ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR AN EVIL GOD

An ontological argument is one that tries to show something exists or is true by arguing that it is something that has to exist. 

St Anselm of Canterbury argued that when God, that than which a greater cannot be thought,  exists as an idea in the mind he must really exist for he is too good not to exist.

Not all think that this argument works except maybe to prove an evil God.

If imperfection is easier than perfection then it follows that a perfect God is unlikely.

Can the following version then of Anselm's argument work?

The creator is that which a more evil being, a greater in evil that cannot be thought, cannot be thought.

This being exists then in the understanding.

To exist in reality is greater than to exist merely in the understanding.

But if the being is not real then it is not the greatest evil being.

That is a contradiction so the being exists.

It does not work but it has more hope of working than Anselm's version.  Using the argument to prove a perfect God is worse than using it to prove an imperfect one and proving an imperfect one is worse than proving an evil one.

Stephen Law suggested that the idea of a maximally evil creator was more likely to be true than a maximally good one for it is easier to get things wrong than to get them right.  And he said you only have to look to see that too many mistakes are made and too many innocents suffering.

Christians in reply said the "worst possible being wouldn't just be missing good or goodness, the good of goodness, a being then whom no worse can be conceived, would lack all other goods like knowledge, power, and even the good of existence.  The worst possible being would be so bad that it wouldn't have any goods at all, and so it would not exist."

Rubbish.  The argument is confused.  It speaks of the worst possible being which means we are talking about an existing being that tries to be as bad as possible.  To argue that not existing would be an evil is one strange position to take.  It calls God evil for clearly many things that can exist do not.  A football player that tries to be as bad as possible and succeeds will exist.  He just goes on to the pitch and kicks everything but the ball. 

Religion says that as evil is the absence of good, it would follow that to say that a totally evil being exists is a contradiction.  It would be nothing.  It ignores how it teaches that God could have made nothing at all and that would be fine.  Religion either thinks evil is nothing or it is something.  Yet it talks as if it is both!

The notion that evil is the lack of good - that is to say it is good that is not good enough or as good as it can be - shows that if there could be nothing but a bad God, that is good under the circumstances.  Its better than nothing.  Under the circumstances he is that than which a greater and better cannot be thought.

The believers in God use an ontological argument without realising it when they say an entity can exist and have no components.  Believers imagine it is possible for something to exist and have no parts or material composition.  But they only imagine.  There is no way of learning anything about spirit or if it is possible.  You cannot sense it.  And as a material being nobody could expect you to.  You cannot expect a being who only sees black and white to understand what pink is.  The believers are guilty of thinking, "I can imagine such an entity therefore it exists."  That is even worse than arguing that if God makes sense he exists. 

Behind all ontological arguments or arguments for God based on Anselm is the dreadful and arrogant attempt to imagine God into existence!  If that is what you have to do to believe in God then the argument leads to you doing evil and spouting lies to yourself and others in order to believe.  No seriously good God would accept worship from you!  No unbeliever could be expected to respect your belief in God for the belief does not respect God either!

If Anselm's argument works, it proves an evil God.

As God is not a being with needs and passions, the notion of a God who is not capable of caring is more likely still.  So you could have an indifferent God rather than a malign one.