How do you like response videos as opposed to my other content?

@Nickesponja

3 жыл бұрын

I like both of them but I definitely prefer shorter videos :)

@phantommaximus5600

3 жыл бұрын

hmm cosmic skeptic seems to equate good with evil while in the christian view is that EVIL IS THE DEPRAVITY OF GOD Like light and darkness. And @Apologetics Squared Would it be more reasonable to say that an evil go doesn't care for free will, as me being a christian considers free will as a gift of a GOOD GOD.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

@@phantommaximus5600 I think Cosmic Skeptic gave a fair argument that an evil god would want free will; that's the only way *real* hatred and malice can exist. The point I made in the video is that the world around us doesn't reflect this very well. Too often people *don't* act hateful or maliciously! Have a nice day! :)

@elawchess

3 жыл бұрын

@@phantommaximus5600 In his thought experiment, he doesn't need to conform to the Christiam view that EVIL IS THE DEPRAVITY OF GOD. That's not the only definition that can be given for evil. Cosmic would likely be using a more neutral version rather than a Christian one. On freewill, there is good reason to think an evil God would want free will too. Just think if the evil God just created automatons or mindless robots who were just operating like in a video game. That wouldn't be as bad as them "freely chosing" to do the barbaric acts. If you really wanted to and you tried hard enough you can really mirror the excuse a theist would give for wanting free will.

@phantommaximus5600

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared yep Thankyou

A thirty minute upload? I must be dreaming

Fantastic video! I wish I could call it maximally great without contradicting my theological beliefs!

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

I appreciate your comment and your sound theology! :)

@zeroonetime

Ай бұрын

!!!!! Figure This out. Time IS God, Timing ITS manifestation.. God I.S. an ephemeral 010. in T.E.N. dimensions

As I said many times, great channel man, please keep on doing great job!

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, will do!

@zeroonetime

Ай бұрын

!!!!! Figure This out. Time IS God, Timing ITS manifestation.. God I.S. an ephemeral 010. in T.E.N. dimensions

Probably the biggest problem with these types of debates is people tossing around terms like good and evil and not trying to define or appreciate what they really mean. Good and evil are not just two different, exclusive themes. Alex said that if a good god makes people free and able to do evil in order for them to be able to freely do good, then so must an evil god make people free and able to do good in order for them to freely do evil. The mistake is assuming an evil god would care in the slightest whether any of his creation engaged in good or evil, because evil just serves itself, whereas good serves others.

@friendlyreminder3280

3 ай бұрын

And why is selfishness evil? Why is generosity good? Good and bad are only labels used by god and don’t mean anything by themselves

@scrapanimation3813

Ай бұрын

You do know that the good god is also selfish right?

@davidreinker5600

Ай бұрын

@@scrapanimation3813 You're suggesting that a good god is concerned only with himself at the expense of others or shows a lack of concern for anyone else? How does that work?

@scrapanimation3813

Ай бұрын

@@davidreinker5600 why does he want people to worship him?

@davidreinker5600

Ай бұрын

@@scrapanimation3813 Wanting us to worship him doesn't make him selfish. He wants us to worship him because we should worship him.

Imma paste a brief section written by Pruss on this topic from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology for any interested: "Whether we can argue on inductive grounds that the First Cause is good is a particularly difficult question in light of all the evil in the world. If the First Cause is an agent, we have three options to choose from: he is a good agent, an evil agent, or an agent morally in the middle. I will argue that at least we can dismiss the worst of these options on inductive grounds. Here is one set of considerations. We might see evil as ontologically inferior to the good. For instance, we might see evil as a privation of the good. Or we might see evil as a twisting of the good: the good can stand on its own axiologically, but evil is metaphysically something parasitic. Seen from that point of view, evil can never be seen to be the victor. Whatever power evil has is a good power twisted to bad ends. Human cruelty is only an evil because human nature has a power of transcending cruelty. Evil can only mock the good but can never win. Suppose we do indeed see things this way. Then evil only makes sense against a background of goodness. And hence, the cause that the universe originates in, since that cause is the ultimate background, cannot but be perfectly good. If, further, perfect good is stable, then we might think that this cause still is perfectly good. This will be a metaphysical argument. Moreover, if we see evil as metaphysically inferior to the good, then the idea that the First Cause is an evil person makes the First Cause be rather stupid, and so we have an inductive argument against the worst of the three options under consideration. For whatever gets created, there will be more good than evil. Behind the twisting of human nature in a serial killer, there is the good of human nature - if it were not good, and if it were not in some way metaphysically superior to the evil so as to provide a standard against which that evil is to be measured, then the twisting would not be an evil. So by creating, the First Cause makes more good than evil come into existence, and if the First Cause is evil, then to do that is, well, stupid. But the fine-tuning of the universe suggests that the First Cause is highly intelligent. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that there is much more good than evil in the human world. Consider the constant opportunities available for malice, opportunities that would result in no punishment at all. We can assume, with almost total certainty, that if we ask strangers for the time, they will not look at the time and subtract 10 minutes just to make sure we are late for whatever appointment we are rushing. Is it not wondrous that I regularly fi nd myself around many omnivorous animals armed with teeth and guns (I am in Texas!), but I have not yet suffered serious harm from them? At least on the assumption that these omnivorous animals were created by an evil being, there would be some cause for surprise. When the rules of morality are transgressed, rarely are they transgressed wantonly. Granted, there have been genocides of massive proportions. But it is noteworthy that even there, there tends to be a background that makes the cruelty not be entirely wanton: a destructive ideology or a vengeful, and often mistaken, justice. The victims are demonized. This demonization is itself an evil, but it is an evil that underscores the fact that the victims need to be seen as demonic before most of us will be induced to be cruel to them. The hypothesis that the First Cause is evil is not a very plausible one, then. Whether the hypothesis that the First Cause is good is any more plausible will depend on how we evaluate the arguments of various theodicies. Some of the aforementioned considerations might possibly be the start of a theodicy, but that is not what I intended them for: I intended them merely as data against the hypothesis of an evil First Cause. On the theodicy front, on the other hand, we might see in freely chosen virtue a goodness outweighing the evils of vice, and that might lead us to suppose the First Cause is good."

@zeroonetime

Ай бұрын

!!!!! Figure This out. Time IS God, Timing ITS manifestation.. God I.S. an ephemeral 010. in T.E.N. dimensions

"We can see that free persons would be more selfish than selfless". I can imagine this appealing to many people's "gut reaction" about how bad/mean people can be (we pay more attention to the bad things people do and the things that threaten us after all), but I'd like to see someone actually make a case for this being so. How are you deciding who or how many fall on the selfish side of the scale? Are you sure of where the tipping point is and how have you identified it? Is your need to find an asymmetry in the argument perhaps encouraging you to find/assume what you would want to? Selfishness seems like it might have some short term benefits, but I find it difficult to picture it leading to more happiness if it were widespread. The things that make me happy depend greatly on the cooperation and perhaps a degree of selflessness of others. Does my being selfish or more selfish clearly meet my needs given those circumstances? It's not something that I "can see" so easily. You don't need to teach a chimp to be selfless, they can and do share in effort and reward. We do teach our children to be selfless, but I suspect they've the capacity to learn its practical value anyway.

@Zeus-bn3nc

2 жыл бұрын

Additionally, why does it even matter? Supposedly there would not be such a thing as harder and easier things for an omnipotent god to do.

@galaxyofreesesking2124

2 жыл бұрын

You could say the same thing about selflessness, though. Perhaps the only reason the best societies tend to focus a great deal on the bad is because they would be more likely to collapse, should they simply ignore them all together, or even if just for a little bit. You only need one person to continuously remain unclean and unsanitary for them to spread disease to his entire family -- and this his entire family to an entire city, in less than a month. Moreover, without selfishness, of what use would any of our laws be and many other certain of aspects of society? Without our acute sense for bad, there would be no sense in worrying so much _about_ it. Moreover, it is precisely the short term benefits which attract so many to be selfish _in_ the short term, and why it takes so long for any such problems to collapse entire societies. This is, however, not the reason why anybody would say that selfishness is more likely to occur than selflessness. Perhaps you didn't think about it, but if the law falters by even a slight amount in many first world countries in certain areas where the law would be more likely to falter, then such areas are guaranteed to consequently experience an increase in crimes committed, especially with dense populations. In America, wherever certain laws are not enforced (per capita) when _necessary,_ the incentive for crime in the short term increases, while the incentive for moral good decreases in both the short _and_ the long term. If there are fewer consequences per crime committed, there will be more crimes committed per capita. Society exists because of how much of an emphasis people seem to put _on_ its existence, not the other way around. Order arises out of its necessity to escape the _ordered_ from chaos. It is _not_ merely because evil grants satisfaction for a small amount of time. Spending energy on yourself is easier than spending energy on the survival of all the people around you, plus the people who will continue to survive after you. If even one person fails to put the needs of others before the wants of themselves, it will bother the lot of people around him. This consequently makes cooperation much more difficult than selfishness. Sure, people have a strong innate desire to socialize and cooperate _to an extent,_ like chimps or elephants do, but that doesn't mean that that those small social groups can't easily be torn apart under the right conditions or that those small social groups are likely to produce an even _less_ selfish (that is, 'less selfish' both overall, and per individual) group of people with an even larger population. Those are rare among even very agreeable individuals. Forming societies is harder than forming temporary friendships, because they operate on a fundamentally different set of rules. Societies require a _large_ amount of cooperation even when you _really_ don't want to, or when you might even feel like parts of said society is encroaching on your personal space, or crossing some personal line in the sand you drew for yourself and for your friends. Societies are way more complex and way less predictable than families and small friend groups -- as unpredictable as even _those_ tend to be. The _best_ friend groups, packs, teams, clubs and families seem to be a product of the _best_ and _most_ successful large-scale societies. This is not by accident. This is just how societies function at a basic level. I mean, in friend groups (with or without the existence of a society), there are certain lines you and your friends don't cross, or one of you will suffer the wrath of the person/people that drew it. That savageness still exists, even when societies would not ordinarily approve. The idea that people just naturally organize themselves into large-scale societies (of even a hundred, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand) is just completely naive and unfounded by centuries of historical evidence. Just look at all the 3rd world countries and failing/failed societies to see how they're doing. You think they pay as much attention to their problems as other highly successful countries do? There are things that _thousands_ of people get away with every day in those countries, where over in the US or Canada, or the UK you would ordinarily get the death penalty for (or life in prison). Those countries are almost constantly on the brink of collapse (all though the data suggests they're getting better, which is good) because of how little attention their people are paying or how little they're capable of doing anything about it. You say one wrong tweet, and by the end of the week you've lost your job, in a 1st world country. But in a 3rd world country, you could get away with quite a bit of horrible stuff with much less resistance by the same country. Police are much more corrupt, and even complicit with some pretty bad things you could not imagine doing most of the time here in the US. And just look at the population difference! Your society doesn't even have to be _nearly_ as densely populated in order for cooperation to dissolve on a fundamental level to a much further extent than any other well-off society. No need to dismiss his entire video on a single sentence, especially when you only inspected your own argument to a shallow degree.

@ghost_of_jah5210

2 жыл бұрын

Just read book 1 and 2 of republic, feel overly prepared for this conversation😂

@ghost_of_jah5210

2 жыл бұрын

Just read republic

Nice video. That last point to me was very interesting. Hope to see more from you.

@zeroonetime

Ай бұрын

!!!!! Figure This out. Time IS God, Timing ITS manifestation.. God I.S. an ephemeral 010. in T.E.N. dimensions

I watch a lot of atheist content. When I worry that I am getting complacent I watch apologetic content. Most of it is cringe-worthy. This was very well done and interesting. I do think you are wrong in your final debunking of Cosmic Sceptic, but I need to think about it. Very interesting and thought provoking.

really nice channel man! good thing I found you

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I really appreciate it! :)

This video is amazing work. All your arguments were flawless. ❤️❤️❤️👌👌👌👌 Alex's video sure was thought provoking but it doesn't hold water when you realise that the world is just too good for there to be an evil God. 😉

@guywilletts2804

9 ай бұрын

Alex wasn't saying there is an evil god. He's an atheist - there are no gods, good, evil or mediocre. He was challenging the assumption that God is maximally good by a thought experiment. Apologetics squared does an interesting, if somewhat jesuetical, job of defending tired old theodicies (albeit which a huge dose of special pleading). Still waiting for any reason to believe the assertion that God is maximally good. Other than either wishful thinking or the circular logic of needing it to be true so as to prove the truth of God's existence.

Good response! About the asymmetry. I think it's the right path to follow. I found it most interesting when you said Good God wants to maximize people in Heaven and minimize people in Hell. Maybe the symmetry here would be that Evil God want to give you the illusion you can get to Heaven and the send everyone to Hell regardless.

I laughed so hard when Cosmic Skeptic gives a small list of evil things in the world. People getting cancer, people murdering each other, and... Wait for it... Pineapple on pizza. I love pineapple on my pizza. 🤣🤣

@ShadSpark

Жыл бұрын

That's because you're corrupted by sin

Pure awesomeness 👌

Hey the multi personality of the Christian God actually works wonders as you have shown . It shows that if you have a multi personal God one who is evil and one who is good. You end up with different consequences. Great work

"Absent other factor" was a good use of words. O'Connor had just stated that he was going to challenge the Theodicy itself not the existence of good God. He made us ponder only on the issue of the validity of Teodicy as a way to defend good God...

@wet-read

6 күн бұрын

Sharon Street did as well. Her essay is excellent. The bare bones of it I thought of prior to discovering it, but being a professional philosopher, she articulated it better and more thoroughly than I can.

This video it's excelent! Congratulations!

really good response brother

Very interesting very interesting indeed

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

Glad you think so! :)

If your two arguments have the same conclusions and those conclusions are incompatible and yet the only reason for rejecting one over the other is that it has an outlying infinitely negative trait which (at least appears to be) arbitrarily considered less likely and "random", I think that the arguments should probably both be rejected... It seems just as arbitrary to say that a perfectly evil ontological argument is inferior as it is to have a perfect being barring omnimalevolence imo. Although I may have missed the deeper justification for that.

(Response to theodicy 1) Is it more difficult to get a free agent to do what is right than what is wrong? That seems like an incredibly cynical take. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that selfishness in the way you're describing it is necessarily "doing wrong". Sure, we could say that selflessness is *better*, but that doesn't mean that looking out for your own interests is evil. Also, is the idea that the evil god wouldn't prevent acts of selflessness REALLY more unbelievable than a "good" god preventing great evils like mass genocide? Honestly? A side note: Remember that the existence of selflessness or at least the perception of it is REQUIRED for things like cheating, deceipt, manipulation etc. If everyone acted exclusively "selfish" or unloving in the way that you're describing then no one would trust anyone, and thus cheating could never occur.

Awesome!

I only saw one asymmetry. That being doing good is more difficult than doing evil. But I am skeptical of this. I think it's more a matter of perspective like "this glass is half full/empty." For sake of argument, I'll suppose that it is more difficult to be evil than good. I feel that people often do good things. We just tend not to notice these things because they aren't a threat. I just took a walk and picked up some litter. But this event isn't going to published in major news outlets because it isn't exciting.

Why do you assume evil god would want us to suffer exponentially in hell? Maybe a worse punishment is to go your entire life thinking there’s a heaven waiting, and then disappearing

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting thought. There's a problem though; when are we punished? For every moment that we exist, we haven't received the punishment yet. For any moment that we don't exist, there isn't anyone around being punished! So, no punishment is dealt. Have a nice day! :)

1- "it is harder to get a free agent to do what is right than to do what is wrong" That statement is highly dependent on the individual and the situation, for example if you fell in love with someone isn't it natural to want to protect them and want them to be happy? If you had children wouldn't it also be the case as well? It also ignores empathy that is a fundamental part of the human condition, if you wouldn't like it if someone hurt you, you wouldn't hurt others and guilt that comes form that empathy. Yes people are in some circumstances it can be argued would in a general sense be more inclined to be selfish and evil, in others the opposite, individuals are also are completely different, some are more empathetic, others are not. Saying that people are more inclined towards evil is a vast oversimplification. In short yes humans want to be happy but empathy means we also want others to be happy, even a child wants to be loved, to have friends, for the people they care about to be happy. In addition the fact is free will is not even an arguement for either a good or an evil god, "everything happens according to gods plan" therefore all your actions are predirtirmed, therefore there is no free will, ehich then poses a question, a god that creates a world where there is no choice or actual free will, is that a good or evil god? Logic would actually say it is more likely to be the latter. Why would an evil god allow people for example to selflessly love eachother- so that they can experience loss when that loved one dies or pain when they suffer or betrayal when they turn against them, which goes to the original videos 2nd example.

Just an idea - do you have any actual evidence for god (good or bad)

@ApologeticsSquared

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. I have a whole channel for you to check out. :)

Short answer: God is not a machine.

My thoughts on your thoughts on Cosmicskeptic's thoughts about the Evil God Challenge: 1)You assume that selfishness is natural and not only that, that it is bad. Some would argue to be truly selfish, you'd have to work well in a team, do quid pro quo, to do maximally good things to others would in turn be maximally selfish, because by doing good you'd be more likely to have it reciprocated. Meaning, as soon as you think of something like Rawls veil of ignorance, creating the best possible universe for everyone would actually be the most selfish as well (since you don't know what you will be born as or what your lot in life would be). 2) You seem to be arguing for an impotence of a GOOD GOD vs. ALL EVIL GOD. As if a truly EVIL God would be not bound by anything like some universal laws but a Good God would be bound by justice. That is already a detraction from "all other things being equal". Maybe he is bound by say some cosmic law of injustice, which would mean some people would go to heaven totally arbitrarily just so that the rule of injustice is always fulfilled... All that is assuming Heaven and hell has to still exist in an evil God's created universe. How do we know that it must? Everything you know about Heaven and Hell comes from a worldview that a Good God created everything. You assume everything created would be exactly the same as it is now if an Evil God created the Universe and everything? Then you'd be arguing that they are the one and the same Good God=Evil God. Clearly there must be differences between the universes created by Evil or Good Gods, right? Maybe heaven and hell is only necessary for the Abrahamic religions, not all Gods? And even if heaven and hell exists don't you think Heaven and Hell would be completely different now, that the creator of both Heaven and Hell is EVIL? But even if I agree with your argument for a bit about the Evil God's universe still having the same heaven and hell, maybe it is all part of his plan - some people who went to this very Christian idea of heaven went there arbitrarily so that everyone who is in hell would be so much more irritated and depressed knowing that they get the punishment, while someone is getting off scot free? (Why do Scots get off free, btw? Where does the saying come from?) 3) You assume your ideas about afterlife as fact and then you use them to judge our reality. The Evil God challenge deals with the 3rd planet of our solar system and how you could explain the existence of good in this universe if the god was completely Evil. It doesn't talk about afterlife. And after that you bring up many other factors that fall into the "absent other factors" category and imagine putting them on a scale and point "look, how the scale tilts for the "for" of Good God rather than the "against" for a Good Good. Knowing our history, do you think humankind has put any comparable time and effort into trying to prove that the world is created by an evil God to that of trying to prove one version or another of a Good, Just, Merciful, almighty God? What's more, it doesn't matter much which one "Good God" it was originally an argument for, as many of the "for" arguments are applicable for slew of other "Good God" religions with slight modifications. Your closing thoughts were a mish mash of assumptions all influenced by the world you lived in so far. Just to address one of the things I found weird - why do you think there was so much emphasis on the free will and our need to be able to "choose" evil or good actions in both scenarios, but then when it comes to Evil God and his relationship with humans having reason and words, it is perfectly okay for us to all be confused, ill thinking, irrational and with words and definitions that curb all thought processes. Where is the free will in that? When you don't even have a mind that you can use. You assume too much good things (and good arguments) for the Good God and some of the ideas you have about an evil God are very strange. At least one thing is clear, just defining what is good and evil so that two people having arguement agree is very hard and that's before we try to imagine maximally good or evil entities. TL;DR - do not or do. Think for yourselves.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

My thoughts about your thoughts about my thoughts about Cosmic Skeptic’s thoughts (which are really based on Stephen (or was it “Steven”?) Law’s thoughts) about an Evil God: 1) I do not assume selfishness is worse than selflessness; I simply perceive that it is. 2) My point actually *was* that the paradigm of Heaven and Hell doesn’t make sense under an Evil God. If we’re to expect anything, it would be that when we die we get thrown into an eternal torture pit by the Evil God. I simply called this Hell. Scots probably get off free because of their awesome accents. 3) If there is no afterlife, I find it ludicrous to believe that there is a maximally good OR maximally evil being. I would remain utterly unconvinced by a theodicy for either hypothesis that did not posit an afterlife. It’s actually irrelevant to my arguments how long people have been working on the Evil God hypothesis. Someone either has arguments or they don’t; if they don’t, then I don’t need to believe them. Your criticisms at this point turn very general (which is fine), but about the free will point: If something is bad, then an Evil God would like it. Being confused and irrational is bad. Therefore, an Evil God would like it. Finally, if you’re correct that we will have difficulty agreeing on what goodness or badness amount to, then that actually weakens the Evil God Challenge, since I would only be convinced by it if you use a definition of evil that I already agree with. Thanks for engaging with my video! Have a nice day! :)

@gunarsrepse232

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ApologeticsSquared Well, an actual response. I'm pleasantly surprised. It is as you say, I did become quite vague in the end there. 1) Could you elaborate on 1st point? How is selfishness perceived? Isn't it defined? 3)Why must having hypothetical Gods also coincide with having afterlives? Maybe it is a rule of the universe that all consciousnesses must end making this life all it is? Regarding "If something is bad, then Evil God would like it". That is the problem. I'm not convinced Evil God would necessarily like it. I do realize how hard it is to try and imagine and describe then in words what an Evil God would be like and what would he like, but I'm not convinced it should be that simplistic. (also note that You are the one that defines "bad" here in this sentence, be mindful of that). The somewhat popular christian example comes to mind where they want to explain that homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong, but Christians (and their God in their mind) hate the sin, but wouldn't hate the sinner itself. Also murder comes to mind. Which intuitively feels bad, and something I assume you would think a Good God would hate. Yet we usually talk about murder as bad only towards our own species (sorry Vegans), but quite okay and allowed against other animals (Insects/ Bacteria?) we hunt/ farm for meat and/ or their utility for material use. As I understand we have been commanded as king of creation on earth by God by some Christian's understanding of the Bible which supposedly makes it okay. What I mean to say is I think it is not quite that simple. As maximally Good God should not be angry or hate all murder so in the same way the maximally Evil God shouldn't necessarily have to hate Good things and "love" evil things. ( That sentence :P ) Maybe for some purpose humans being confused and irrational would be bad for The Evil God as well, because (and excuse the language) a sleeping "vegetable" might not fully appreciate the turmoil he is in, while a paraplegic who has just been informed of his fate with his mind waking up after the surgery half awake/half high on morphine would. Perhaps a perfectly capable, healthy or even genius mind would suffer the realization even more. And then, maybe if all people were geniuses they would all much more deeply appreciate their suffering and misery which is the realization that we're living a finite existence with full knowledge that it is running out of time. Inevitably Too much speculation, I fear. So that is what I mean. Perhaps words fail us and we will never understand each other.

@aleclyons7766

3 жыл бұрын

@@gunarsrepse232 just one thing, you said that the evil God could possibly send people to heaven arbitrarily just for the gnashing of teeth for the people in hell, but this would not be in the character for an Evil God because an Evil God would not be bound to tell the truth and could lie to the people in hell. If an Evil God would be bound by injustice as a Good God would be bound by Justice, then the evil God would not need to send anyone to heaven for the sole purpose of the gnashing of teeth of those in hell because he is not bound by truth, this seems to be an asymmetry in parody theodicy 2. Edit: when I say lie to the people in hell, an evil God could make it seem as though people are in heaven to the people in hell and it would be more evil for God to lie and not send people to heaven, than for God to send people to heaven and not lie to the people in hell.

@gunarsrepse232

3 жыл бұрын

@@aleclyons7766 "evil God could possibly send people to heaven arbitrarily just for the gnashing of teeth for the people in hell, but this would not be in the character for an Evil God because an Evil God would not be bound to tell the truth and could lie to the people in hell. " I would agree in so far as he could lie. He could also be very, very honest about everything, which would sting even more. "Reality is I'm gonna treat you all unequally through no fault of your own and there is nothing you can do about it". Or he could sometimes be very truthful and sometimes lie. Who knows? I don't even want to assume what a "Good God" would be like, so I'm a bit surprised how sure people can be about what an "Evil God" would have to be like. You set out to argue with a presumption that "this is what an evil God would do". You don't actually know what an evil God would do, you assume it. That would be fine, unless you were so damn sure of yourself. Unless you are arguing for your own personal Evil God that you alone have defined for yourself. I don't subscribe. This is a thought experiment to try and find out "What if?", "what could evil God(s) be like?". Yet you already know what they are and what they are not, how they would act and how they would not. So just tell yourself whatever you already believe. No need for my input. Fare thee well.

@petery6432

3 жыл бұрын

@@gunarsrepse232 Another thing in regards to #3: Evil God wouldn't need to have an afterlife to do this torture. He could create humans with the inability to die and torture them right on earth.

3- If there was no good and your brother died how would that affect you? Well you don't love him and your utterly selfish so no it doesn't, but now introduce love and empathy into it, now your grieve for your brothers death, emotional pain like this cannot br achieved without good, you can inflict physical pain or limited emotional pain, introduce love and empathy and the depths of it can reach far lower than without it. Yes he could inflinct more and more pain to the individuals in such a restricted way but that would require constant disease, famine etc. Yes he could keep us alive and make us able to feel more pain but this would be a constant and therefore we would expect it after a period of time, also remember that god wants you to worship him, if god was all evil and inflincted nothing but suffering would you worship him? Also to describe a god who will only reward you if you worship him and punish you if you don't, does that sound like a good god? Worship me or burn for all eternity, to quote Obi Wan, only a sith deals in absolutes or only someone that is evil. We DO NOT have free will in heaven, heaven is a place of eternal happiness etc. If you don't feel lust or anger or hate then why would you sin in a constant state of bliss

"Being selfless is much harder than being selfish" Then how do we function so well as parents? As families? As tribes? As a society?

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

It’s in our own selfish interest to be kind sometimes. It’s much harder to be kind for kindness’ sake.

@algotrhythm4287

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ApologeticsSquared It's just as easy to assert that "it's much harder to be selfish for selfisness' sake". So: "citation needed" on that one I guess.

@dI9ESTIVES123

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared what sort of metric are you exactly using there? Is it from your own observations or are you simply making a statement without any basis or grounding in reality?

@Tzimiskes3506

2 жыл бұрын

@@dI9ESTIVES123 what are you even blabbering?

@dI9ESTIVES123

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tzimiskes3506 something clearly going over your head. Let the grown ups talk, child.

Good video man

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed! :)

"but a serial killer can be patient..."

As of now I really only have one to say. I did have others but while was trying to think of a way to put it into words, it seemed to have at least one flaw, so I won’t comment about those things. They were about the various objections you gave to those evil god parodies if you’re wondering what my comment was initially going to have. I don’t think the point about an all-good god and an all-bad god having only one difference being omnibenevolence vs omnimalevolence, makes the all-bad god less likely. Each of those things, omnipotence, omniscience, necessary, and omnirational, instead of those being infinitely good, I would say they actually enhance their capabilities making them more awesome if they’re good, and less awesome if they’re bad. Basically, they enhance rather than actually being infinitely good. Only increasing their perfection. In the all-good god, its perfection is being good. The all-bad god has the perfection of being bad. Being omnipotent as an evil god allows for more accessible ways to torture or give necessary goods that will enhance the badness in some way. Similarly, an all-good god would be able to use omnipotence to give all the goodness and to enhance it, give necessary evils. For omniscience, the all-bad god would use that to ensure the people aren’t able to find loopholes in his creations and ensure they get maximal pain. For omnirational, this is to be able to actually use the power in a way that is tactical for, again, ensuring maximal pain. Plus, without being able finely tune the universe to create life that he can harm, he presumably would have to be intelligent. Similarly though, an all-good god would presumably have to be intelligent in order to create life to give others to experience the joy of living, as sharing goods is a good. For necessity, that can serve an all-bad god because it makes the bad available for everyone. The necessity of his existence makes it unavoidable. Just like when an all-good god has necessity, the good is available for everyone. For that reason, those parallels don’t make either one more likely.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

Real quick: I think that's a good point (I've thought about that as well, actually, in the context of someone saying that Satan had "good" qualities such as power and intelligence). My response would focus on this: // In the all-good god, its perfection is being good. The all-bad god has the perfection of being bad. // I can't imagine being all-bad as a "perfection." So, even if these other traits are mere "enhancers," we have a long list of perfections for the vanilla OA and a list of a bunch of perfections plus one imperfection in its parody. That seems random. Have a nice day! :)

@wingsofglass4249

3 жыл бұрын

Another video on this issue worth watching is by InspiringPhilosophy (IP) kzread.info/dash/bejne/poZ7lrlvYayueKw.html Apologetics Squared (AS) made a great video on the issue, and brought up interesting points! IP’s video brought up that a maximally evil god would have certain attributes, just like AS did. However a difference is IP emphasized one aspect of the “evil god”: selfishness. Paraphrasing, but selfishness is an evil characteristic, and since a maximally evil god has maximal of all evil attributes, he would be maximally selfish which would mean that he would not have created reality in the first place (IP does a much better job than I) Edit: spelling

@encounteringjack5699

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared Yeah, maybe evil couldn’t be a perfection. At least depending on how it’s defined. The idea of perfection I was going for was about maximal extent. I’m not sure what is meant by perfection in the ontological argument. Regardless, my point still stands. Even if it couldn’t be called a perfection, those abilities would still just serve as enhancers toward for either good or evil. Although it might better to call them enablers rather than enhancers.

@encounteringjack5699

3 жыл бұрын

@@wingsofglass4249 Yeah I saw that video. I don’t think that point succeeded for one main reason, selfishness is one of the lesser evils that anyone can think of. Especially when you’re alone. Selfishness is only a problem if there’s someone else is there to be effected. That’s not to say he is necessarily dependent on other beings. If it that were the case I think the same applies to an all-good god as well. Why create us if it would diminish his goodness? If an all-good god does exist then him being maximally great would depend on our existence as well. The only way out of that is if he would be maximally good in both cases. If it’s the case that an all-good god can be all-good without us, then you’d have to show that an all-bad god couldn’t be all-bad without us. Otherwise both are still equally likely in this scenario.

27:00 you are right a multipersonal evil god is incoherent. But so is trinity in any case. It's a ludicrous contradiction that only gets taken seriously because catholics had political power in academia for centuries.

@Tzimiskes3506

2 жыл бұрын

Typical atheist caricature of the trinity...

@paskal007r

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tzimiskes3506 I learned what's the trinity from my priest, when I was a catholic. No atheist caricatures involved.

A feel like a better response to the Free Will as an argument for an evil God would be like this. If good God took away free will, his creations would be robots that only do good, and it would make good God seem bad. If evil God took away free will, his creations would be robots that only do evil, and that would make him seem bad. If good God gave people free will, some people would be evil, but the people that do love him would genuinely love him, and he would be good. If evil God gave people free will, some people would be good, but the people that are evil would be genuinely evil, and that would make him evil. What these things mean is that if evil God turns everyone into evil robots that don't have free will, it would be right at home with his evil nature, whereas if good God made everyone into good robots that don't have free will, it wouldn't work with his good nature. Thus, the Free Will theodicy wins a fittingness argument for good God. The fact that we have free will fits better into the good God hypothesis than the evil God hypothesis, as good God needs to give people free will in order to fit with his goodness whereas the Evil God would not need to give people free will in order for things to work with his evilness.

Evil is not purley the absence of good, betrayal is not thr absence of good but actively choosing to do the opportunity of good.

One more possibility! What if God is not essentially good or evil? What if these moral features are only about us and He is existing outside morality, just like He is existing outside of time and space? (It is really hard to comprehend but God doesn't necessarily have to have the qualities we have, right? He isn't one of the creatures, He is infintely different from us, possibly to the extend we can't even imagine what is He really like) What if He is just a cold-blooded, facts-oriented type of a curious "scientist" who made our world putting in various data just to have more and more possible combinations of behaviour to observe and think of, hasn't intervened since His "seven days" of creation and has stood calmly unmoved by compassion or wrath or any other human emotion just not to contaminate his project? The world where you have good and evil coexisting is far more complexed, and far more interesting than the world without one of these components. Variables that make his work so complexed and not obvious are both: the free will assigned to us and the chance built in our world... There are other questions worth to ask then. For instance: Does it mean that this outside-of-morality God isn't able to feel compassion or love or hate or wrath? Does it mean that our ethics isn't universal, since it is given by God to us but doesn't bind God Himself? P. S. I'm aware of some of the weak points here and I do not wish to say it is absolutely true, it is just one of the intresting things to ponder on outside of the dualism given by good God vs evil God scheme...

God is good because he created good, and the standards of good, and asked us to think and do good, while allowing evil for a greater good, which he explained in his revelation, and man often confirms by experience, but not always, due to man's limited intellect.

@alpacamaster5992

3 жыл бұрын

An all good being would do what ever it can to create the most possible good even if allowing evil

@alpacamaster5992

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cecilia-ky3uw how'd you come to that conclusion

@petery6432

3 жыл бұрын

Hardly. He doesn't need evil to make good shine. Sure, he made Paul into a great person, but it would have been much better if Paul was never persecuted.

@alpacamaster5992

3 жыл бұрын

@@petery6432 technically theists only really need to argue that it is better that the universe was created than if it hadn't

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

3 жыл бұрын

God couldn’t “create” the good. It either “flows” out of his intrinsic nature or else is grounded in some sort of godless normative realism.

Life requires strife to become adaptable, this planet is where smart humans developed because they have plenty but they might die any moment, this is what people mean by natural selection. Iife is tempered like damascus steel or katanas

The fact that an evil god hypothesis cannot be dismissed instantly based on the utter absurdity of the notion is, in my view, all the evidence necessary to conclude that the problem of evil goes through.

(Response to theodicy 3) I really find it hard to see how you saying how the good god would want people to have meaningful existence and get pleasure out of themselves and each other wouildn't also apply in reverse to the evil god... To me it's obvious that evils like the infliction of pain are less evil tha betrayal and being cheated on. Think of the most evil people throughout history, I think a great deal of them the evils they comitted involved some form of a betrayal of trust whether it be literal or metaphorical...I would say that a probably well intentioned person like Adolf Hitler was a far greater evil than a serial killer who wanted to dissect his victims out of pure joy, and that the "evil god" would probably follow more in hitler's footsteps than jack the ripper's. Side note: Under the good god hypothesis, you have some pain -> infinite happiness, and say that we see some pain. Why can we not do the exact opposite for the evil god hypothesis? Instead of saying "infinite pain", which like infinite happiness cannot be demonstrated, why not say "some happiness -> infinite pain"? Would this not work a lot better for an evil god? It includes the evil of betrayal, missing from the infinite pain part. (I Guess it's also what hell is, depending on your interpretation)

I am pretty sure all Cosmic Skeptic proved here is that the problem of evil doesn't work because you can reverse it with the problem of good.

@wet-read

6 күн бұрын

I don't think the latter is as problematic as the former is, at least practically speaking. On an ultimate level, maybe that isn't true. I dunno. This stuff is not really worth dwelling on. With or without some super entity either pulling strings or simply knowing what will go down and wanting it that way, we're gonna think of things the way we think of things.

The only weakness the evil god hypothesis seems to have is that it asks of the believes to actually do some research, and dwelve into the pessimist side of philosophy, which most can't do because of ignorance, or access, won't do because of blind faith, or don't have the stomach to do because of coping.

@kenzboard

3 ай бұрын

this. the brainwashed and gullible are unwilling or incapable of deeper reasoning to consider the other side of the coin. god (assuming it exists) is most definitely evil and good. more of the former than the latter imo.

I agree that not all theodicies are symmetric as Cosmic Skeptic implies, but I think you handle his second example fairly poorly. Accepting for the moment that infinite justice requires at least the possibility of sending some people to Hell (I do *not* accept that but itʼs not directly relevant), perhaps infinite injustice requires sending some people to Heaven. Or, more likely as a symmetry breaker, thereʼs no reason for an evil god to be *honest* and the betrayal of “I promised some people would go to Heaven but actually no Iʼll send everyone to Hell regardless of any actions or beliefs on Earth” more than anti-justifies the lesser good of allowing hope for a good afterlife.

Damn, your clever. Good work 😂👍🏻

I take this as a genuine option that could possibly be true (it seems like most people who raise the problem don't, which I find interesting) however it doesn't seem to hold up. If God is all good then it makes sense that He would want us to desire that which is good simply for it's sake. (along the lines of the idea behind soul-building) We would also expect that people would intuitively sense/believe that desiring or wanting to do that which is good simply for its sake as being something virtuous and worthy of being pursued. Eg. you should help people even if you get no recognition for it because helping people is something that is good. It seems to me that if God were all evil then the opposite would occur. People would desire that which is evil simply for the fact that's its evil (this, to me, is the symmetry breaker for the soul-building theodicy. No one that I know would say that desireing evil things simply for the sake of it being evil is something that should be pursued. Even if there were, we would say that something has gone terribly wrong with that person. As I see soul-building, a big part of it is that it is about orientating our desires towards that which is good) If this evil God is supposed to mirror the good God and one agrees that a good God would want people to desire that which is good simply for its sake (which is what I take to be a part of soul-building) then it seems to me that the fact that we would say that no one should desire evil for it's sake is a good reason not to think that God is evil. Alex's objection to the soul-building theodicy doesn't hold because this goes one layer deeper by asking what is it that we desire or recognize as that something that should be desired.

@23:29 WHOA! Omnipotence is not "infinitely good". It's certainly, "infinitely powerful", but good is its own thing. Same with omniscience!

For the first theodicy, it seems like the argument you made makes the theodicy stronger for an evil god. If free creatures are more likely to do evil, then creating free creatures seems like a better trade off for the evil god than for the good one! For the second theodicy, you've actually taught me how to respond: by saying that the good in this world actually serves to ensure that in the afterlife free creatures make only evil choices. Now, in the good god hypothesis, there is still some evil in the afterlife (in hell), because of God's need for justice. But, with the evil god hypothesis, we can have an afterlife that is *exclusively* evil, thus making the goods God allows to happen much more worth it to get that infinite evil. Most of the other arguments you gave are a bit underdeveloped. But I'm sure someone could come up with a few unfalsifiable hypothesis or an appeal to just how mysterious evil god is and how you can't understand his motives such that every single one of those arguments fails. If you think that this untestable, ad hoc way of defending a hypothesis (which is what theodicies are) is dumb, I'm with you :)

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

// For the first theodicy, it seems like the argument you made makes the theodicy stronger for an evil god. If free creatures are more likely to do evil, then creating free creatures seems like a better trade off for the evil god than for the good one! // My point was the the moral goodness of the people in the world seems quite inexplicable given that people have tendencies towards evil rather than good. // For the second theodicy, you've actually taught me how to respond: by saying that the good in this world actually serves to ensure that in the afterlife free creatures make only evil choices. // That seems implausible to me. The Evil God could just torture everyone constantly. If that isn't bad enough because the people being tortured they can be allowed to think enough to express their hatred of the being which is torturing them. Would there be any danger that we would actually love the Evil God instead? That seems absurd! So, I'm fairly unconvinced that the good in the world is necessary for eternal evil in the same way that evil is necessary for eternal good. // Most of the other arguments you gave are a bit underdeveloped. // My goal was to do breadth rather than breadth. :) // But I'm sure someone could come up with a few unfalsifiable hypothesis // Unfalsifiability is actually fine if your theodicy is meant to undercut a defeater. // or an appeal to just how mysterious evil god is and how you can't understand his motives such that every single one of those arguments fails. // I don't expect anyone to be convinced by that! // If you think that this untestable, ad hoc way of defending a hypothesis (which is what theodicies are) is dumb, I'm with you :) // I find that avoiding ad hoc-ness is the hardest part of constructing a good theodicy. Have a nice day! :)

@Nickesponja

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ApologeticsSquared "Unfalsifiability is actually fine if your theodicy is meant to undercut a defeater" See, here's the thing. Your response is pretty good. It's a good critique of my points for an evil god! But, if we allow the use of unfalsifiable hypothesis, then of course I can just make up an explanation why your responses don't work! "I don't expect anyone to be convinced by that!" Indeed! But then just look at the "greater goods" theodicy! It basically says that God's prespective is so much greater than ours that we simply cannot assess just how plausible it is for some evil to be necessary to achieve a greater good (this is an argument you made in one video). That's essentially arguing from mystery! It's no different from saying, when arguing for an evil god, "there's good in the world for... reasons. Since we're just finite creatures and God is all-knowing, there surely is a reason for good to exist despite God being maximally evil. And since we're just finite creatures and lack the prespective of God, we simply cannot assess how plausible this scenario is".

@elawchess

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared Yes I noticed some things Nickesponja mentioned and was about to write a separate comment. When you were saying that with an evil God things should be worse that it is, and the evil God has the option of increasing the pain everyday infinitely and gradually increasing our capacity to feel pain. Well, you omitted the possibility that the evil God is intending to do this in the afterlife, just as the good God is intending to give followers infinitely more pleasure than on earth when they get to heaven. This seems to be the same answer a theist might give if they are asked why a good God doesn't currently increase our pleasure here on earth and keep increasing our capacity to feel pleasure. Well the theist would say. That would hapen in an after life - employing the same dodge. It seems to me that it would be possible to mirror things exactly if you are willing to. I think you failed to turn these criticism back on the good God. It would be clearer then that they can be answered.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

@elawchess It seems that the Evil God has no reason to wait before torturing us, although I give a reason that a Good God would need to wait before putting us in an increasingly pleasurable state. Have a nice day! :)

@elawchess

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared "It seems that the Evil God has no reason to wait before torturing us" I don't think we are in a position to say this. Just like the good God, the evil God may have just designed life in two phases - before and after you die. What you see after death is closer to the real nature of reality and the first life is just like a facade. In this scenario God's ways are also still mysterious and higher than our ways. He doesn't need to explain everything to you personally. He want's to sure it's true nature to you after you die. Two can play that game.

Oo! This sounds like a challenge! I like challenges. Let's see whatcha got! 🤣 Even though your little character doesn't have any features other than the square head, I can't imagine him with anything other than your voice and personality. My problem at the start is his assumption that God would be evil. Maybe it's because I missed the aim of his video. If he just wanted to play around with theodices and see if there were good responses to his claim, that's fine. However, in my mind, evil is not a property of God and shouldn't be of anything claiming to be a god. We can't and ought not call evil beings "gods". If he came from that perspective, I would suspect he would rather show that God is not good and therefore ceases to be God. However, I didn't gather that was his aim. Essentially, I see him saying, "Theists need to show why there can't be an evil god because of these parodied theodices." To which I would think, "But there can't be an evil god, because God, if he is God, can't be evil." 🤷‍♂️ To me he's making arguments or defending something that can't exist. Like you showed in some of your examples, an evil god is logically incoherent to me.

@elawchess

3 жыл бұрын

That's just a syntax quibble. To avoid this some presenters of the "Evil God" challenge just call it the "Anti-God" challenge. "But there can't be an evil god, because God, if he is God, can't be evil." This misses the point of the challenge. Yes God has been traditionally defined as defacto good. But for this challenge you are invited to a mindset in which there is a maximally powerful being who happens to be evil. Not logically problematic about that.

1. Bad God wins I guess, we're more inclined to be selfish. (A good God is sitting there like: Oopsy daisy, guess that one is another psycho killer. Guess that one got away). 2. Evil God only damns certain people, so they can live in suffering for all eternity knowing that not all the people who do (or dont) deserve it are suffering too, making them long for a simmilar treatment (envy). He allows good selfless people to exist so other people can choose to be evil and take advantage, therefore increasing the number of damned people. (Just because you believe in heaven doesnt mean that it's an actual issue to the argument). 3. Why cant the evil God like meaningful evil? Of course he would like it a lot more if WE chose evil and pain and suffering, then have us exist infinitely in pain and suffering AND the knowledge that we did this to ourselves.

Wouldn't an evil god create humans that naturally favor selflessness?

@gleam7138

8 ай бұрын

i think you meant favor selfishness, but either way we are created to love and be selfless, that’s the point of the biblical story, but because of humanities choice we are naturally now more inclined to selfishness, not because of how we’re made but because of our own choices

Ontological arguement- So the arguement is basically because he is all powerful and created the wod he must be all all good? No, first power does not detirmine if you are good, your motives do, that he is necessary to create the world, again create it for what purpose. Again we go back to what is the number 1 condition with god to go to heaven, worship him, that is the primary concern, he created mankind to worship him, we have no actual free will, it is primarily to serve him, does that sound like a good god? No.

I disagree with you. The highest good is not Salvation for the most people but God maximising his own glory. I think the problem is when you look at this humanistic and not theocentric. Also, who defines good and evil? God! If you do not believe in a God, you cannot say God is evil. Rather, by saying God exists and that the highest Glory is the maximising of his glory, then God cannot possibly be evil. I am critiquing your humanistic Christianity because it does not answer the question. Yet, I liked many other videos of yours and your zeal for truth is nice to see. You should look at the Reformed perspectives of this. The question is easily dismissed because the highest good is maximising Gods glory.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

I appreciate the comment! I am actually quite aware of the Reformed position, but I have some serious reservations. First, I am really worried about saying that God is maximizing His glory. Why? Well, I don't think there is anything God can do that would detract from His maximum glory! God has maximum glory just in virtue of being God! That is to say, He is at maximum glory no matter what. Maybe one could say God is maximizing the manifestation of His unlimited intrinsic glory. But it seems that "manifestation of glory" has to be done *towards* someone. Glory cannot be manifested to rocks or electrons, as they, having no knowledge, cannot know how glorious *anything* is. So, His glory is not manifested to them. Thus, God requires conscious creatures to manifest His glory, so that there are things to manifest His glory towards. But, is this not a humanistic theology? God depends on creatures for His own glorification?! So, I seemed forced into saying that God doesn't attempt to maximize His glory, because He is necessarily always at maximum glory. Have a nice day! :)

@shilohplatt789

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared Well, my point is that God also glorifies himself (to human beings or other conscious beings (demons or angels etc.)) through destruction, which other people would view as evil, like the destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah or the Genocide on the Canaanites or the killing of the first born in all of Egypt etc. Of course God is the most glorious being but that is not dependend upon human beings. No, even the opposite is the case; the Israelites, being under Gods mercy and seeing his wonder, were wandering astray never caring for that. I say, the glorification is to be brought forth from the elect to God.

Man, you should really get to know the DnD lore of the Hell and the Abyss, then you would understand the difference between the viewpoints of a demon and a devil. Evil is more complicated, then you would think 😀

I find it ironic using hell in your argument for a good god

What's the point of the scales of the evidence? Isn't he only dealing with the theodicies here? I don't think he's asserting that the other factors aren't also good reason to believe in good god for a religious person, but rather that the theodicies alone shouldn't be used.I think you're focusing way too hard on the "absent other factors" part.

It’s actually Stephen laws evil god challenge btw

An evil god would love it if we were irational and deluded in our oen beliefs, so explain how there are so many different religions and even different interpretations of christianity, is it rational to have one god to have such confusion to the point where alot of people don't believe in him? Or is it a evil god would want such doubt and confusion and beliefs that christianity would call irrational.

@levimark548

2 ай бұрын

But it would be "good" for him to enjoy our confusion. So when the evil god creats the maximum evil universe would it be a good thing in his own eyes for the evil god but it would be maximum evil for every living being. So would he be considered as good or as evil? It depends how he sees himself in his own eyes or experiencing his own being. What are your thoughts?

God is loving- I would counter that by saying that he wanted to be WORSHIPPED and whether evil or good the creation of the world would be necessary for that to happen

@gleam7138

8 ай бұрын

I think you think of God as fully transactional, He doesn’t simply make us for some kind of mind numbing worship, we think of God as way to human, He has no needs nothing, He didn’t need to create for any reason, but rather chose to because He wants to share life and purpose with beings, we are meant to rule and have communion and friendship with Him

Evil people don't go to heaven- well if a murder repents on death row they can go to heaven, whilst a moral person who caused no harm but isn't religous goes to hell.

@gleam7138

8 ай бұрын

u have it remember if repentance is true, it means the person would’ve genuinely regrets and turned from whatever it is he repented from, plus if someone actively chooses not to accept free salvation, it just goes to show they don’t want to be with God, why would God force them to be with Him if they don’t want to.

So does debunked-squared mean you're debunking your own debunk? Cause that's definitely how it seems.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

“Debunked squared” was just a fancy way of saying “counterargument.” :)

19:16 I think that's highly problematic. Jesus and the whole apocalyptic part of Christianity and somehow the whole reason of the incarnation of Christ is to defeat evil once and for all. If we will still be able to sin in heaven the Adam&Eve 2.0 will happen in which case Christianity is just an yin and yang thing. For me there really is a problem here: 1) If we have free will in Heaven and cannot sin why didn't God made Adam and Eve like that from the start 2)If we have free will in Heaven and can sin there's no guarantee the fall won't happen again. 3) If we don't have free will in Heaven, then again, why not make Adam and Eve like that?

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

(2) is false. God has Foreknowledge, so He can ensure a second Fall won’t happen even if it could. And, we know from Scripture that God ensures that a second Fall won’t happen. Have a nice day! :)

@danstoian7721

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared I thought of that one! I think you are correct. But then again, could not have created a world slightly so different in which to foreknow Adam and Eve won't sin? But I admit I think it's a highly speculative question

@Abyzz_Knight

2 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared but that begs the question of why he didn't prevent the first fall from happening in the first place

11:00 nice score for the evil god team. You are right, there's an asymmetry in the fact that selfishness is far easier to a free agent. But that's in favor of an evil god. So it's not just "as plausible as a good god" as cosmic was arguing, it's MORE plausible. As for why would an evil god not stop an act of love, apply standard reversed theodicies.

About the 3rd theocracy you say we need to be happy for a reason without giving a reason. Sounds like that doesn't make any sense

But to be very honest the Evil God hypothesis that the Atheist bring up. Also raises an issue that the Atheists will hate. They always say: "The Creator of the universe would reside to such a dumb tool like Faith? When he could just appear in front of us all?". Here's the catch. It seems to me, like faith is the actual only possible response. Because, if if you saw a 100 feet Jesus in the sky saying "I loe you", how do you know, he's not just a wicked God trying to fool you? It seems to me that faith, taking God by he's reveled Word, is the only path we can go with. Just like in action movies when you're unsure who to trust, you must make a decision, do I trust him by his word or not? Cause everything could be possible, double agent, triple agent, etc.

@almightybunny3320

3 жыл бұрын

If god is omnipotent then he can find way to prove himself because nothing limits him.

@danstoian7721

3 жыл бұрын

@@almightybunny3320 I believe that is false, I believe he is limited by logic.

@almightybunny3320

3 жыл бұрын

@@danstoian7721 Then god is not omnipotent being.

@danstoian7721

3 жыл бұрын

@@almightybunny3320 Not true, it's just that omnipotence is not what you think it is. Google it.

@danstoian7721

3 жыл бұрын

@@almightybunny3320 By your logic, God is not omnipotent if he cannot kill himself, but if he kills himself, he's not omnipotent either. What logic is that?

This whole video is you mentioning random irrelevant things that dont have to do with the notions themselves, in order to try and show the evil god notion as not properly equating to the good god notion. I think my favorite was near the end when you said something about moral grounding not matching our intuitions, as if that had any relevance what so ever.

I'm not sure why it would be more difficult to get humans to do good than evil. A certain amount of good is necessary for humans to survive at all. If children aren't loved, for example, they don't survive to have children themselves. If sex feels bad, there are no babies for the next generation. If eating feels bad, everyone would starve. People have to cooperate to some extent to get their needs met. We have evolved to have moral intuitions because moral intuitions help humans to survive and reproduce. Apparently you have trouble with the idea of an evil God letting people into heaven, given that he wants them all to suffer in hell. If so, you should have trouble with a good God sending people to hell. If sending some people to hell is just the price good God has to pay to send as many as possible to heaven, then for evil God letting some people into heaven is just the price evil God has to pay to send as many as possible to hell.

!!!!! Figure This out. Time IS God, Timing ITS manifestation.. God I.S. an ephemeral 010. in T.E.N. dimensions

Why do we assume that the choice to behave in an evil manner implies having freedom? No one is less free than an evil person because they are captive to their own delusions and desires. Evil comes from lack of awareness. God wouldn't have to create robots in ordee for us to always behave good, He would simply have to create beings with high awareness. But He didn't. Even in the story if Adam and Eve, Eve ate the fruit because of how unaware she was of the true dangers of doing so. You have to agree that even in every day life, the rudest, meanest and most selfish people are those who lack awareness. On the contrary, yogis and gurus and spiritual people are usually the kindest and most selfless of all. So why did God choose to create beings with such low awareness?

The more mystical you get the more absurd the ein sof becomes. God is beyond humans and humans cant know they can only rationalize. Maybe ai will explain it to you after the singularity

How could an “evil God” be supreme? Evil God would be subject to breaking a standard; but that standard would be outside of himself. So that outside thing would another deity who represents the absolute good to which evil God would be subject.

@benkrapf

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know the standard isn't Evil? How do you know that God didn't create the universe as a plaything, and that he only lets the good we observe in order to torture us by taking it away?

@krisjones4051

2 жыл бұрын

@@benkrapf Because evil is only defined by what it’s not which is namely the _lack_ of good. An “evil” standard is fundamentally a logical incoherence. You’d have to (1) redefine the intrinsic nature of evil and (2) this “Evil God” would answer to an even more fundamental existence by whom he is defined, ergo this would be the “Good God.”

@Abyzz_Knight

2 жыл бұрын

@@krisjones4051 defining evil as a lack of good is meaningless because without defining what good is there is no real way to define evil

@krisjones4051

2 жыл бұрын

@@Abyzz_Knight 🤣 Good has a clear definition in a theological framework. Sorry you feel lost for words, but that’s atheism in a nutshell.

@Abyzz_Knight

2 жыл бұрын

@@krisjones4051 correction good has a nonsensical definition in a theological framework it's why you give evil such a meaningless definition.

Salvation from what?

@ApologeticsSquared

2 жыл бұрын

On the Good God Hypothesis, your sin.

@jackjohnson2171

2 жыл бұрын

*God

Wow... I’ll try to be brief. 10:54 You need to teach people to be selfless? ( _Nice undermining of the Moral Argument there. Seems Good God hasn't implanted Moral Values after all_ ). Free Will is simply about the choice. Pretending that Free Will makes people selfish is completely misguided. 11:16 An Evil God fails to stop some humans from being selfless for the same reason a Good God fails to stop humans being Evil. 13:44 No, an Evil God is bound by Justice. Why? Because it is so much better to have people condemn themselves to suffering. The enjoyment for an Evil God is far above simply putting them in Hell. Don't agree? Well why wouldn't a Good God simply put everyone in Heaven? 14:03. No, Salvation is not of a higher order as far as an Evil God is concerned. Eternal damnation is. 17:01 Wrong again. You're just arbitrarily dividing the line between what's Pain and what's not. If it can increase infinitely, then Day 1 is like nothing. Besides, psychological suffering is worse if you are aware that you could be in no pain at all, instead of never having experienced that concept. 18:30 No, again, Good God would want to simply give us pleasure all the time. ( _He wouldn't, but you can't have it both ways.. which is the point_ ) 19:42. " If you think I've failed… there's others ". Well you should've tried the others, because you failed. 22:54 Oh man... you haven't looked into this at all have you? No, the Ontological Argument doesn't help ( _it doesn't work anyway... but whatever_ ) , but regardless when you pair it with the evidential argument of evil it only delivers the result that a Good God doesn't exist ... necessarily. and neither does the Moral Argument ( _which you undermined yourself_ ) And no, an Evil God requires that words makes sense in order to spread evil. Man, this is bottom of the barrel stuff. 25:27 How can you know that your brain works? More importantly, how can you know that your brain isn't being manipulated by your God? Answer - You can't. So the concept of a God doesn't help you in the ability to trust your brain, regardless of whether you think that God is good or evil... once you introduce that concept you can't possibly know. The disappointing thing is that you actively construct asymmetries, which only serve to demonstrate how inescapable the problem is. And at the base of it all you completely miss the point that it does not matter whether the concept of an Evil God is even logically possible or not, you still haven't met the Challenge.

@ApologeticsSquared

3 жыл бұрын

I too enjoy brevity, so I'll try to be as brief as possible. (I don't wish to be dismissive, but I don't want to waste your time either!) 10:54 That's not the Moral Argument. That conception of free will falls prey to the Consequence Argument. 11:16 Being selfless is much harder than being selfish. 13:44 Unjust condemnation promotes more evil than just condemnation. Rebellion in Heaven may very well be possible. 14:03 Nothing like justice prevents an Evil God from carrying out eternal damnation now. 17:01 Psychological suffering can be achieved with the fact that no pain in your life has ever been close to a billionth of your present suffering. 18:30 You're unclear here. 19:42 I disagree, but that's fine! :) 22:54 Only if every theodicy out there fails. My argument was not that conventions of language would be any different. 25:57 I know God is not manipulating all my beliefs because He is too good to do that. Showing there are asymmetries is what allows one to escape the problem. If an Evil God is logically impossible but a Good God is not, then my evidence for theism is not evidence for an Evil God. Have a nice day! :)

@BSFree-es5ml

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared _That's not the Moral Argument_ - No it’s not, but what you’ve said is that children need to be educated about Morals. The Moral Argument implies that they don’t need that because it’s somehow inbuilt. So you’ve helped to undermine that. _That conception of free will falls prey to the Consequence Argument_ - That’s a whole different thing and not what you were arguing _Being selfless is much harder than being selfish_ - Again… so what? According to you our Morals are intuitions, so ignoring them is harder than just being good. Plus, you're saying that a Good God has set up a world where it is harder to do what he wants, you've actually made a case for an Evil God. _Unjust condemnation promotes more evil than just condemnation_ - All depends what you consider Just. But it doesn’t escape the problem, Evil God needs people to condemn themselves. Besides, no one knows whether any of it is just until it’s too late anyway. _Rebellion in Heaven may very well be possible_ - May well be possible in Hell too, still not the point. _Nothing like justice prevents an Evil God from carrying out eternal damnation now_ - You’re not listening. Evil God wants individuals with Free Will to commit Evil and condemn themselves. Good God could grant everyone eternal salvation now too. Nothing is stopping him. Sure you can say he doesn’t want the Unjust there, but the reverse applies to Evil God. _Psychological suffering can be achieved with the fact that no pain in your life has ever been close to a billionth of your present suffering_ - Exactly, which is why you're just playing with scales. But meanwhile, once again you haven’t dealt with the problem that if I’ve experience a complete lack of Pain then that makes the suffering even worse. _You're unclear here_ - You simply ignore the reverse. An Evil God would try to bring meaning to our suffering, which is why our world with some evil and some good, is consistent with what he would want. _I disagree, but that's fine!_ - You can disagree that is fine, but I’ve gone through each one you presented and explained why it doesn’t work. _Only if every theodicy out there fails_ - Well I can only go by the ones you’ve presented, and they all failed. So saying that there’s others is fine… but not helpful. _My argument was not that conventions of language would be any different_ - No your argument was more broad, but ultimately boils down to the same thing. An Evil God does not want words with definitions that don’t correlate with meanings. _I know God is not manipulating all my beliefs because He is too good to do that_ - Yeah… that’s what an Evil God would want you to think. Sorry, you have no way of knowing. _Showing there are asymmetries is what allows one to escape the problem_ - Possibly, but the point is that you haven’t successfully done that. You’ve repeatedly ignored how an Evil God would simply reverse the theodicy. _If an Evil God is logically impossible but a Good God is not, then my evidence for theism is not evidence for an Evil God_ - But you haven’t addressed the Evidential Problem of Evil, so it makes no difference. The Evil God Challenge doesn’t care whether it’s logically possible or not. _Have a nice day!_ - I'm having a nice day

@megamillion2461

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApologeticsSquared can you respond to him again

@BSFree-es5ml

3 жыл бұрын

@@megamillion2461 " No " would be the short answer.

@Abyzz_Knight

2 жыл бұрын

@@BSFree-es5ml i just want to say great job. I argued against Apologetics Squared's arguments today but then I noticed yours and you just did a way better job articulating points then I did.

Overall IF god existed he is niether fully good or fully evil, he is instead a balance of these things, god himself has said he is a jealous god, man should fear him etc. Something if anyone else said we would say is evil, it boils down to this, christianity in my opinion states he is good because he said so, he is all powerful, he created everything and to say otherwise would be a sin, that's it. None of which are logical arguements that justify that he is a actually all good.

19:07

2- God wants the salvation of individuals and is infinitely just First god sends people to hell for one primary reason, for not believing and worshiping him, you could be a serial killer and still ascend to heaven if you repent, whilst one of their victims who lived a fully moral life (didn't commit adultery, didn't commit murder, steal etc.) Will go to hell, therefore god has issued an ultimatum, worship me or spend an eternity in hell for the finite crime of not worshipping him and suffer infinte punishments, this is inherently unjust because infinite torture to finite crimes is unjust, also what kind of god would allow a serial killer into heaven because he bowed down to you, not a moral one. Also the thought that God creates lesser evils to increase the people who escape damnation, the bible is clear that the majority of people are going to hell, so that immediately means that all suffering and pain in the world is not justifiable, the ends do not justify the means because the ends are the majority of anyone who has, does and will ever live will suffer eternal torment, why because they didn't bow down to him. Also what does the bible say about heaven, there is no sin, no sadness, no anger etc. You are unable to feel those emotions so at that point are you really you? Also if you are in heaven with the man who killed you, you can't feel anythibg but love for this man? If your wife is in hell and your in heaven you can't grieve for her? And next what will you do in heaven, you will worship God, so god strips you of who you are, makes you unable to feel anything for the people trapped in eternal torture and then you have to worship the same being who did all of this in a state of happiness which you have no control over and if you did you may feel otherwise, does that sound like a good god to anyone? So is salvation actually a higher order good, or does god want only certain people to continue to serve him for all eternity whilst the majority suffer for all time.

Very good

God saw the earth and said it as good, adam eats the fruit of knowledge and rationalizes what is good or evil in his own mind. He goes against what god wanted. This is the absence of good not a duality. He is going up laozi's river and getting pushed back by yah weh i mean wu wei. Some kind of way? 🤪

If a perfect God exists, then any evil that exists must be allowed for good reasons, and thus cannot be gratuitous. If a God does not exist, then there would be no objective grounding for morality; only be dependent on our own subjective views. Thus nothing would be objectively evil, and therefore gratuitous evils wouldn't exist

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Ай бұрын

I deny the premisse that God is a necessary pre condition for a true moral compass to be born. The grounds by wich we come to the knowledge morality exists and what moral rules there are does lead to God tho

1. The fact that evil is easier than good is actually a point toward the evil god (if the world seems so geared towards evil, then it seems like the designer, should one exist, prefers evil). Also, you didn't explain why a good god allows selfish people 2. Not all systems of justice are inherently good; I assume you disagree with the laws that caused the holocaust 3. Why is meaningless suffering more evil than suffering with meaning? I'd say it's worse to suffer when there is some escape than if it's just constant suffering

The best part was when you pointed out that it was a self-defeating position. We have no idea what an evil god would do, for all we know he'd make it so that we could barely comprehend anything. We could be being tricked all the time. That's why a good God is more plausible, He allows us to trust ourselves and the universe.

What has disappointed me, and disgusted me, about these arguments from both sides of the fence, is an utter failure to clarify a definition of "good"! Both sides carry-on arguing presuming there is some absolute standard of good even above a sovereign Creator god that we all agree on. The atheist arrogantly imposes their emotional view on what ought to be good to define it, and the Christian goes right on along with it. Perhaps because the preaching in the modern day Western Church environment caters too much to petty human emotion and felt need, assuming they have instantaneous, on conversion, a perfect understanding of what is perfect love. I of course contend no human being possesses that, save the god-man. So how could any of us stand as judge of God's behavior. And why would anyone assume God is under the same rules he gave to us? That's an absolute illogical leap! All of our rules we are supposed to follow pertain to our design and his sovereign purposes. We are completely contingent. A sovereign creator of all things is under no contingencies, and beholden to no purposes but his own, no matter how we feel about them. Nor could we ever fully understand them. The only definition that makes any logical sense for a standard of good is the preference of the ultimate sovereign, having complete Creator knowledge. And that standard has to encompass the full scope of their purview. This means any sort of judgments about an individual act, occurrence or circumstance, cannot be assessed until the end of time, with consideration of all other outcomes in causal association. Even things we in our very finite capacity might say, "that was definitely evil," could in the end be assessed by the ultimate judge as good. One other thing, go back over your argument and simply ask, is Free Will "good"? Why would anyone at all think that someone maximizing evil would create free will? You assume with no good argument. Why would they not be happy with total puppets or slaves, especially living in misery. Here's another problem with these types of debates. Who says God cannot hate? You failed to recognize, it is not that God hates evil; rather, it is what the all-powerful creator God hates is by definition evil. You presume the cart before the horse. In this stupid contrived thought experiment of a maximally evil god, you have to decide, is what that evil God loves defined as good? Would the intention of their creating be for their dis-pleasure? I suppose he's the ultimate masochist? No, the whole idea is self-refuting when you accept a reasonable definition of good that's tied to the purposes of the ultimate sovereign creator, judged by their complete view over all time and the whole of their creation. Let us also not forget, just because a language or modeling tool allows you to speak it or postulate it does not mean it could exist. Plenty of contradictions can be spoken but bear no reality. I find it no contradiction to say that God has willed that evil can happen in time, that he's ordained it, that it serves his purposes, and that it is good that that is so. And we have no means to understand that until we ourselves stand in the final judgment.

The evil God would just torture humans forever then it's certain that God is evil? How long can God torture innocent human beings until it's evil? Forever? Of course not that's ridiculous. There are human beings who went to prison for 10, 20 30, etc. years and later were found innocent and then set free. But anything God does is good so you probably have an explanation that excuses evil.

I quite liked the argument against the malevolent God from the trinity. Very clever.

@gunarsrepse232

3 жыл бұрын

I disagree. If a good God can have trinity and that doesn't make him have split personality disorder then so should an evil god be capable of having it, no?

@quad9363

3 жыл бұрын

@@gunarsrepse232 But there's a relevant difference between a good triune god and an evil one. A good truine God would be maximally loving and would will the good of the other. And, as each person wills the good for all, each of their wills would correspond with one another's. But, perfectly mirroring that: And evil triune god would be maximally hating, and would will the worst for the other. And, as each person wills the worst for all, their wills would not correspond with one another because they would seek to undermine the fulfillment of the desires within the other persons of the evil-godhead.

@BSFree-es5ml

3 жыл бұрын

@@quad9363 Nonsense. Just because you are evil does not mean that you will do something counter to your own interests because it happens to be in the interest of someone else.

@Tzimiskes3506

2 жыл бұрын

@@gunarsrepse232 the way atheists understand the trinity is truly mind boggling...

@gunarsrepse232

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tzimiskes3506 As opposed to whom? Which group has better grasp on this mythology? Not to mention saying "the way atheists understand the trinity is truly mind boggling" (or this or that) is no no better than to say "the way blonde's understand the trinity is truly mind boggling" (or this or that). "Atheism" same as "being blond" does not make you hold any specific notions about the topic one way or the other. It's just non belief in a god/ gods, triune or otherwise.

If good is good, then God exists and is good and so provides a standard of goodness. If evil does exist, then that just proves that good exists and God is the source of good. I'm so tired of atheists literally standing on a foundation laid by God and claiming that proves he doesn't exist.

@Abyzz_Knight

2 жыл бұрын

If good is good then flying spaghetti monster exists and is good and so provides the standard of goodness. If evil does exist then that jusy proves good exists and Flying Spaghetti Monster is the source of good Your comment is just as nonsensical as that

I would push back at your free will asymmetry. First of don't think people are naturally evil. For istance there's nothing more natural than having empathy. So much so that a person entirely lacking in empathy is usually thought of as having a mental disorder. The problem is ignorance. It's far easier to overlook your sense empathy if you are distanced from the person being harmed. Secondly, to be honest even if I did believe people were naturally evil, that to me would suggest an evil god. Not a good one. After all, if people are in fact predisposed towards evil then allowing free will would introduce more evil in the world then it would good, making it a harder pill to sallow for the good god. As for salvation the is yes an minimally just god would be forced to let some people go to heaven. It's easy to imagine the parody. An evil god wants everyone to suffer forever, but their suffering is not totalizing unless their damnation is of their own choosing. It wouldn't be their choice unless there was only one option, hence heaven. It's extremely easy to invert literally every point you make but I've said enough already, so I'll leave it at that.

God is good and our moral intuition is based in that, also, people are naturally inclined to selfishness to the point where we have to work to teach kids to be selfless as it is not a moral intuition. Your arguements are incoherent.

Also, the argument at the end, where a maximally-evil god would hate himself maximally, seems like a great objection against the possibility of such a deity.

@gunarsrepse232

3 жыл бұрын

Who says maximally evil god should hate anyone else apart from us humans?

@quad9363

3 жыл бұрын

@@gunarsrepse232 Because then they would not be 'maximally' hateful, as there could be something more than what it currently hates that it could also hate.

@BSFree-es5ml

3 жыл бұрын

@@quad9363 Yeah and a maximally loving God would love himself so much that he would be unable to do anything that he would cause any suffering to anyone else, even momentarily. Oops.

I need more like buttons.

This is the kid who said : " Free will doesn't exist, everything is determined and we need to convince more people of that " . Why does anyone pays attention to him is beyond me. He is a fool.

your second argument is a joke, the atheist could simply deny that salvation actually exists

@Tzimiskes3506

2 жыл бұрын

Prove it then mr.ignoramus...

@gameplaydecrianca

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tzimiskes3506 it's not something one could prove

@Tzimiskes3506

2 жыл бұрын

@@gameplaydecrianca salivation is something we can't prove? I suspect you have not read the principles of what salvation is and that the creator offers it as a free gift...

@gameplaydecrianca

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tzimiskes3506 so how we can prove salvation?

Idk god kinda seems like an evil being…or just doesn’t care

You assume a ton and make very subjective circular arguments It is not a given that everyone without God, is automatically bad, a lot of intelligent animals, tribal people, atheists, Buddhsits, Jains etc have all been largely good. You act like Justice and Meaning fullness is by default Good. One could just argue that Justice and Meaningfullness is bad. Justice is bad because it sends some people to hell, without it everyone would be in heaven. Meaning is bad, because it makes God not create the perfect pleasure chamber. This is a very subjective take. The evil God still sends few people to heaven because he is just, he believes good people should be in heaven abd is therefore discriminatroy. The rest of the video assumes a lot of stuff.

"The evil god is not bound by justice". Correct. He would be bound by the virtue of injustice. Bro, you're not steelmanning Skeptic. You're strawmanning him through and through.

Poor debunk! You didn't 'break the link' between the good/bad theodicies for me. You just made excuses for the 'evil God' that don't have to apply to such a God.

5 minutes into this waste of time and you’ve clearly proven you have not understood the original argument. Pass.

@MatthewFearnley

3 жыл бұрын

I thought he understood it very well... what was your take on the original argument?

@robbysai

3 жыл бұрын

@@MatthewFearnley , the first 10 seconds of this video states that cosmic skeptic claims in his video that there are as many reasons to believe in a good god as there are in an evil god. WRONG! He simply said that ANY argument to claim god is good could be turned around to claim god is evil. Perhaps a sofistry, but it debunks ALL arguments that god is good as simply unsubstantiated. This guy instead goes on a tangent to prove that god is good instead of the evil god imagined by cosmic skeptic. A monumental straw man argument!

@MatthewFearnley

3 жыл бұрын

@@robbysai fair enough, you could argue that Cosmic Skeptic’s claim is less ambitious than represented above, but I think the rebuttals still stand. Actually, the theodicies don’t prove that God must be good, but the weaker claim that it is possible for God to be good. (They are rebuttals to the Problem of Evil, which argues that it is impossible for God to be good.) So, reversing them might (potentially) prove that it is possible for God to be evil. But there’s no logical contradiction to say it’s possible for God to be good, and that it’s possible for God to be evil. If I flip a coin, it’s possible it will come up Heads, and it’s possible it will come up Tails. There’s no contradiction in making both claims.

@MatthewFearnley

3 жыл бұрын

@@robbysai Also: not "ALL" (or "ANY"?) arguments that God is good are shown to be unsubstantiated. The only arguments Alex tries to apply this trick to are theodicies. There are arguments that God is good. The historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead points towards a God who is good. Even if you dispute the evidence, you can't invalidate it by somehow turning it on its head to make it prove God is evil.