There is an Evil God, irony of the God debate

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Theists argue that there is a god. Atheists argue that if there is a god, he is not the one theists conceive of but is in fact malicious.

Still do not see any irony. Irony is like saying, “Stop eating cake, it’s bad for you” while eating cake yourself. Stating that two sides are both right (but only in just your personal opinion) is not irony.

The strong arguments for a malicious god are the strong arguments from both the atheist and theist positions. So this would be the many arguments for a god such as the kalam cosmological, Leibniz cosmological, moral argument, argument from design, fine tuning argument, ect. as well as the problem of evil, and/or the problem of divine hiddennes.

The first few are good arguments for the existence of at least a god, but does not suggest an evil deity. The latter two are easily refutable and have been numerous times here and elsewhere.
So, again, please provide some good, strong arguments for an evil god.

Why doesn’t anyone consider the possibility that theists are successful in demonstrating that there is a god, and the atheists are successful in demonstrating that he is malicious?

Because the atheists do not believe that theists have successfully demonstrated the existence of a deity and no theist or rational-minded person would accept the irrational evil deity proposals.

 

[sw85]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

Nobody sees it because it’s a rationally untenable position. The idea of an “evil God” is an ontological impossibility; if *you *can’t see that, it’s only because you aren’t up-to-speed on the relevant theistic arguments. See Edward Feser’s *Aquinas *for why God, if He exists, is necessarily good. See also his attack on Stephen Law’s “evil God challenge” here and here.

 

[Relinquish]

The first few are good arguments for the existence of at least a god, but does not suggest an evil deity. The latter two are easily refutable and have been numerous times here and elsewhere.
So, again, please provide some good, strong arguments for an evil god.

I have never seen the inductive problem of evil or problem of divine hiddenness refuted. If you’d like you may take a swing at them;

(1) X is an intending cause for all states of affairs
(2) Occurrences of great suffering obtain
(3) X intends occurrences of great suffering (from 1 and 2)

Intending suffering for others is, by definition, maliciousness. My deity is at times very malicious while yours is by definition omnibenevolant, so clearly this argument supports my deity and not yours. You could offer a theodicy in an attempt to explain how your deity might intend malice, and yet still be benevolent but this theodicy would be ad hoc. My maltheistic beliefs, on the other hand, are not very easily explain this conclusion but predict this conclusion.

So as you can see, my maltheistic beliefs have both explanatory power and predictive power where as your Christian theistic beliefs have neither and must be rather ad hoc if they’re going to survive the argument.

You could, of course, object to the argument by demonstrating that one of the premises are false or showing the structure to be invalid. I encourage you to try that.

no theist or rational-minded person would accept the irrational evil deity proposals.

Why? Are all atheists irrational for thinking the problem of evil holds any weight? If atheists are not completely irrational, and the problem of evil is a hefty beast, then you yourself would be irrational for not being a maltheist. Of course it would be incredibly ignorant to think that all atheists are irrational. I don’t see how you could treat this very controversial issue so trivially–surely the problem of evil is worth some consideration if it’s one of the strongest atheological arguments?

 

[Relinquish]

Then who do you say Jesus is?

-Tim-

Jesus is the guy who mows my lawn every Saturday evening.

 

[sw85]

I have never seen the inductive problem of evil or problem of divine hiddenness refuted. If you’d like you may take a swing at them;

(1) X is an intending cause for all states of affairs
(2) Occurrences of great suffering obtain
(3) X intends occurrences of great suffering (from 1 and 2)

Intending suffering for others is, by definition, maliciousness. My deity is at times very malicious while yours is by definition omnibenevolant, so clearly this argument supports my deity and not yours. You could offer a theodicy in an attempt to explain how your deity might intend malice, and yet still be benevolent but this theodicy would be ad hoc. My maltheistic beliefs, on the other hand, are not very easily explain this conclusion but predict this conclusion.

So as you can see, my maltheistic beliefs have both explanatory power and predictive power where as your Christian theistic beliefs have neither and must be rather ad hoc if they’re going to survive the argument.

You could, of course, object to the argument by demonstrating that one of the premises are false or showing the structure to be invalid. I encourage you to try that.

Why? Are all atheists irrational for thinking the problem of evil holds any weight? If atheists are not completely irrational, and the problem of evil is a hefty beast, then you yourself would be irrational for not being a maltheist. Of course it would be incredibly ignorant to think that all atheists are irrational. I don’t see how you could treat this very controversial issue so trivially–surely the problem of evil is worth some consideration if it’s one of the strongest atheological arguments?

The problem is that God’s goodness is not evidential but metaphysically necessary. He cannot not be good. The proper aim of theodicy is simply to reconcile the necessary fact of God’s goodness with the existence of evil; and insofar as the problem of evil depends, for its rhetorical force, on the claim that there is no possible way to reconcile the two, it suffices to show that there is at least one possible way, even if we cannot know with certainty that it is the correct way.

In other words, the fact that theodicy exists and has produced at least one possible answer is evidence that the “problem of evil” is a non-starter.

I don’t know that I would call atheists irrational (at least in this respect). I would certainly say they’re ignorant, i.e., lacking knowledge. I have met maybe 1 in 20 who actually understand why theists believe God is omnibenevolent.

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus is the guy who mows my lawn every Saturday evening.

Maybe you will give it some sincere thought some day.

-Tim-

 

[Relinquish]

All I meant was your idea of a god is more palatable to me than the Christian god. But less palatable than deism (a god who does not intervene) or pantheism (a theology I don’t really understand but find appealing).

Okay thanks.

You’re welcome, and I want to add that I highly respect your ability to look objectively at this matter without letting all those messy emotions and wishful thinking get in the way.

Again, thanks, lol.

I noticed that your said evil in your title but not in your OP so I was considering asking you that - if you thought God was truly 100% evil, or if you just thought he is like, more bad than good.

Yeah the title was a bit of a generalization. To tell you the truth I wouldn’t even claim that he’s evil, per se, because then I’m committed to moral realism. I could instead just say “malicious” or “mean” and it would be a much easier position to defend, without having to defend that moral values actually exist. I do personally believe good and evil exists, but I don’t have very good reasons for believing so other than my intuitions.

Well I do consider myself an agnostic atheist, because I think the specific nature of the creator, if indeed there is one, cannot be known through reason or demonstration. Only through revelation can God be known, IMO, and the multitudes of conflicting revelations leads me to distrust all revelation.

Okay. Think about it this way, though. Wouldn’t a malicious god have motivation to give many different revelations to many different people? Think about the chaos it causes, all the holy wars, all the religious brutality. Doesn’t this make perfect sense if we were to suppose the creator actually enjoyed watching our suffering?

The thing about many different revelations only doesn’t make sense if you believe in a benevolent deity. Then you have to come up with ad hoc explanations for why there are so many religions and why the deity allows all this chaos and bloodshed in his name.

I will respond to the issue of personality shortly.

Okay I’ll wait for it

 

[Relinquish]

The problem is that God’s goodness is not evidential but metaphysically necessary. He cannot not be good. The proper aim of theodicy is simply to reconcile the necessary fact of God’s goodness with the existence of evil; and insofar as the problem of evil depends, for its rhetorical force, on the claim that there is no possible way to reconcile the two, it suffices to show that there is at least one possible way, even if we cannot know with certainty that it is the correct way.

On a quick note, I do not know what you mean by metaphysical necessity. I’ve asked many people and have only gotten vague responses. Metaphysical necessity seems to be tied together with paradoxes of identity when we’re dealing with poorly defined concepts and appears only applicable to said cases. Until someone could explain this to me, though, I would reject the notion of metaphysical necessity outright.

Ahh I see that you responded to my DCT thread, lets get into the meat of the issue there. But I don’t see how this is a problem for me. In fact you seem to just be reinforcing the problem of evil which states; (1) God is by definition all good, yet he does evil (2) Therefore God does not exist.
If God was not by definition good, then the problem of evil would be a complete non-sequitar against Christian theism.

And I was not giving the logical problem of evil, I recognize that there is no explicit contradiction in the theistic concept of god. I have read Plantinga’s book God, Freedom, and Evil, and I agree for the most part with his free will defense. My argument is an argument to best explanation, that my maltheistic beliefs explain and predict the evidence better than the theists beliefs do (if the theists do at all).

In other words, the fact that theodicy exists and has produced at least one possible answer is evidence that the “problem of evil” is a non-starter.

Yes, to the logical problem of evil. Not to the evidential problem of evil. A defense cannot combat the evidential problem of evil.

I don’t know that I would call atheists irrational (at least in this respect). I would certainly say they’re ignorant, i.e., lacking knowledge. I have met maybe 1 in 20 who actually understand why theists believe God is omnibenevolent.

I recognize that sophisticated theists believe God is omnibenevolant because they’ve defined him as such, and not because of anyting he’s actually done. This doesn’t help your case, though, but just switches the question from “Is God evil?” to “Does God exist?” as being not evil is part of the definition of God.

 

[Relinquish]

Maybe you will give it some sincere thought some day.

-Tim-

I was actually a Christian for most of my life, and spent 16 years considering that question. Maybe you will give the OP some thought, some day, and find it within your ability to give an on-topic response.

 

[Gorgias]

(1) X is an intending cause for all states of affairs
(2) Occurrences of great suffering obtain
(3) X intends occurrences of great suffering (from 1 and 2)

Intending suffering for others is, by definition, maliciousness.

The usual response to (1) is that of the notion of primary and secondary causation. However, the notion of double effect also seems that it might be in play as a response. In either case, however, it does not follow that intent to cause suffering is present (even if knowledge of suffering might be asserted).

My deity is at times very malicious while yours is by definition omnibenevolant, so clearly this argument supports my deity and not yours.

The presence of suffering doesn’t necessarily trump omnibenevolence.

So as you can see, my maltheistic beliefs have both explanatory power and predictive power where as your Christian theistic beliefs have neither and must be rather ad hoc if they’re going to survive the argument.

I disagree. Your maltheistic beliefs misconstrue the nature of God and presume omniscience on your part (after all, you’re presuming that you can assert which instances of suffering are positive and which are negative, without exception. By definition, that’s omniscence.)

Why? Are all atheists irrational for thinking the problem of evil holds any weight?

Of course not. It’s possible to be rational, yet incorrect.

Of course it would be incredibly ignorant to think that all atheists are irrational.

True… but not to consider the possibility that all atheists are incorrect…

 

[Relinquish]

In my opinion, I do think it is spiritually healthy to spend some time thinking this way. Because, if we do not actually wrestle with the concept that we might want to flee God, then how can we truly embrace Him?

That’s good.

I did engage in this internal debate for some time. I decided to reject the notion of an evil God. I cannot see a way for an evil God to offer Himself up by being tortured to death.

I’m not sure why you think the malicious creator of the universe offered himself up by being tortured to death.

One theory that I adhere to is that God lives outside of time. His creations, however, live inside of time. Therefore, all of the overt predictions of the crucifixion of Christ demonstrate their Holy Origin.

I am not aware of any predictions of the crucifixion of Christ.

People will often comment that they don’t see why God allows cancer, auto accidents, etc. etc… However, I ask them, “What would happen if God actually inhibited every kind of consequence to our sin?” Blank stare.

He would be unjust. Now let me ask you a question; what if God created free moral agents who, like himself, had no motivations to sin, desired good things, and had a will strong enough to resist all temptation? Since we’re short sighted and not very powerful, there would still be many cases of evil that occured—but not because of our intentions but because of God’s intentions. Of course there’s always the problem of natural evil, evil which is not actually caused by any free moral agent other than God himself. Unless you think every case of natural evil is a punishment from God (which I would be highly dubious of), you’ve still got something to answer to.

You may judge yourself to be rationally superior, but I have not seen that side prevail in my discussions.

I don’t think that I’m superior, but that I am taking the evidence presented by both sides of the god debate to it’s rational conclusions. Atheists, I believe, reject the arguments for the existence of a deity because they don’t like the kind of deity it would lead to. Likewise theists reject the arguments from the problem of evil because they don’t like the kind of deity it would lead to. Really both sides have very compelling arguments, and I think if one were to just be objective and ignore the fact that this is all very dreadful for us, they would agree with me.

Most people on both sides even agree that there are compelling arguments on both sides, but that their side is just a little bit better evidenced. Why is it, then, are not all the argument accepted since the arguments are not mutually exclusive?

People will often comment that they don’t see why God allows cancer, auto accidents, etc. etc… However, I ask them, “What would happen if God actually inhibited every kind of consequence to our sin?” Blank stare.

You may judge yourself to be rationally superior, but I have not seen that side prevail in my discussions.

 

[Relinquish]

The usual response to (1) is that of the notion of primary and secondary causation. However, the notion of double effect also seems that it might be in play as a response. In either case, however, it does not follow that intent to cause suffering is present (even if knowledge of suffering might be asserted).

I don’t know this distinction between primary and secondary causation. And I don’t understand, are you denying premise (1) or not?
If you are denying premise (1), then you are saying things happen which your deity didn’t intend. I guess it’s a Oops! moment on his behalf? Maybe this is an example of him making a mistake?

The presence of suffering doesn’t necessarily trump omnibenevolence.

I’m not trying to forward the logical problem of evil.

I disagree. Your maltheistic beliefs misconstrue the nature of God and presume omniscience on your part (after all, you’re presuming that you can assert which instances of suffering are positive and which are negative, without exception. By definition, that’s omniscence.)

My argument says nothing about the Christian deity, so I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. It merely asserts that if there is an intentional cause for all states of affairs, then that entity at times has malicious intentions. And again, I am not forwarding the logical problem of evil–this is an inference to the best explanation.

Of course not. It’s possible to be rational, yet incorrect.

So then there are compelling arguments from the problem of evil, but you believe that your arguments are better such that they negate the atheological ones?

True… but not to consider the possibility that all atheists are incorrect…

That may be the case, but I think everyone would agree that the problem of evil at least has some daunting arguments for the theist. The theist may feel his own arguments ought weight the atheological ones, but you have to admit that the atheological arguments have some fair support.

 

[in_servitude]

I’m not sure why you think the malicious creator of the universe offered himself up by being tortured to death.

I’d say, “Jesus.” But, you might say, “Who, my lawn care guy?” But, seriously, Jesus did offer Himself up to be tortured to death. Jesus is God. So, God did offer Himself up in this way. I believe that God did this because he wrote about the episode 500 some-odd years before it actually expired.

I am not aware of any predictions of the crucifixion of Christ.

Psalm 22 - written 500 some odd years before Christ. Also, Christ referred directly to Psalm 22 right before he died.

Now let me ask you a question; what if God created free moral agents who, like himself, had no motivations to sin, desired good things, and had a will strong enough to resist all temptation? Since we’re short sighted and not very powerful, there would still be many cases of evil that occured—but not because of our intentions but because of God’s intentions. Of course there’s always the problem of natural evil, evil which is not actually caused by any free moral agent other than God himself. Unless you think every case of natural evil is a punishment from God (which I would be highly dubious of), you’ve still got something to answer to.

The problem is that I believe in original sin. So, I am not inclined to be moral. Rather, I’m inclined to be immoral thanks to my sinful parents, may they rest in peace. Despite my inclinations, I try to do moral and good things. I fail, however, from time to time.

If I really try to understand your position - you do say that God is Evil. But, in his evil ways, he created someone like me - someone who desires to do “good” things. Someone who wants to fight against evil. I try to envision this. An Evil Creator. That kind of blows my mind. How is it even possible? An Evil God - who must enjoy - what? - destruction? The creator enjoying the ruin of things? Killing? Suffering? Hmm… That’s interesting. But, kind of stupid of him to allow me to enjoy wine.

I don’t think that I’m superior, but that I am taking the evidence presented by both sides of the god debate to it’s rational conclusions. Atheists, I believe, reject the arguments for the existence of a deity because they don’t like the kind of deity it would lead to. Likewise theists reject the arguments from the problem of evil because they don’t like the kind of deity it would lead to. Really both sides have very compelling arguments, and I think if one were to just be objective and ignore the fact that this is all very dreadful for us, they would agree with me.

I think I might understand. I have played with the theory for a while - and really thought that I might decide to reject God entirely. But, maybe I do not really get what you are saying.

Most people on both sides even agree that there are compelling arguments on both sides, but that their side is just a little bit better evidenced. Why is it, then, are not all the argument accepted since the arguments are not mutually exclusive?

I enjoy playing with this concept. But,I like the argument that 1) God is all that is good and perfect. and 2) God allows the evil one to have influence over us humans because 3) some purpose is gained for our eternal benefit (one that I don’t fully grasp, being human and all…).

I’d normally say, “God Bless.” But, in your case - I don’t know what to say. Maybe, “May God’s plans be destroyed by your morality.”

 

[Relinquish]

Nobody sees it because it’s a rationally untenable position.

Great, then you should have no problem demonstrating the veracity of your claim.

can’t see that, it’s only because you aren’t up-to-speed on the relevant theistic arguments.
I never said anything about an “evil God”. I’m speaking about an evil god. In fact I don’t even need to claim that the creator is evil, really, but that he is malicious at least some of the time. I do personally accept moral realism, but a belief in ontological good and evil is not necessary for one to hold to maltheism.

Again, though, I look forward to your demonstration of the veracity of your claim.

See Edward Feser’s *Aquinas *

for why God, if He exists, is necessarily good. See also his attack on Stephen Law’s “evil God challenge” here and here.
Oh I see… Pushing articles around. I may read them if I have the time and they’re not too long.

Edit: I see that I did say “God” in the title of the thread, sorry, that was a mistake. I am not intending to speak on the Christian deity.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Relinquish]

I see this must be why some people keep thinking I’m taking about the Christian deity. I capitalized the “g” in the title because it is a title. I did not intend to make any statement on the Christian god, though, I do not believe that deity exists.

 

[in_servitude]

I see this must be why some people keep thinking I’m taking about the Christian deity. I capitalized the “g” in the title because it is a title. I did not intend to make any statement on the Christian god, though, I do not believe that deity exists.

Seems clear to me. The Christian God, to you anyway, is not real. What is real is a completely different god. One that is usually evil - or evil from time to time. But, the problem that I end up having is - how does evil and good get defined? I have no idea in your theology. What your god wants is … not good. But, when your god is happy, it’s actually sad? When things are going well for your god - it’s bad - I think. I’ve confused myself too much already. Sorry.

 

[Patavium]

Relinquish,

Why is this “god” so changeable? is this an emotional “god”?

It seems you are attributing too many human-like characteristics to your “god”.

On the other hand, God works for His Glory. If you can sum up the whole Holy Bible, you will learn that ALL God DOES is for His Glory. The creation of Humans, descending to Earth in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit guiding the apostles… Everything is for His Glory. For his namesake, God is loving and merciful. God provides Free Will, and thus He will never deny Your choices. However, it doesn’t mean God doesn’t reach out to our hearts, and change us. Some of us remain changed, and follow Him, but you can still choose to deny Him. This is also for His Glory. If His own sons and daughters (His creations) willingly worship Him, choose to Love Him… It glorifies God. You see God is unchangeable. Your god is “emotional”.

 

[Gorgias]

If you are denying premise (1), then you are saying things happen which your deity didn’t intend. I guess it’s a Oops! moment on his behalf?

Of course not! Although I realize you’re attempting to be clever, I hope this isn’t the depth of your distinction. Lack of intentionality doesn’t imply lack of knowledge. It’s possible to foresee that action may lead both to an intended and an unintended consequence.

Maybe this is an example of him making a mistake?

Again, “clever” doesn’t make for good argumentation. If you can demonstrate how foreseen yet unintended consequences imply a “mistake”, I’ll address your concerns…

The presence of suffering doesn’t necessarily trump omnibenevolence.

I’m not trying to forward the logical problem of evil.

Sorry… I don’t understand this response. One can be “all good”, yet allow for suffering to advance the cause of good. Perhaps you can rephrase your respose?

It merely asserts that if there is an intentional cause for all states of affairs, then that entity at times has malicious intentions.

And I’m asserting that this conclusion does not follow. If your supreme being doesn’t intend malice, and if good obtains, then it doesn’t follow that malicious intentions were in play. Yes, suffering might be an intermediate result, but you would have to demonstrate malice in order to make this claim.

And again, I am not forwarding the logical problem of evil–this is an inference to the best explanation.

So then there are compelling arguments from the problem of evil, but you believe that your arguments are better such that they negate the atheological ones?

You simply asserted an equivalence between “atheism” and “irrationality”; I denied the necessary equivalence, asserting instead that “irrationality” wasn’t necessarily in play.

That may be the case, but I think everyone would agree that the problem of evil at least has some daunting arguments for the theist. The theist may feel his own arguments ought weight the atheological ones, but you have to admit that the atheological arguments have some fair support.

And this shows… exactly what, again? You asserted that we were claiming that your arguments were irrational. Showing “fair support” for your arguments may be both rational (since that’s a judgment, ultimately of you) and wrong (since that’s an objective judgment).

 

[Qoeleth]

The Devil, according to Christian mythology, did not create the universe. My god created the universe so obviously the Devil is not my god. I do not believe your god exists, or your Devil either.

Only my god is the one true god who created everything and designed the universe and life–and we will all suffer greatly for his pleasure. And yes maybe you should dump the vast majority of the arguments and evidence coming out of your own apologetic circles, as they support my deity just as well as they support yours. The only problem is if you do that then my maltheistic beliefs are vastly more supported than your Christian beliefs and you would all be irrational for not converting to maltheism. And I’m not sure why you prefaced that with “old”, even the modern day arguments for the most part don’t support your deity any better than they support mine.

Your argument simply prove that the Devil is the god of this World. And we knew that already, although many in the Church do not like to talk about it. That is why the ways of the world are NOT the ways of God. That is why “whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God.”

God created Paradise. Sin, introduced through the Devil and His angels, ‘created’ this universe- or, more precisely messed up totally what God had created- but effectively made what this valley of tears that we we live in today. That is why now, “all things are vanity and vexation of spirit”.

Now, yes, the idea that Satan -]created /-]the world is not really orthodox, I know. But the term ‘created’ is used only metaphorically, crossed out, as -]created/-], since the current universe, the Devil’s dominion, is simply smoke and shadows, passing vanities and vexation, verily less than a dream which endures not.

So, just re-label this cruddy maltheist god, “The Devil”, and treat him with the contempt he deserves. Then you will be on the right path…

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I see this must be why some people keep thinking I’m taking about the Christian deity. I capitalized the “g” in the title because it is a title. I did not intend to make any statement on the Christian god, though, I do not believe that deity exists.

This is of course part of the problem. We tend to believe that no other God is even possible. Some attributes of God we can learn without recourse to revelation, and I think these are the ones we’ve tried, for the most part, to use when discussing this. Part of the argument is covered by Acquinas here: newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm. (It links up with the rest of what he says elsewhere, but it can all be found from that site.)

The short version, mangled down into something easy to type in one sentence, is that existence and goodness are essentially the same, and as God’s essence is existence, God’s essence is also goodness.

You could deny that existence can be called goodness, I suppose, but I have yet to see a better standard. It does in fact work: Things which we call evil are understood in this way to be things which lack some part of what they need to be complete, or things which do not reach their full potential, as it were. That is, to murder is to end a life before it is complete (but to die of “old age” is the completion of a life and so not evil), sex outside marriage is a failure to allow sex to be what it is fully meant to be (complete self giving, and sign of marital union, etc etc) which of course means that things like rape which reduce sex to even less are even worse (obviously). Torture and the like involves the torturer treating the person like something less than a person, etc.

It requires, of course, that you know (or are able to figure out) what things are meant to be, but any standard of morality must have a similar requirement - a standard is a standard, something which is set and is what it is by virtue of being itself. Something is a meter long because if you measure it against a meter stick, you get one meter, but the (perfect, absolute, quintessential) meter stick is a meter long purely because it is a meter stick sort of thing. Note that I am not here arguing that our standard is better (since that’d be off topic), only that attacking it because it needs assumptions attacks all standards - including any that say that God is bad.

As a last point, I want mention that the problem of evil is not really a problem, it’s just a lack of knowledge. That is, when you ask why a good God would allow evil and fail to get an answer you like, that is not the same as saying there is no answer (and the arguments that say there cannot be an answer all fail, as they assume that omnibenevolence equates to the desire and willingness to actively repress all evil, which is hard to demonstrate in any way other than saying that that is what you mean by the word). It may be that on an intuitive level, some people (although not myself, that particular issue has never really bothered me very much) think that refraining from preventing evil must always be evil, but frankly that doesn’t really mean much (and is demonstrably not believed very strongly, since we refuse to outlaw and thus attempt to prevent many things which are evil and do not view this refusal as a bad thing).