The "Evil God" Challenge (REBUTTED)

[@Theonewhoknocks879]

This idea of an ‘evil god’ Is old and catholic refutations of it are just as old, the gnostics tried their hand at it now modern day atheists are giving it a go.

[@bearistotle2820]

There is nothing new under the sun.

[@Xeper616]

Gnostics posited an imperfect creator but a perfect God, so not exactly the same

[@den8863]

Much of the social media arguments have been hatched out for a thousand to thousands of years. People on social media are all acting like these are new and they are all so proud of their supposed “new discoveries.”

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

​@@den8863 Ecclesiastes is simply based beyond the ages

[@mrbungle2627]

@@Xeper616you’re right but you’re presenting this incorrectly. They believe the God we interact with - our creator (the demiurge) is evil. It creates out of ignorance, deceit, and hatred. We don’t interact with the Monad, we have the escape the physical world and reach the Pleroma. So, essentially, they described the most proximal God as being the evil God.

[@supernerd8067]

As Trent points out, the "evil God" hypothesis rests on the belief that evil is the opposite of good, not a lack of goodness. This theory rests on the idea that evil exists in the world as an antithesis of goodness and not a lack of goodness. It's a Yin-Yang idea.

[@Daniel2374]

But It is. A child wanders around a forest without interactions (neutral). A child wanders around a forest and gets kidnapped (evil). Absence of good or evil is also a variable.

[@nisonatic]

@@Daniel2374 In that analogy, that interaction depends on the person the child meets. If that person has some (very) basic decency, they have a pleasant interaction. Or maybe the person really is depraved, but they have a reputation they worked for, so they still refrain the evil act. To go through with it, they need to be lacking a number of good attributes. And the abduction is only possible if the child, who has innate value, is present. Abduction isn't physically possible if there's nobody to abduct; evil is only possible when there's good to harm. But goodness doesn't require evil; nobody had to be harmed for the child to be born. A person's decency doesn't require any evil sacrifice, nor would a person's reputation require that they harmed others.

[@Daniel2374]

@@nisonatic u cant have one without the other. There is no relief without anxiousness, there is no hope without lacking, there is no riches without poverty, no congratulations without a fight. Boredom is a lack of struggle and everything would feel slate without good or evil.

[@joshmcgill4639]

​@Daniel2374 Yeah, so an all evil God would not be considered morally evil but just God as I already believe. And by virtue would be good anyways. Is it truly evil then?

[@Daniel2374]

@@joshmcgill4639 special pleading. I can say Zeus's nature is to exist therefore Zeus must exist. Holy thunder! Saying God is good because the meaning of God is good is stupid. Might aswell say "good is good because good".

[@partydean17]

Man this used to be a very convincing argument. One really has to learn what evil is and the whole hypothetical falls apart as impossible

[@hamobu]

@@partydean17 what an evil is? Sounds like you are putting all your hopes on a technicality and not the substance.

[@davemoore7808]

@@hamobu Wrong. How can you speak about EVIL without any idea of what it means?

[@partydean17]

@hamobu I'd hope not. Evil is non-being. There is no action that is absolute evil. It would be no action at all. It is simply unthinkable to be lead toward absolute evil. But pure goodness we can think of. To bring all things to completion into more being. More and more good. Something would still need to be some amount of good to create good even if it wanted things to disintegrate later, there would still be an initial good act that had to have a source somewhere that was also good. It's sort of like saying there is perfect light and perfect shadow and treating them as ontolgically equal. The second thing is literally non being. Non-existent. It would at least need an outline of light, which needs a source. If you mean the substance is that the argument is merely saying "the existence of good things doesn't prove there is a good god anymore than evil things proves there is an evil god" again there are not actually evil things. Something is good in so much as it "is". We may say this being is so incomplete, so disordered to the end it should be that I can call it an evil thing. But it's still based on goodness.

[@hamobu]

@@davemoore7808 evil in this case means deliberately causing suffering in others

[@hamobu]

@@partydean17 no evil not merely an absence of good. You have to go out of your way to be evil. By your logic, there's also no absolute good. If you feed a hungry baby, something had to die in order to make that food. Everything good is based on something evil therefore God has to be evil.

[@jonbolton491]

There can be no filth In a world without the concept of cleanliness. No death in a world without life. No criminality in a world without law. And no evil in a world without good. A maximally evil god is grammatically possible but logically impossible because evil cannot exist independently.

[@Daniel2374]

Neither does good, so back at u.

[@gabrielcunha2260]

​@@Daniel2374 evil is not something that exists but rather the absence of goodness, just like darkness is the absence of light

[@_.incredible_magnum._291]

​@@Daniel2374 no. Good can exist on its own. To assume otherwise is to assume dualism is true.

[@jonbolton491]

@@Daniel2374 There can be cleanliness in a world without filth. There can be life in a world without death. There can be a place without criminality. But you can't have the reverse. You can't call a thing evil without the knowledge of good. But you can have a world of good without evil.

[@Daniel2374]

@@jonbolton491 what does It mean to be clean? I need no further discussion until this is resolved.

[@CamiloSoares87]

O, no! Not the bad old gnostic heresy again!

[@davido3026]

G in FREEMASONRY stands for Gnosticism! the unitarian eretic sectarians!

[@Pixelism553]

​@@davido3026 It actually stands for God. It always has

[@0311catholic]

​@Pixelism553 yeah not the triune God

[@Zacharoni4085]

Evil creator, not evil God.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@Zacharoni4085 delusional

[@DuffTerrall]

"C. s. Lewis put it this way. 'I take blocks of cheese and I turn them into art!'" Never change, KZbin ads.

[@CatholicTruthTeller]

God would not allow evil to exist, if he could not bring greater good out of it.... St. Augustine said something like this.

[@seanpierce9386]

This is also what Thanos said. You are saying that evil without purpose is impossible because otherwise your theological position breaks down. I’ve been on a missions trip to Mexico and can tell you that there were people suffering for no reason. And of course, if you don’t believe, your life is worse than meaningless, apparently.

[@haitaelpastor976]

An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God MUST know a myriad ways of bringing good without evil.

[@TheDragonageorigins]

​@@haitaelpastor976drawing closer to God is what brings about the greatest good. The more people that do, the more good there is. The idea of free-will exists and thus good needs to come about via the willful act of free creatures

[@Unclenate1000]

An infinite god whos not an asshole would in fact just skip to the greater good as the evil/suffering would never be necessary in that case. Saying otherwise is just not truly appreciating and applying the notion that god is literally infinitely powerful

[@roninway29]

Creation is a necessary product of goodness. If there is creation, the source of it must be good. Evil only intends to destroy thus cannot initiate creation.

[@timber2lease]

i mean god creates and kills everyone, so if creators are good and killer/destroyer are evil,then god is as good as evil

[@rahulpaul147]

Creation doesn't necessarily mean good. In a void neither good or evil can exist so to increase good or evil creation can be done. An example would be a being that creates a universe so that it can make it's inhabitants to suffer. That act of creation would be more evil than simply not creating anything

[@Cklert]

@@rahulpaul147 That presumes that all suffering is evil to begin with. But also, what measure can you actually say that it is actually more evil? To exist is to be good, for goodness is to be desired and existence is what makes things actual. Evil on the other hand, I'm not entirely sure exists in of itself. Can you name me something that is independently evil that doesn't require goodness to precede it?

[@rahulpaul147]

@@Cklert Your are defining existence as good. By What measure can you actually say it is good ? I am not saying suffering is evil. Suffering is bad and undesiarable mostly. To create a world to make suffering that would be evil. Evil doesn't need to exist independently. For a creation to be evil the evil existing in the creation just need to be more than the good

[@Misael-Hernandez]

​​@@rahulpaul147 In Biblical or Spiritual terms that place is called Hell. The ultimate separation from all Good. God is love and shows this by allowing the evil to exist. God loves Satan because he allows Satan to exist, and is therefore Good.

[@alebeau4106]

Awesome video, Trent. You do truly amazing work.

[@TheCh1212]

Absolutely amazing. Please never discontinue your apologetic and just general beneficial/edification endeavor. You have no idea how many have been blessed by your ministry.

[@Tony-so1zl]

My priest reminded us recently that there is infinitely more good than evil in the world. The evil is seen first many times

[@seanpierce9386]

Easy to say if you live in a first-world country. Also, infinitely? That seems a bit impossible. If there are more people in Hell than in Heaven, I don’t see how that’s better. People suffering eternally for the moral equivalent of stealing a cookie seems pretty evil to me.

[@haitaelpastor976]

"Easy to say if you live in a first-world country." This. Most of the people in the world live miserably. And there's evil we cannot even imagine out there, beyond our comfy walls.

[@Tony-so1zl]

@@haitaelpastor976 yet those people living miserably do more for the world than people in first world countries. Faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains so it’s a rippling affect around the world

[@dekr-ch5oy]

Well.. isn`t "evil God" a contradiction in terms? Evil by who`s standard?

[@Mattt5]

yes

[@shawnboahene5231]

Great point our very definition of good and evil comes from God. By what standards can we judge Him?

[@bluckobluc8755]

​@@shawnboahene5231The only standard is then subjective but we all know that if it's subjective then it doesn't matter.

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

Internal critique. One must not concede a viewpoint to be true to critique it. Consider EAAN

[@LM-jz9vh]

By normal people who don't trade their morality for divine command theory or the concept of might makes right. --------------------------------------------‐------------ "In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this:* ***If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.*** *On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.* In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.* *But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17). *Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."* *"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"* --------------------------------------------------------- Also look up: *"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"* *"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei. *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

The shortest rebuttal of this challenge is the fact that evil is just a lack of good, there cannot be good in the world created by an evil god but there can be evil in the world created by a good God.

[@Qwerty-lp1fz]

Good is just a lack of evil, there cannot be evil in the world created by a good god but there can be good in the world created by an evil God.

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

@@Qwerty-lp1fz "Good is just a lack of evil" Wrong, good can be without evil but evil cannot exist independently.

[@Qwerty-lp1fz]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 Wrong, evil can be without good but good cannot exist independently

[@Cklert]

​@Qwerty-lp1fz And this would be wrong. No different than saying that Light is the lack of darkness or heat is the lack of coldness. Evil does not exist in of itself, they are always based on some form of good. Evil is simply lesser goods.

[@mrman5066]

He explicitly talks about that in the video

[@CatholicElectrician]

“Evil” means opposed to the natural order. A universe created by “evil god” would have a different natural order, and in that world, that god wouldn’t be considered “evil”

[@ndibunwapeter9013]

That's valid

[@Scipionyxsam]

Meh. Many things religions label as evil do not seem to be against the natural order at all though. Not if you take lessons from the history of life as a whole (aka evolutionary biology) or our own history.

[@CatholicElectrician]

“The natural order” includes different rules for different species. I don’t think that conflating all life forms will provide any sort of understanding about morality. Very many species thrive by doing things that almost all humans would agree are unacceptable for our species

[@seanpierce9386]

@@CatholicElectricianWhy not be consistent and impose this objective moral law from the start? To invoke a special rule for humans is anthropocentric special pleading. If anything, the evil god wanted constant death and pain, and we are defying that desire. We must resist the desires of society. Oh wait, where have I heard that before?

[@Scipionyxsam]

@@CatholicElectrician They might agree on that publicly but without fail humans thrive on these same 'unaccaptable acts' when the chips are down. I could think of several areas in crisis right now where humans loot and murder and rape. Not to the detriment of their group but probably to the advantage of it as long as they win the conflict. Brutal competition does not seem to be against the natural order, quite the opposite it seems to be woven into it. But fine, we do no have to go into these icky thought experiments to see that the claim does not hold water. Religion does not in general take an anthropological approach to decide what's right or wrong. The consumption of pork has been an important food staple of human populations for millenia. It's a grave sin in some semitic religions. Why? Probably because of some circumstantial factors limited to a specific area in a specific time. Polytheism has been the norm for most of human history and still is for billions of people. Yet in some religions it is a mortal sin. Theravada Buddhism states that having preferences is inherently evil, even though the 'natural order' very clearly rewards beings for having competitive preferences. The demands of religions worldwide are conflicting with each other and they often go against human biology and human nature, if we take into account what we know from anthropology, genetics and psychology.

[@teo9376]

15:12 - "Hey, that's me!"

[@Misael-Hernandez]

😂 we all land somewhere in the spectrum

[@5BBassist4Christ]

Stephen Laws' Evil God Theory is an amusing thought experiment but has so many wholes in it. I made a video about it myself a few years ago and still continue to think of problems with it.

[@Vic2point0]

We need to always remember that whoever uses the problem of evil argument carries the burden of proof. The idea of there being "too much" evil or "unnecessary suffering" has to be established, not just asserted. And yes of course that would apply to anyone using some sort of "problem of goodness" equivalent to argue against an evil god. It just isn't good reasoning in either direction. To believe in something, you need good reason (a good argument or personal experience). If Law has a good argument or claim of personal experience of an evil god, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise he has no case. This coming from a non-believer, BTW.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

The Abrahamic god clearly is evil. It's amazing the mental gymnastics believers will perform to defend Biblical atrocities and immorality. And you guys are supposed to be the beacons of morality. -----------------------‐-------------------‐------‐------ *This website is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.* I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along. *It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill.* For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! *Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!* In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). ***This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.*** ***Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.*** If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. *Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:* For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). *I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.* The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. *And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear:* It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my Do Not Ignore the Old Testament web page. *If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.* www.evilbible.com/ Watch *"Context!!!!!!"* by NonStampCollector (A good video for believers who try to rationalise Biblical atrocities and immorality by saying "Out of context".)

[@infamyguy3187]

I've come to find the argument that suffering is more fundamental to existence than happiness pretty compelling. Inaction will inevitably lead to suffering in some form whereas activity at least has the potential for a positive outcome for the person. This existential asymmetry lends at least some prima facie credence to the Evil God hypothesis.

[@JezuesChavez]

Evidence would be nice too.

[@Isaac-vj2xn]

I find the fact (as far as I'm aware of it being so) that 99% of all species that ever existed on earth are extinct pretty compelling. If God truly has both the power and desire to do good, why would he design such a brutal landscape to cause us humans to exist? I believe this is why many fundamentalist Christians deny evolution still, a natural interpretation of the theory doesn't align with God very well.

[@bearistotle2820]

​@@Isaac-vj2xnWhy is a species going extinct evil?

[@olufemi7708]

Trent, your video topics are always top tier. Thanks for yet another good one!

[@BiblicalBookworm]

Probably my favorite video on this channel! I liked the editing in particular - quoting other sources and including their video clips really increases the value of this video imo. 👍

[@ApostolicZoomer]

By definition this doesn’t seem to follow for me. Law is describing a perfect being that is also evil. A truly all evil “god” would have the worst characteristics, no knowledge, no power, and no eternal existence. All I know is that evil god is not dying for me like my God. An all evil being would have too much pride. Literally maximum pride. My God has maximum love

[@CrownOfThornss]

🙏

[@stquodvultdeus4613]

Nah, this based upon unjustified presuppositions. Knowledge is neither good or bad, it’s what you would do with it that makes you either good or bad. Same goes for power etc, these are not moral attributes. What you guys do is presuppose what God must be, even though you have no true basis for this. An open theist could easily say that he doesn’t consider absolute omniscience as a great making property and what are you gonna say? “No you are wrong!😡😡😡😡” Good argument bro. Nobody in this world can by natural theology simply presuppose or say what God must exactly be, you may you can know he exists and is therefore powerful to a large degree, but you can’t just fill in: God is this, that etc erc. Also, God dying for you is personal belief and not something considered in the debate topic of this video

[@SolDizZo]

Sauron is an evil god

[@haitaelpastor976]

He didn't really die, just took a weekend before coming back. And even if he did, it's like cheating on yourself at Solitaire.

[@ProjectMysticApostolate]

Mind blown. Thank you Trent.

[@ethanguy82]

Horn loves the Bill Craig tactic of creating your own esoteric definition of a word like god then using that definition to prove your point 😂

[@calledtobedifferent]

It's all an excuse so they feel affirmed in their reasoning for not beliving in God.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

Not really. It's obvious that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat, who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, who can't help the Israelites overcome iron chariots and who evolved over time from one of many tribal gods and patron deities to become "God of the universe" is man made. We're just waiting for you guys to catch on. --------------------------------------------------------- According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.

[@lucacuradossi1040]

like every argument for theism for believing in god which in the end is just a leap of faith because you cant know the supernatural

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

​@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d According to the Bible, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher. Do you guys ever investigate properly? --------------------------------------------------------- *Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.* "Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. *But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7) “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23); For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28) Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27) Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30) *He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:* The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34) There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32) He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel. *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62) Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51) *Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also look up: Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades) *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*

[@lucacuradossi1040]

@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d In essence the act of believing is a leap of faith. God existence can not be proved empirically but with logical argument that are based on their own theology. All other religions have scholars that have the same conviction and still have totally different natural theology, agnosticism is the only scientific, humble view. This knowledge escapes our reach, look at how dumb Mormons look going house to house preaching a conman's book, all honest preachers in essence are the same

[@hamobu]

You are just saying that because you don't want to believe in evil God.

[@cartraz1839]

Attaching morality outside of religion to God is crazy. It's almost like they don't understand omniptence. God IS. That's it. We are good or evil and HE is the judge of that.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

They cannot comprehend that we're in a world separated FROM that good God. This is no different than the "why not heaven now" immaturity.

[@harrygarris6921]

They basically think that life sucks and want everyone else to accept this opinion. And yeah I’m sure that life would appear to suck if you’ve internalized a nihilistic view of existence. But ultimately it’s an opinion, they have no ontological justification for life sucking.

[@rahulpaul147]

What is the answer to the question "Why not heaven now" ?

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@rahulpaul147 there are multiple answers. To be created directly in heaven is a strange expectation - don't you think? Can you think up any reasons yourself as to why having us go through the separation of earth / time - space / life FIRST might be preferable to being directly in heaven?

[@rahulpaul147]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I can't think of any reason afterall the angels were created in heaven and they seem to be doing fine.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@rahulpaul147 Are they doing "just fine?" and what does "just fine" mean? Do you think they're are made in the image of God and have the same relationship with Him that we might be expecting? Do you think there is no benefit to us being in time-space... experiencing temporarily a separation from God.... but with the full free will to seek him and get redeemed... and opt into heaven in reconciliation? It seems the fallen angels are separated permanently, in eternity, and cannot be redeemed. I don't think you're thinking fully enough. 1 easy example is free will. We can choose our rebellion or choose to reconcile. But that is just 1. In heaven there is no pain, no suffering. Which means there is no need for empathy, no need for mercy, no need for compassion, no need for assisting one another, no need to forgive, no need to sacrifice. In a world separated from God, we are given the benefit of experience compassion, forgiveness, service, and sacrifice. But that's just 1 more reason. There are more. God himself need no show mercy or sacrifice if all things are perfect. In the Bible Jesus himself says the most powerful love is laying your life down for your friends - as he did for us. But he can only lay his life down and die for us - show the greatest love - in a world that allowed death, and for people who needed that savior. Created directly in heaven, we would have no free will, no ability to choose GOd rather than temptations and sins, no need for compassion, and God himself could not show us the greatest love - that he did - in his sacrifice. There are plenty of goods gained from a TEMPORARY experience of separation from God - with the ability to respond to that separation - moving towards him, or away - and be reconciled in his loving sacrifice. The angels are his messengers. He didn't die for them. He died for us.

[@brandonp2530]

Wow this is very well done. God bless!

[@MrSimpoge]

Pretty sure if “evil god” were a thing, we wouldn’t exist.

[@lucacuradossi1040]

How are you so sure?

[@Daniel2374]

Baseless conclusion without even a claim. U should be awarded for some sort of illogical breakthrough.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

How do you know an evil god doesn't exist and we aren't play things for its amusement?

[@lucacuradossi1040]

@@epicofgilgamesh9964 he doesn't but think he does, look at the ancient greeks and zeus...

[@rmac9177]

@@Daniel2374I am just wondering, did you listen to the video?

[@carakerr4081]

Thank you for your wonderful videos! May God bless you and be with you today and always 🙏

[@asamtaviajando8388]

Excellent.

[@TOAOM123]

Credit where credit is due: its one of the more interesting thought experiments ive heard in a while

[@shawnboahene5231]

The evil God hypothesis sounds like dualism

[@nikhiljaikumar8611]

Dualism seems clearly correct to me, although Stephen Law is not arguing in favor of dualism.

[@shawnboahene5231]

@@nikhiljaikumar8611 I think he is. He believes good and evil are equal powers rather than evil being merely spoiled goodness. Trent’s rebuttal to his existence of an evil good is exactly why dualism cannot exist. Evil by its nature is inferior to good.

[@stephengalanis]

@@shawnboahene5231 On a techincal point, your use of dualism is totally valid in theology (‘dualist’ = someone who believes that Good and Evil - or God and the Devil - are independent and more or less equal forces in the world), but not in philosophy. To a philosopher, dualism is used in an ontological sense. Property dualism. Substance dualism. And in that sense, Christianity is completely dualist: two kinds of stuff, natural and supernatural. Law isn't arguing for theological dualism at all. He's an atheist, he certainly //doesn't// believe these as real forces in the first place. Trent didn't do the best presentation of Law's point about theodicies. Law does not think there is an evil God. He thinks that believers who dismiss evil god with a theodicy of "look at all the good" are right, but that raises questions for the theodices the same believers use in favour of a good god.

[@Onlyafool172]

​@@nikhiljaikumar8611 everyone is kinda dualistic, theres Satan and theres God, thats all. Satan is not as powerfull as God, but because his hate is infinite, given the chance he would destroy everything God just does not allow it, hence he inspires us to do bad, and the more we stray from God, the more evil we become as a species, and the less he interferes in the world in the sense of preventing catatrophes.

[@nikhiljaikumar8611]

@@Onlyafool172 that's not dualism. Christianity teaches that the devil is created by God and has no power that God doesn't allow him- that is definitely not dualism. for the record, I disagree with Christianity and monotheism here.

[@liliabrizuela2569]

Great job Trent, I’m proud of you.👏🏼

[@maroxesen1]

You're a saint, Trent.

[@POPS417]

Thank you for this.

[@michaels7325]

Ungoliant consumed herself

[@wulfheort8021]

And she was not like Eru. She was still a creation, just a mysterious one.

[@michaels7325]

@@wulfheort8021 indeed. It's a fascinating commentary on how something purely evil could not create but only corrupt and destroy and would inevitably end up consuming itself. It could never be an equal opposite to the holy and good.

[@wulfheort8021]

@@michaels7325 Exactly and Tolkien was very aware of that. There isn't a greater fantasy work than his that reflects (Christian) theology and philosophy.

[@AshAll3469]

I’ve just started getting into Tolkien’s books. Now, wherever I go on the internet, I am seeing Middle Earth references in the comments. It’s so weird 😂

[@wulfheort8021]

@@AshAll3469 We are everywhere. You can't run, you can't hide.

[@SterlingJames]

Excellent summary

[@PopCulturedShwa]

God is a being worthy of being worshipped?? Where's u get that random made up definition lol A maximally powerful being that created the universe is the bare bone definition. Doesn't mean they're worthy of worship. That's a value judgement that is inherently subjective

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Right!

[@_kim_3688]

Thanks for sharing this video. Generally, I agree with these points. The key point is seeing evil as the absence of good, the departure from good, rather than a separate and competing force. However, the point Law makes at 14:49 can make sense, if you replace "must exist" with "may exist". If we conceive an evil creator, it would be worse if it existed than if he didn't, because in this way he can actually commit evil. The worst football player isn't someone who barely touches the ball, but rather someone who is so good at soccer that he scores as many goals as possible but for the wrong team. His presence would be worse for the team than someone who is uninvolved in the match as if he wasn't there.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

It makes no logical sense that evil would exist as an independent entity

[@Misael-Hernandez]

Yes, God would cease to be God if He had no power over Evil. As a matter of fact, demons submitted to Jesus in the Bible.

[@seanpierce9386]

Okay, so let’s say that instead of creating the universe, God was to create just Hell and tile this out to infinity. While that might not be the worst thing possible, it gets pretty close to evil incarnate. We can imagine a perfectly good God doing the same for Heaven. The video relies entirely on the subtle implications of near-synonyms. The omni-traits are not inherently good. Evil is morally, not functionally “worse”. Sure, the world isn’t as evil as it could be, but it’s equally not the best. It doesn’t matter that it’s slightly good.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@seanpierce9386 Hell is not eternal. Hell will be empty on the General Judgement. Hell exists because of what we certainly know as justice. Lazarus and the rich man is a good example.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@Misael-Hernandez Then what’s the point of spreading the Gospel? If you get to go yo Heaven anyway, that overrides any brief time spent in Hell. There’s no Biblical or theological precedent for this.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@seanpierce9386 I did not say we get to go to Heaven anyway. The Gospel is the Good News of the Kingdom of God. It's a free pass to heaven regardless of any state of being whether a heartless person or a sincere one. The only thing left is for us to choose that gift or to reject it, and in this life we cannot say it is over until we pass away, and even when we pass away we are either in Hell, Heaven, or Purgatory. On the last Judgement (General Judgement) everyone will be present and then everything will be made known. If I died not repenting of my sins but choosing to do Evil, then to the lake of fire along with Satan and his demons.

[@paularnold3745]

It starts at understanding that evil is a privation.

[@VanchaMarch2]

When it comes down to it, the problem of evil is essentially an emotional appeal, not a rational one

[@VanchaMarch2]

I’m hard-pressed to think of any evil things that God has done. What do you have in mind?

[@voltekthecyborg7898]

@@VanchaMarch2 He hasn't done anything evil. He is the Creator, so He can do literally anything and not be evil. He also cannot be evil because He is All-Good, He is Love. An evil god would force you to worship him, and if you don't, he sends you to Hell. But God gives you a choice to accept Him as your Savior, and if you don't accept, you send yourself to Hell. You can worship God all you want, but if you haven't accepted His gift of Salvation, that worship would be for nothing. Worshiping God is a good deed, and we are not justified by our good deeds. We are only justified by our faith in Jesus Christ.

[@rahulpaul147]

​@@VanchaMarch2God punishes all of humanity for sins of two people. He killed everyone in the world with a flood. Killed first borns of Egypt.Commanded a Genocide against cananites etc. All these acts are evil

[@PrimeTimePaulyRat]

​@rahulpaul147 It's frustrating when people, both for and against God's existence, discuss His "morality." Morality is based on acting in accord with human nature. God has a divine nature. Applying the standard for goodness that is meant for us to God is like applying the standard for goodness that is meant for a plant to us. God can take away whatever He freely and generously gave us, and it would be just. We aren't owed health, life, or anything.

[@rahulpaul147]

@@PrimeTimePaulyRat I only answered that because the person specifically asked for evil acts committed by God. Nobody in this world is owned anything so does that mean we can simply kill someone ? Why can't we apply our morality to God ? If we can't apply our standard then what standard can we apply ?

[@benclark1482]

I've heard this idea pop up a lot recently and I quickly intuited there was some contradiction there. Thanks for putting it all so concisely! This was really a slam dunk in my view haha.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

How is there a concept of "good" at all if there is no God? Atheists seem to strenuously avoid this question. Like with the idea you can't be moral without God, yet there are plenty moral atheists, right? There is no "moral" at all without God

[@seanpierce9386]

Because it’s a hypothetical. We assume all the positions of the theist except for claiming God is evil. The point is not to prove anything, but to show that certain arguments theists make (maybe not even all of them) are nonsensical. It’s a counterexample device. For example: How do Christians have a concept of evil if God is not evil? Clearly, evil is the natural state of things, but humans have disobeyed God by becoming good. You simply can’t explain evil with a good God, so it must be false. By the way, contrary to what is said in the video, evil can coexist with the omni-traits. Consider a God who creates only Hell.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@seanpierce9386 That's really not true. Atheists take their position for granted when if everything is just a random assortment of matter, there is no good or evil. Atheists say we are good therefore Christianity is evil

[@haitaelpastor976]

So everything God does is good because he did it?

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@haitaelpastor976 God would have to be maximally good

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@TheThreatenedSwan You didn't answer the question. Again: so everything God does is good because he did it?

[@jtbasener8740]

I've wrestled quite thoroughly with the question of an evil God and have come to my conclusion that evil is too much a stain on perfect power to have any place in perfectly powerful Being. I appreciate your working to bring out that thesis here so that more can see the absolute absurdity of thinking it logically plausible to have an "Ungodly god". Have a very blessed day, dear Mr. Trent Horn!

[@LukeBowman08]

great video but from my understanding the "evil God" challenge isn't a argument against theism but an undercutter defeater against theodicies that posit "God might might allow a world with evil because a greater good may come out of the evil that wouldn't have been possible without evil' and the proponent of the "evil God" challenge would say that the same could apply to an evil God so this specific type of theodicy doesn't work. the reason i make this clarification is for a) more clarity and b) to show that even if this argument works it isn't an argument against theism but only against a specific theodicy. but Trent did a great job answering this challenge anyway :)

[@bearistotle2820]

Couldn't you propose a stupid god or a weak god as an undercutter, by this logic?

[@LukeBowman08]

@@bearistotle2820 i'm not sure, for example: maybe a theist would say something about the fine tuning of the universe for life is evidence for God's intelligence but the "dumb god" challenge would be to say that all of the pointless things in nature is a is evidence for the contrary but on this example it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that isn't an undercutter defeater but instead a separate objection on another data point on the claim of God's intelligence. the theodicy being given trys to show that God would allow evil for a greater good but in this example God isn't allowing stupidity for greater intellect.

[@LukeBowman08]

@becketlad8727 ahh good point, basically it seems problematic that God is limited in what goods He can bring about and in order to bring about certain or quantitatively more goods He must permit evil. i think that God could have chosen to create an other world with less or even no evil but for some reason God decided to create this world either because it is more valuable than other worlds with less evil (because of that theodicy or some other theodicy) or because He can choose whatever world He wants to create because He's God. its not that God's purpose has to be this world but He chose this world as what He will create.

[@_.incredible_magnum._291]

​@becketlad8727 oh I totally agree. The reason I always thought God aloud evil is because he allows free will. And if a being has free will, then it has the ability to choose to do evil

[@_.incredible_magnum._291]

@becketlad8727 that is the main reason. The downside is that evil is possible

[@jmctigret]

It’s a mirror argument that leads to a circle square

[@Mauser_.]

Alex O'connor is very bright and seems to be arguing in good faith, therefore I won't be surprised if one day he becomes a theist. I was an ardent atheist myself, but having spent what amounts to Alex's entire time on this earth observing and analysing I came to the conclusion that an intelligent and moral creator of the universe must exist. It takes time.

[@alemore1146]

If you are christian, what makes you think that Yahweh is in fact the creator? Your conclusion doesn't imply that christianity is true.

[@EuropeisChristian]

@@alemore1146proof from thousands of philosophers

[@germankoster4910]

You need to do the contradiction that exist between foreknowledge and free will.

[@RustyCog]

“Evil God”is an oxymoron God is all good by his ontological nature He can’t possibly be evil

[@WaterCat5]

God is all evil by his ontological nature, he can't possibly be good. All you're gonna say is that god is "great-making" like Trent does, which is just begging the question. The point at hand is how can you know god is great-making in reality when the world does not seem to show that. It doesn't matter if your theology is internally consistent if it doesn't actually interface with reality.

[@RustyCog]

@@WaterCat5 God is defined as a or the maximally great being And since being good is greater than being evil he must be good

[@WaterCat5]

@@RustyCog Right, and that doesn't matter on its own. I can define god a different way. What matters is whether the definition actually has evidence for it. Show me evidence of this maximally great being, and then I'll care.

[@RustyCog]

@@WaterCat5 before I answer I want to ask, have you ever looked for evidence?

[@WaterCat5]

@@RustyCog Yeah, statistically more than most christians, hence why I am on a Christian channel trying to understand their viewpoint. I just find all the arguments unconvincing and ultimately evasive in nature. Trent keeps resorting to weird philosophical definitions instead of looking at his scripture, which does not display a maximally great being to being with.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Figured C.S. Lewis would pop up! But yeah: let's take another example to demonstrate how evil is a privation of good, rather than its own substance. We can agree sex is a good thing. If, however, one party is forced into non-consensual sex, then the *lack of* consent here turns the good thing evil. Consent doesn't require an evil thing that - when combined with it - makes it good, for evil is not its own substance. Rather, consent is a part of what makes that good thing good. (And, per God's Word, marriage is part of what makes sex for humans good, too. If you're not brave enough to commit to putting a ring on her, don't take advantage of her body)

[@FredrickBeyersdofer]

I was homeless, did drugs, went into prison, where I got to know God. He changed my life. Now I have a home, a wife and a lovely year old daughter (zoe), and a stream of income that gats me $47,000 weekly. Plus a new identity - a child of God, Hallelujah!!!🇺🇲❣️♥️❤️

[@MaryFredericksen]

Excuse me for real?,how is that possible I have struggling financially, how was that possible?

[@FredrickBeyersdofer]

Thanks to Kate Elizabeth Becherer

[@FredrickBeyersdofer]

Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me

[@FredrickBeyersdofer]

I always appreciate God for his kindness upon my life

[@ErnestReddick]

YES!!! That's exactly her name (Kate Elizabeth Becherer) so many people have recommended highly about her and am just starting with her 😊 from Brisbane Australia🇦🇺

[@chefEmersonWilliams]

Excellent presentation. I'm no philosopher, but I get it. And I am pretty excited to know another reason to worship God!

[@vtaylor21]

People with that type of view probably think there is no objective good. Truly believing what God allows is evil shows there is an objective standard they are pointing to. They also think evil is an independent entity. They fail to realize that we call something evil based on the amount of good being absent.

[@forall1796]

Same can be said about the evil God and good too.

[@bluckobluc8755]

​@@forall1796The point went over your head

[@vtaylor21]

@@forall1796 How what I said can be used in the same to explain the evil God?

[@ZachFish-]

@@forall1796If in the Christian worldview, evil ceases to be, or never was, then everything still went as God wanted and has potentiality to go against, therefore good can exist without evil. But if there is only evil, and God was evil, what would be the determiner of evil being evil? What would be the potentially for good, as there’d have to be a standard there of some sort. I guess it all depends on why good is good, why God is goodness, cause couldn’t a God be all evil (or else he’d be arbitrary?) and whoever does the opposite of what he designed as evil is then good? I feel like there are areas to shoot down that line of thought, so I’d be interested to hear some Christian answers.

[@seanpierce9386]

It’s a hypothetical. We assume objective morality because the theist does. That’s the point. Also, forall has a point. You can’t just claim that evil is the absence of good without backing up that claim. We could equally claim that good is the absence of evil. After all, suffering is the default in evolution, and humans are largely the exception to that. Trent’s objections conflate “worst” with “inept” rather than “evil mastermind”.

[@GoranMatohanac]

I would say that the greatest gift “of love” is the possibility to let the one you love to freely choose… an all powerful evil “God” would take that gift away and let all people suffer to their maximum, all the time and everywhere. It falls flat as an argument, it simply isn’t logical

[@stephengalanis]

No, and it's a pity Trent didn't fully discuss Law's point or the theodicies he thinks work both ways -- including the free will theodicy. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rn3RpIxrntRsbJY Alex actaully speaks directly to Stephen here. This is lays out the terrain much better than Trent does. You might still think Trent's reponses hold up, but it's worth framing the discussion properly.

[@seanpierce9386]

That assumes that free will exists and is objectively moral from an outside perspective. Here’s a counterpoint: I would rather be forced to follow God than be sent to Hell. Would that not make it moral for God to not give me free will? (If you consider the request to be an exercise of free will it becomes a paradox.) I don’t really mind if the evil God hypothetical doesn’t work out as long as it leads us to a better understanding of the actual claims being made rather than relying on theological assumptions. They are so frequently hidden away that neither side may recognize it.

[@undolf4097]

Man, the Cathars won’t come back from this one

[@pj_ytmt-123]

@23:35 Well he's right about that, because if evil is the rejection of good and vice versa, then it is a circular argument. One can simply ask an atheist moral philosopher: without extra qualifiers and without attaching intentions, can a certain ACTION by itself be objectively good or evil? Examples - creation is good, destruction is evil - healing is good, poisoning is evil - telling the truth is good, telling a lie is evil etc etc. Therefore, as 1) there are more built up areas today than in early prehistory, 2) more sicknesses are curable today than in the past, 3) people still tend to fidget when they know they are lying - we can conclude that i) God is good (for the absolutists) or ii) there is more good in God's character than there is evil (for the relativists).

[@nukeplatine]

There's a point... an infinitely evil God, would have to really not just maximise evil, but also act against every single good, so would have to really cancel existence itself to prevent any good act at all... really punishing good acts by making people who do them vanish A Good God would permit evil, but would have all the power to take good out of it, like the cross.

[@seanpierce9386]

Okay, what if the evil god just threw everyone in hell regardless? There you go, infinite suffering. God doesn’t do the same thing for Heaven, supposedly because some people reject Him. You bring up a good point though, He could just not create those people who would, and problem solved. This is the real point of the evil god. You get theists to list all the reasons it would be silly, and pull an Uno reverse card. I couldn’t care less if the idea is ultimately incoherent. With that said, Trent seems to conflate evil with incompetence. Evil can absolutely be created in the form of suffering.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

I feel like this takes for granted some of the foundational philosophies around chaos and order.

[@ViriKyla]

Trent is very wise and smart, I don't understand half of the things he or the video he's watching are saying. Amazing video, Trent, keep up the good work of rebutting the unbelievers! :D

[@Pro-j4q]

Animal suffering and struggle for survive every single day. Of course thats not because of human sin: Animals existed since 3.7 billion years before humans came up. If they were created by your god , they suffer because of your god.

[@randomusername3873]

"It's different because... Duh, reasons"

[@Charlotte_Martel]

I agree that the universe contains too much good to have been created by an evil god. However, it also has too much evil to be ruled/created by a truly good god.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

So, therefore we know who is apparently winning the Spiritual Battle for our souls.

[@jeremysmith7176]

I would need to hear this guy's refutation of evil as an absence or a privation of the good before considering his argument.

[@darlameeks]

Impeccably argued, Trent!

[@sivad1025]

For what it's worth, this is at least a clever atheist argument. I would prefer to have this discussion over the tired problem of evil debates

[@kimmyswan]

I do agree that the “Evil god challenge” runs into potential problems on “classical theism” which argues for “divine simplicity “. But, why assume that the “traditional” view of God is correct? I mean, it does face its own challenges, such as the problem of “modal collapse” (and with it - free will), which is rather convincing. All this to say that in order to reject an evil god, one must be fully committed to divine simplicity and all of its challenges. More on Thomism in a bit… Under the “traditional” view, the concepts “good” and “being” are interchangeable. But, where is the justification for this? Those words are not used interchangeably in the biblical texts? The evil god challenge does not assume divine simplicity (which posits that an evil god would lack all great making properties, or would be defined as the WORST possible being). Instead, the evil god challenge uses the concept of “evil” in the contemporary sense, meaning harmful or undesirable. At this junction, we would not have to accept evil as a “deprivation of good”, and instead argues that evil is the default state, and good (pleasure) is a cessation of evil (pain)? Thomists argue that God is maximally good because goodness literally means propriety and badness means a failure to live up to one’s proper function. The issue is that we can’t know what God’s proper function even is. Maybe God is good BECAUSE he is maximally evil (because God is living up to his “proper” function of malice). Maybe “great making properties” like omniscience and omnipotence intuitively seem to move in one direction - towards maximization, while moral properties such as omni benevolence and omni malevolence move in opposite directions towards their maximization? On this view, the evil god’s great making properties enable him to maximally embody his omni malevolence.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

I understand you a little bit which is that you are equating pain to evil and good to the lack there of, and being is not equal to good as when God brought everything into existence and called it good. In my opinion, we are looking into why God allows Evil and therefore someone may dare to call God Evil when we know that Evil and Good are in contradiction. God has power over Evil, otherwise, He wouldn't be God.

[@evanthesquirrel]

"God, why is evil so large and strong in the world? "Man, can you not also cast a shadow monstrous to behold many times your size? This beast is unable to harm you as it obeys your every whim. Do you not also possess such an umbrage?"

[@arcturianoracle784]

And no about the ideal observer because in that case I would have to reject OT God in order to be right with symbolic ideal observer.

[@arcturianoracle784]

As in an Ideal observer would see it as righteous to reject such a deity who commanded atrocities.

[@josephpark2919]

Evil exists so our minds can understand good from it relatively

[@Unclenate1000]

Pretty stupid setup. A god of infinite imaginative power both can and arguably would have designed our minds differently so that we can just know good without evil being there and appreciating it.

[@josephpark2919]

​@@Unclenate1000 I think it's higher as a moral perspective that a man should triumph over evil and choose good despite his evil nature than be a machine that chooses good. Should God have made a perfect Utopia of people that always bow to Him, wouldn't you call it cheap? How many elements of evil do I have to add to that utopia before it reaches your imaginary fantasy? Listen, the very fact that we live in a relative world points to the existence of an absolute. Why do we even have a measure for the most esoteric things that we never evolved to focus on? How is it you can objectively judge a fantasy work by Victor Hugo to be better than a fantasy book for children? How is it there is a measure for beauty, for intelligence, and for morality? The fact that we can rank one thing to be above another reasons there is a "truth" to it that all of us know despite having never been taught. There is something absolute that we can know from the relative of our world. That is why it doesn't matter how full of evil the world is. As long as there is any amount of evil, we have the measure that points to God. Whether, from the beginning, the world had instead been a world where everyone was born with cancer or a world where the worst sickness a person could get was the flu, people like you would have complained just the same about how unfair God is. Because you have the moral measuring stick in your heart, which gives you the right to point your finger at God. As you'll never realize the measure itself came from God.

[@giovannicolpani3345]

There is also an asymmetry in the element of freedom. If freedom is a good, then it makes sense for a good God to grant freedom not only in view of genuine goods but also for the intrinsical value of freedom. On the other hand, it would make less sense for an evil god to grant freedom (if this is a good) in view of "genuine evils". This also implies that, while the distinction between casual or necessary goods and willed, genuine goods favours genuine goods (because they also have freedom), in the case of evils the willed, "genuine" ones are not necessarily worse than the others. One may retort that genuine evils are the ones deserving retribution while casual, necessary ones are not. I think this proves the point: because genuine evil bears the possibility to be corrected and punished it is metaphysically less "evil" (less defective) than casual evil.

[@arcturianoracle784]

Oh yeah and also the quote by Mary W is something I’ve actually always believed. Human beings choose evil out of ignorance, confusion and distortion. Which to me has always meant that we are inherently good and have merely “forgotten” and can’t see that for whatever reasons. Yet if our inclination is towards seeking a goodness but our view is distorted about that then it seems “evil” to be punished for eternity for that. When our nature is to seek “the good” though being simply confused or misinformed or I’ve noticed some people it’s the pain they have lived in life which clouds their judgement.

[@arcturianoracle784]

That’s understandable to another human being even and as human beings are saddened when we feel “powerless” to help them see the truth. Yet God is all powerful? My belief in God is not challenged by this. My ability to subscribe to say OT God definitely is.

[@arcturianoracle784]

Like, I don’t violate anyone’s free will by showing them good reasoning and self understanding. I’ve done it in my life to varying degrees and “self help” myself to clear up my own distortions. Yet it seems (biblical) God could do more for people if our punishment is so intense and eternal.

[@PiRobot314]

I do find the idea behind the evil God challenge to be generally sound. There may be a few minor points of asymmetry, but they are not obvious. For instance, one could argue that the good creator is inherently simpler than the evil creator, and I think this is one of the best arguments. However, we don't observe "simple good creator" because we don't observe simple goodness. We also observe suffering, so we need a more complicated understanding of what it means for God to be good (i.e. with theodicies). So "simple goodness" isn't even on the table for discussion.

[@CollinBoSmith]

I’ve always thought it was interesting how few people believe in an evil God. It seems like people always believe God is good or there is no God at all. But if the arguments for God’s existence are really sound and human beings are generally deciding beliefs based on the evidence, then there should be a least a fair amount of people that believe in an evil God, who are convinced by the arguments for Gods existence but not for the arguments for his goodness. The lack of this kind of belief suggests to me one of two things: 1) either the arguments for Gods existence aren’t that sound unless you already believe God is good which gives you a bias or 2) humans who reject God are not going off of the evidence as much as they think but are rather rejecting the existence of a God they think of as evil. Both are interesting. As a Christian I tend to think of the latter as correct.

[@mitslev4043]

I think it's more the place of there not being evidence for it. God is a cumulative case and other evidence doesn't work for an evil god. Also the idea of evil and God contradict in Christan morality. God and good are synonyms to Christians. To say something is good is to say it is godlike. Good actions are in alignment with the abstract good. Which is God. Evil is to go against god meaning a evil god is a god that is not in alignment with himself. Which is to say he is both god and not God. Like saying a square circle exists. It can't be both.

[@wet-read]

Regarding 2, I think people need to demonstrate that an entity (God) like this first exists before criticizing reactions to it (like the POE/POS). Also lost in these discussions is the simple fact that, whatever God's reasons for allowing certain things we regard as terrible to happen, we may not care what God's reasons are in the first place. Those reasons, whatever they may be, are also partially or entirely unavailable to us, epistemically speaking, anyway; assuming there are such reasons is useless to us on a practical level. The philosopher Sharon Street spoke of this in a cumbersomely titled essay.

[@CollinBoSmith]

@@mitslev4043 Those are good points too. I'm not sure I would be convinced of God for example if I didn't believe he did miracles, but what kind of evil God would do miracles?

[@seanpierce9386]

@@CollinBoSmithOne who was trying to mislead you, just like a good God points to Himself. You have a point about the lack of an evil God. A good God is a recent phenomenon, relatively speaking. Polytheism used to be dominant, and it had all sorts of evil gods, but it didn’t have much of a tendency to convert nonbelievers. The whole good God thing took off because of the Abrahamic religions, which were quite prolific. So yes, not many people look into it because it’s the default view. Maybe you should look into it. It sounds like you engage well with these types of ideas and it’s very interesting to investigate the roots of your faith. You might be surprised by what you used to think.

[@LosOne12]

Please rebut Ammon Hillman. A debate between you and him would be epic.

[@nickdriscoll6131]

I think what troubles me more is not the idea of a maximally evil God, but rather the problem that “good” doesn’t seem to be a maximal quality except in reference to particular outcomes. You can have a maximally good feeling which might not be maximally good in other aspects of life, good outcomes in some things like physical health may be deleterious in others, and what counts as “good” morally often seems to change depending on circumstance. A lot of aspects of the world don’t seem ideal or maximally good, but perhaps that is our perspective. If a God exists who enjoys our suffering, though our suffering may be experienced by us as a negative, that could be because we don’t understand the “good” in it-that being that it produces enjoyment to the God. That is to say, suffering produces the good of this God’s enjoyment, which is a greater good. We might find it evil from our perspective, but if God finds it good, who are we to argue? Is it “good” just because the maximal being embodies that aspect of reality? Many people find the idea of hell morally repugnant, especially if most people go there and are made with an inescapable sin nature that dooms them before they start, do not understand their nature perfectly or equally, and may never hear of Christ-and even of they do hear of Christ, hearing doesn’t mean understanding or hearing in a persuasive manner. Much can seem really repugnant about the idea of hell, but if our intuitions about good are not reliable (and let’s face it, they aren’t), the “good” God might appear very evil because it’s operating moral system is so alien to us. But again, is the maximally good being good because it is powerful? Good by merit that it possesses all strength? I think I am skating into the Euthryphro (spelling?) dilemma. I guess my problem is just that good doesn’t seem to be a maximal quality outside of situations and depending on perspective. So how can it be a maximizable quality of the maximal being?

[@g07denslicer]

6:22 "That's because a Good God is intrinsically more likely than an Evil God." ... says who? How would you demonstrate that it's inherently more likely?

[@francescoaccomando7781]

The evil god would be a god that has no sense of justice and of mercy, that would contradict his infinite knowledge.

[@martinchivers7341]

Job 42:11 [11]All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the evil the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

[@Mdeil20]

I don’t know about the last part. I would say God is beyond Being and Non-being.

[@Shinnja]

not really convinced by it, I found their points in favor of an evil god being just as plausible likely.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

That's because we live here on earth where the prince of the earth is Satan HappyEvil=GoodUnhappy And God is all Good.

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@Misael-Hernandez God is so good he sent us to the realm of Satan. Ok.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@haitaelpastor976 God is good, he is also Just. He sent the evil doers to Hell like the wicked, idolaters, adulterers. And those who love God and their neighbors as themselves to Heaven. Would you like rapists and murderers and thieves and the sexual immoral to go to Heaven also?

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@Misael-Hernandez Well, all those criminals can indeed go to Heaven provided they put their faith in Christ, nothing more. Anyway, you still haven't answered the question: how is God so good that he allowed Satan to keep existing and even gave him a realm to rule over us.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@haitaelpastor976 that's the Good News, first for the Jews and then for everyone else. But like St.James states it, faith without works is dead. We actually have to carry our crosses just like our Savior did. Those evil doers would have to give up their evil and follow Jesus in humility. They would have to do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and recognize their sins so as to detest them. That's how saints are made. Salvation by Faith alone is not biblical, even the demons believe and tremble with fear because they know their time is short. Do you know hell will be empty at the final judgement? Also known as the general judgment. I would suggest you read the book of Job to further understand that God never abandoned us but we are the ones who have a tendency to do so because of our wicked desires and evil deeds. So God gives us over to Satan because he is the Prince of this earth. Job willingly chose to remain just and righteous even when his own wife told him to curse God and die because that's how awful his torment was. Job chose God. In the final judgement Satan and his demons along with those they managed to break away from following God and giving into evil, willingly, will be thrown into the lake of fire. There's no throne there.

[@nickk4851]

Free will by itself does not account for evil in the world. God also has free will and commits no evil, so free will by itself can't be the cause.

[@Unclenate1000]

Its also not an excuse for it. I can be free to say yes or no to god, while, distinctly, not being granted the opportunity to gravely victimize other people

[@JonGreen91]

In this video, you made 2 arguments regarding the nature of evil. Either evil is a parasite, upon which good must exist or evil is the absence of good Upon which good does not need to exist

[@johnnylollard7892]

I think it should be a basic rhetorical rule that thought experiments aren't sufficient proof for ontological ideas.

[@tiboute3827]

First off, thank you Trent. I'm not a good debater and you are teaching me a lot. Question; could the evil god exemple apply to how atheists see our own deaths as in just ceasing to exist forever just as if anything never happened? I've always through this was the most evil philosophical view on death but never really talked about this to anybody. If the connection is not warranted I'm sorry in advance cause as I said I'm not super sharp at explaining coherently and precisely my points. Nevertheless I'm still a relatively new christian, got saved lat year thanks to seeing so much evil in the world. God brought me back. But trully, and this I know, he never left me even as an un-believer. God bless you sir and sorry if I made an unnecessary connection.

[@thegreatgazoo7579]

Anyone who thinks a good god exists, has not personally suffered enough and therefore does not understand how truly horrible the world is. Probably lives with enough food, reasonable health and safety, and access to modern medical care - none of which many humans and animals have.

[@TheMasterFez]

And yet monotheism in general, and Christianity in specific, is growing the fastest in the areas of the world with the most significant suffering. It's regions like Western Europe and North America that have stepped away from the idea of God - the same parts of the world that become more sheltered from real suffering by the day.

[@Unclenate1000]

Yep, but logically we can expect that NO suffering exists if the good omni god was real, as he would be powerful enough that there is no need for it at all, not even for a “greater good” which that god could just fast forward to. Simple as that

[@ponderingpuddlespensively]

Whenever I hear about evil god, I want to fight him. I am remarkably unsmited, which points to this not being one of my real problems. Oh good! I was always worried when it came to my non-existent problem that I would still owe worship to even an evil creator. My spiteful intuition feels very validated.

[@sirzorg5728]

I believe in God and Catholicism, but I have always found the ontological argument completely unconvincing. The best counter-argument against the ontological argument is to point out that a "perfect girlfriend" would have the good of existence, and would have the good of being right here, however no such person is right here now, therefore the *idea* of perfection does not imply existence. I think this is due to the apparent fact that value is not intrinsic to the material universe. "Perfect" is a statement that implies a value system. There may be a "true" morality, but if there is such a thing, it cannot be derived from purely materialist premises. I think there is such a thing as objective morality, but I also think that it cannot be proven. I have very deep reasons for these suspicions.

[@harrisonkilgore1412]

An evil god could explain natural disasters. Anyone have any idea why a good god would do that?

[@blastphantomgames6369]

Afraid natural disasters are too soft for this supposedly infinitely evil being Fun thing in history really soldiers would play catch with bayonets and babies ... This and everything else evil we could have done would be finite and inferior evil Natural disasters are way too general for such a being

[@joshuacooley1417]

I've run the evil God hypothesis before on my own. What it comes down to is that in order for the evil God hypothesis to be true, reason itself has to be a sham, created simply to deceive and make us unhappy, and the real state of ultimate reality has to be unreason. In order to make the evil God hypothesis 'believable' you have to basically conclude by process of reason, that reason is invalid.

[@Kranford]

I was wondering when you'd bring up Saint Augustine's insights into the nature of evil, even if you did not name Augustine directly until the end

[@Kanzler_Burce]

evil god looks like the guy from rationality rules

[@spacesciencelab]

15:30 Cold is the absence of heat.

[@WaterCat5]

Already starting off with a false statement. The argument isnt trying to "prove atheism." It's a critique of a particular kind of theist argument and how they try to avoid the problem of evil via appealing to ambiguity.

[@xravenx24fe]

That's like saying the technique of hammering boards together with nails isn't building a house, it's just putting two boards together. You're just being pedantic, you get the point, and it doesn't invalidate anything else Trent says after. Congrats you managed to obfuscate, poorly.

[@WaterCat5]

@@xravenx24fe No, I actually don't get the point. If I have to give my honest opinion, it sounds like Trent gave the game away. He conceives of it as theist against atheist, but it's really just meant to point out a flaw in a specific type of theist argumentation, namely their proclivity to just wave away actual evil because of some unsubstantiated good. The whole point is that if Christians can wave away evil that way, I can just as easily wave away good. Also, my comment was about a specific statement, so obviously I didn't intend for it to invalidate anything after. I have my own thoughts about Trent's arguments, namely that he's largely begging the question by using his definition of god to prove an attribute of god. It's also problematic because even if his theology is internally consistent, he still has to show it can be found in reality, which is really the point of contention. Even if an evil god were impossible, that doesn't negate the fact that Christians cannot provide any real reason why the obvious evil in the world does lead, in all cases, to a greater good without using the same logic to argue that goods can leave to evil. It's just "God is good, so the evil must lead to good." This line of argumentation is obviously useless unless the absolute goodness of god can actually be shown. All of this is just obfuscation of the real question of what exactly is the base level of Christian epistemology.

[@aaaaaaaa9189]

⁠​⁠@@xravenx24fe hammering two boards together isn’t building a house. OP wasn’t being pedantic, the analogy isn’t designed to prove atheism.

[@travisgriffing6569]

I would present another rebuttal: 1. A “maximally evil” “god” (creator) would not create good 2. Free Will is good, even though evil can come from it 3. The “evil god” would not create free will 4. Free will exists 5. Free will was created 6. Therefore, free will was created by a maximally great being In addition, 1. Creating things is good, despite that evil could come from it. 2. Destroying things is evil, and good does not come from it 3. Therefore, an evil being would not create

[@LorenzoMelchionda-lp2cu]

I still think the most persuasive explanation of the existence of evil in the world is the original sin and the consequent fall: God created us good and for happiness and perfection, but created us also free to choose, our ancestors made the wrong choice by walking away from God and lost thus the preter-natural attributes that God gave them; this introduced death and suffering in our world.

[@Unclenate1000]

Why do people still dimwittedly look past the fact the god engineered it so that we’re all brought down for what only adam did, rather than just adam? God’s inability to design things more fair an optimal is not an excuse

[@LorenzoMelchionda-lp2cu]

@@Unclenate1000 God did engineer things in an optimal way, which included to give us freedom. It was a risk, but it was indispensable, or we would have been just like automatons. It is not that God punished all of us because of what Adam and Eve did; Adam and Eve lost the gifts that God gave them and they could not transfer them to us anymore, as if I bet my house in a poker game, I lose and I can no longer pass it down to my children.

[@Unclenate1000]

@@LorenzoMelchionda-lp2cu youre just rephrasing what god in fact did not design optimally. It is in fact that he might as well be punishing us for what they did since through no control of our own we miss out on something they were given, for no good reason. This isnt some inherent naturally phenomena that god had to settle with. He specifically engineered it this way, which is obviously not optimal

[@LorenzoMelchionda-lp2cu]

@@Unclenate1000 If by "optimal" you mean that our progenitors should have had an ontological impossibility to sin (to go astray from God), this is inconsistent with the possibility to freely chose God. Even purely spiritual and "optimal" creatures as the Angels could sin and did sin. This is something inherent to freedom, intended as the power to choose and pursue the good, which is given to creatures to have a personality and merit from their actions, since there is no merit or conscience in acting like robots. Not to mention the fact that looking for the optimal way is an impossible task, like searching for the greatest number: just as you can always find a greater number by just adding a zero at the end, you can always find a "more optimal" world. Our ancestors were given the gifts and a choice, and they blew it up, they lost what God gave them and there we are. If I bet my house and lose, my children can blame me for not having a house, not the guys I was betting with, assuming they did not cheat. Please also consider chapter two of the story, that is, the rescue plan engineered by God through Jesus to save us all. It is a very difficult topic, especially because pain and suffering touch all of us in profound ways and we are all overwhelmed by it.

[@Unclenate1000]

@@LorenzoMelchionda-lp2cu okay well first off, “optimal” would not be the original parents’ mistake magically and automatically affecting us as though we also did it, thus making us prone to wrongdoing (which also isnt optimal). Like just punish adam and eve themselves for their own actions. Not that wild of a concept. I realized that was a far more reasonable and optimal setup since i was like 11 lol. Also, that has nothing to do with freedom. Theyre still free. Furthermore, the general notion of freedom, to say yes/no to god (which is supposedly the whole point of it) doesnt require the distinct and specific abilities for us to wreck havoc on each other, making all of those evils UNnecessary. The more optimal reality would be rid of that as well, since that would obviously be a better world to exist in vs this one. Again, my imagination has its limits yet i can still know the optimal world definitely isnt this one

[@morlewen7218]

I think a balanced god could solve the problem, that we experience good and evil.

[@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic.]

Go ahead & believe evil problems are greater than the Love we profess to our friends, family, & self. However, it seems to me there is no greater Truth than Love is greater than any problem, evil, or even dimension of space, time, universe, or reality of existence. As a long time atheist myself, I used to believe all faith is blind. Now I realize you must be blind, (often willfully), to not see Love as the Truth that is God. It’s not that my truth or your truth is the One & only, “my way to the highway”. It’s not that any human truth equates with the Truth. We can’t claim to have the Truth. But we can claim the Truth has us. And that’s the act of submission to Christ in the offering at the mass as we receive the blessed sacrament of Holy Communion.

[@g07denslicer]

An Evil God is a contradiction in terms because it would be lacking a great-making property, which is maximal goodness." Maybe YOUR definition of God includes a great-making property called maximal goodness, but my definition of God doesn't consider maximal goodness as a great-making property.

[@Tim.Foster123]

Can we say that if there's an evil god, he's not doing a very good job? (I'm not ignorant of the double-edge of this sword, but it's worth pointing out nonetheless)

[@llla_german_ewoklll6413]

Awesome video Trent. Can you do a video rebutting messianic christianity? I’d like to hear a fleshed out take from you on the matter.