stephen Law did so far was to poison the well instead of explaining what the evil god challenge is. This is so painful to watch. Maybe I should just read his paper on this and start watching Oppy and other reputable atheist academics instead.
Why didn't he even comb his hair? lol. Geez.
Lol who cares… his hair is not the point