Possibility of an evil deity

okamura
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Possibility of an evil deity

Hello RRS, 

Thankyou v much for hosting this site. I have just joined the forum. I am an agnostic. At the moment, I must say that I do not have sufficient knowledge to be certain whether a deity (that created the universe, the Earth, etc) exists.

I have a question that I would like to humbly ask my learned friends here at this forum :

What is the possibility that there exists some deity with the following attributes :

1. This deity is personal. It has thoughts and feelings.

2. It is indeed omnipotent.

3. This deity is not entirely holy.

4. This deity may even habour malicious intensions for Mankind.

 

Thankyou,

Okamura.

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
We can't posit the possible

We can't posit the possible existence of something that is virtually meaningless and also defined by broken concepts such as omnipotence.  Omnipotence in itself, were it the only attribute you posited of the being, like, 'I posit a being exists that is omnipotent,'  is so problematic in itself that positing the existence of a being with that attribute is to posit nothing coherent.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
okamura wrote:Hello

okamura wrote:

Hello RRS, 

Thankyou v much for hosting this site. I have just joined the forum. I am an agnostic. At the moment, I must say that I do not have sufficient knowledge to be certain whether a deity (that created the universe, the Earth, etc) exists.

WELCOME!  None of us are 'certain' there is\isn't a deity, but what evidence do you have to believe in one?

Quote:
I have a question that I would like to humbly ask my learned friends here at this forum :

What is the possibility that there exists some deity with the following attributes :

1. This deity is personal. It has thoughts and feelings.

2. It is indeed omnipotent.

3. This deity is not entirely holy.

4. This deity may even habour malicious intensions for Mankind.

Without knowing what exactly constitutes a deity, this is hard to answer.  Many creatures have thoughts and feeling of some sort, so I see no reason a deity couldn't.  Omnipontence is self contradictory, so put that in the impossible bin.(see sig)  One thing I never got out of a decade of christianity or a lifetime of exposure to it is a consise definition of holy.  Many characters in mythology harbour ill will to humanity.  Many real life humans have malicious intentions for humanity.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum!

Quote:
What is the possibility that there exists some deity with the following attributes :

1. This deity is personal. It has thoughts and feelings.

You'd have to clearly define "deity" and "personal."

Quote:
2. It is indeed omnipotent.

Omnipotence, as far as we know, is impossible.

Quote:
3. This deity is not entirely holy.

You have to define holy.

Quote:
4. This deity may even habour malicious intensions for Mankind.

You have to define malicious.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


okamura
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Response

Hello butterbattle,

This is a collective response to you, Thomathy and hazindu. Thankyou all for your quick replies. As indicated by your valued opinions, some definitions are in order :

1. Deity :

I equate "deity" with "creator" as in the creator of the Universe, the Earth and all living creatures in the world. 

2. Personal deity

By this I mean a creator who is sentient and who possesses some nature that human beings can relate to (e.g. love, hatred, joy, anger) and is interested in human affairs.

3. Omnipotence.

Please allow me to correct my usage of a wrong word. I understand the logical fallacies of omnipotence and omniscience. My point is that this deity is ultimately much more powerful than a human.

Certainly, a being which is able to create the Universe and all its characteristics would possess great dominion over all matter and all living things.

4. Holy.

Again, a wrong choice of words. I would now rather use the word "benevolent". By this, I mean the capacity to display and bestow kindness, gentleness etc.

However, my original question (now corrected) posits this deity as NOT being entirely benevolent. That is, this deity is not always kind, gentle, loving, etc.

5. Malicious

By this, I mean the propensity to commit unnecessary harm or, by inaction, allows unnecessary harm to take place.

 

Hence, based on the above definitions, the point of my question is :

Why do Theists simply assume that if God exists, then He must necessarily be good ?

 

Thanks all,

Okamura

 

 

 

 


okamura
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Please see my response to butterbattle.

Hello Thomathy,

Thanks for your comments. Please see my response to butterbattle below.

Okamura.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Omnipotence presents some

 Omnipotence presents some very significant problems in the universe as we perceive it.  The paradox, of course, is that if a being were truly omnipotent, it could deceive us all into believing that the universe is as we perceive it, when in fact, it was quite different.

If there is such a deity, and he chooses to deceive man completely, then the sad reality is that this is reality.  I presume you've seen The Matrix.  Now, imagine that the matrix is real, but instead of fallible machines, it is run by a deity that cannot possibly screw up.  Nobody will ever detect a glitch in the matrix because no glitches can possibly exist.

If this is the case, then "true reality" is beyond all hope of perception, and this reality is the only one that has any meaning whatsoever.  It is reality for us.

Now, consider the concept of hell for a moment.  If there was an evil deity, and he decided that he liked torturing people for all eternity, he might set up an arbitrary standard by which people were selected for hell... say, believing that a god-man sacrificed himself to himself to forgive mankind for being the way they were made by the deity himself.  What reason would we have to believe this god if he told us how to avoid hell?  If he is indeed evil, there's a good chance that he's lying.  After all, an evil god would like to see people in hell, so why would we believe him when he told us how to avoid it?  For all we know, everybody might be going to hell, and God just enjoys watching people squirm, wondering if they're going or not.

Consider also that an evil omnipotent deity might well decide to portray himself as good.  It might tickle his fancy to see legions of followers fall in love with him, only to discover his true nature after death.  

Omnipotence, by its very nature, necessitates the ultimate inscrutability of a god.  No matter how much we may want to trust such a deity, we would be forced to admit total ignorance because of the potential for the "totality of the matrix" I mentioned earlier.  

In other words, granting omnipotence, "evil" and "good" become meaningless as far as humanity's perception is concerned.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(Response to your

(Response to your clarifications, which didn't clear things up too much...)

"True omnipotence" is not necessary for my argument to hold.  Consider that although humans are not omnipotent, we are sufficiently more powerful than rats such that we can breed entire generations of rats who never know any reality outside of a cage in a lab.  A being who was sufficiently more powerful than humans could design a reality from which we could not hope to escape in the same way.  Assuming there was nothing in the universe more powerful than this being, there would be no practical difference between "true omnipotence" and "virtual omnipotence with regard to humans."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
As you see, you asked a

As you see, you asked a question which is completely meaningless for atheists. They don't have the concepts defined.
I am a reader and practitioner of esoteric theory. This theory is better suited to answer questions of this kind. There are specifically, (and I hope also logically) defined concepts like good, evil, or the sense of life. You decided to ask the atheists in particular, that's OK, and can you tell me why?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
okamura wrote:Hello

okamura wrote:

Hello butterbattle,

This is a collective response to you, Thomathy and hazindu. Thankyou all for your quick replies. As indicated by your valued opinions, some definitions are in order :

1. Deity :

I equate "deity" with "creator" as in the creator of the Universe, the Earth and all living creatures in the world. 

2. Personal deity

By this I mean a creator who is sentient and who possesses some nature that human beings can relate to (e.g. love, hatred, joy, anger) and is interested in human affairs.

3. Omnipotence.

Please allow me to correct my usage of a wrong word. I understand the logical fallacies of omnipotence and omniscience. My point is that this deity is ultimately much more powerful than a human.

Certainly, a being which is able to create the Universe and all its characteristics would possess great dominion over all matter and all living things.

4. Holy.

Again, a wrong choice of words. I would now rather use the word "benevolent". By this, I mean the capacity to display and bestow kindness, gentleness etc.

However, my original question (now corrected) posits this deity as NOT being entirely benevolent. That is, this deity is not always kind, gentle, loving, etc.

5. Malicious

By this, I mean the propensity to commit unnecessary harm or, by inaction, allows unnecessary harm to take place.

 

Hence, based on the above definitions, the point of my question is :

Why do Theists simply assume that if God exists, then He must necessarily be good ?

 

Thanks all,

Okamura

Okay, thanks for the definitions.  As a thought experiment, let us suppose there is a thinking\feeling\reactionary diety responsible for the universe as we know it.  Benevolense only seems likely when paired with incompetents.  The simple fact the my continued living depends upon the death of other, from the food I eat to the microscopic life forms my immune system destroys, suggest such a being to be of a malicious nature.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
okamura wrote:1. Deity :I

okamura wrote:

1. Deity :

I equate "deity" with "creator" as in the creator of the Universe, the Earth and all living creatures in the world.

Either the universe has been around forever or it had a beginning. I'd say there is a significant chance that there is another "cause" in that respect. On the other hand, we already have probable theories for how the Earth and living things came to be, so the chances of a deity being involved there are pretty low. It'd just be a failure of Occam's Razor.

Quote:
2. Personal deity

By this I mean a creator who is sentient and who possesses some nature that human beings can relate to (e.g. love, hatred, joy, anger) and is interested in human affairs.

I have no idea, but the chance of any unsupported, extremely complicated entity existing is horrendously small. In fact, the more complex a claim is, the less likely it should be. God is supposed to have multiple omni traits, so the probability of him existing is about.........well, you can think of it like a limit in Calculus. As complexity goes to infinity, probability goes to zero.

Quote:
3. Omnipotence.

Please allow me to correct my usage of a wrong word. I understand the logical fallacies of omnipotence and omniscience. My point is that this deity is ultimately much more powerful than a human.

Certainly, a being which is able to create the Universe and all its characteristics would possess great dominion over all matter and all living things.

Okay, so he's really powerful, but not, technically, omnipotent. There's really on way for us to calculate the probability of something like this, but this is still so close to zero that the probability is pretty much negligible.

Quote:
4. Holy.

Again, a wrong choice of words. I would now rather use the word "benevolent". By this, I mean the capacity to display and bestow kindness, gentleness etc.

However, my original question (now corrected) posits this deity as NOT being entirely benevolent. That is, this deity is not always kind, gentle, loving, etc.

5. Malicious

By this, I mean the propensity to commit unnecessary harm or, by inaction, allows unnecessary harm to take place.

If God is omnipotent, then all harm should be unnecessary harm. Clearly, bad things happen to good people, so by your definition, if there is a God, it must be malicious.

Quote:
Hence, based on the above definitions, the point of my question is :

Why do Theists simply assume that if God exists, then He must necessarily be good ?

Thanks all,

Okamura

Hahahahaha. 

Isn't it obvious? Because they want Him to be.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


okamura
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Hello Luminon

Hello Luminon,

>> You decided to ask the atheists in particular, that's OK, and can you tell me why?

I'm v new to the RRS site so I'm not sure whether 've stumbled into a wrong sub-forum. However, I welcome all opinions and comments, no specific preference for atheists' views in particular.

But now that you mentioned it, I do have some questions regarding the concept of an evil deity which are specifically addressed to atheists. Please see my other response (to Hambydammit).

Regards,

Okamura.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:But now that you

 

Quote:
But now that you mentioned it, I do have some questions regarding the concept of an evil deity which are specifically addressed to atheists. Please see my other response (to Hambydammit).

Er?

I don't see a response to me.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


okamura
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the feedback

Hello all,

Thanks v much for the inputs and comments especially the ones from Hambydammit. I just started reading Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God" last week. In the book, Richard made several references to an entity known as the "Cartesian Demon". I found the concept of such an entity very intriguing and hence the motivation for my forum post here.

I am currently at the stage of gathering knowledge and information and have yet to form any concrete opinions on this subject. After finishing Richard Carrier's book I would like to do further research and a good place for that would be Descartes' own writings I guess. 

Luminon asked me why I addressed my original post to atheists. I replied that I did not have any particular preference for atheists' views. However, now that he mentioned it, I do have a question addressed specifically to atheists :

While lack of evidence remains a strong argument against the existence of and the belief in God, is it not plausible that this lack of evidence is exactly what an evil and deceitful God would have arranged ?

I'm sure many have thought through that already. Richard Carrier mentioned that such a deceitful deity could Himself be part of the deception of another unknown deity which could itself be the victim of yet another (ad infinitum).

I'll end here. Thanks very much to all.

Okamura.

 

 


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:While lack of

Quote:
While lack of evidence remains a strong argument against the existence of and the belief in God, is it not plausible that this lack of evidence is exactly what an evil and deceitful God would have arranged ?
  Sure! that's why you've never heard of Igwop!  He's the magical pink elephant with humming bird wings who lives in a distant galaxy.  He made the universe and everything in it, and while he isn't necesarily evil, he is anti social.  Therefore, the fact that you haven't seen evidence of his existence is reason to believe in him!!!!

 

I hope logical fallacies in that paragraph strike you as being quite obvious.  Think about that.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:Sure! that's

hazindu wrote:

Sure! that's why you've never heard of Igwop!  He's the magical pink elephant with humming bird wings who lives in a distant galaxy.  He made the universe and everything in it, and while he isn't necesarily evil, he is anti social.  Therefore, the fact that you haven't seen evidence of his existence is reason to believe in him!!!!

 

I hope logical fallacies in that paragraph strike you as being quite obvious.  Think about that.

 

... a Hephalump fits that to a tea... Copyright infringement!  (Winney the Pooh >.>   )

What Would Kharn Do?


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

hazindu wrote:

Sure! that's why you've never heard of Igwop!  He's the magical pink elephant with humming bird wings who lives in a distant galaxy.  He made the universe and everything in it, and while he isn't necesarily evil, he is anti social.  Therefore, the fact that you haven't seen evidence of his existence is reason to believe in him!!!!

 

I hope logical fallacies in that paragraph strike you as being quite obvious.  Think about that.

 

... a Hephalump fits that to a tea... Copyright infringement!  (Winney the Pooh >.>   )

Winney the Pooh made an episode about god?  Didn't their god have fairy instead of humming bird wings?


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:Winney the

hazindu wrote:

Winney the Pooh made an episode about god?  Didn't their god have fairy instead of humming bird wings?

Theres a difference? ;-p

 

It was still a magical pink elephant thing, will little flappy wings and control over whatever universe it was he resided in...

What Would Kharn Do?


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It was still a magical

Quote:


It was still a magical pink elephant thing, will little flappy wings and control over whatever universe it was he resided in...

I'm way to sober right now for an argument on the properties of Winnie the Pooh monsters...

maybe later.

 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Michael Gray (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What is the possibility?
Okamura wrote: What is the possibility that there exists some deity with the following attributes...

Answer: 0%

Next question please.