A Cumulative Case For The Existence of Evil God

Evil god is an entity of which none worse can be conceived. If you could imagine an entity worse than evil god, then that being would be evil god. By definition, a maximally evil entity would be maximally hateful, maximally cruel, and maximally selfish. (1)

Evil isn’t a privation of good; rather, evil is identical to existence itself. Evil god is existence itself, and evil god’s existence is identical to his essence. Evil god isn’t just another god or entity.  In other words, it is impossible for evil god not to exist; evil god exists necessarily. Necessary existence is an attribute of evil god.

As a professional Philosopher, I’m convinced that evil god makes sense of a wide variety of data in the world, including philosophical, scientific, moral, and historical considerations.

The Cumulative Argument

A cumulative case argument can be made for the existence of an evil god.

A) The first argument is an ontological argument for an evil god:

1. It is possible that a maximally evil being exists (i.e. MEB)

2. If it is possible that a MEB exists, then a MEB exists in some possible world

3. If a MEB exists in some possible world, then a MEB exists in every possible world

4. If a MEB exists in every possible world, then a MEB exists in the actual world

5. If, if a MEB exists in the actual world, then a MEB exists

6. Therefore, a MEB exists

Now it might suprise you that steps 2-5 are relatively uncontroversial. The only question is whether premise 1 is true. I’ll ask you-do you think that it’s at least possible that a MEB exists? There doesn’t seem to be an explicit contradiction with the concept. Therefore, it is possible that a MEB exists. Thus, it follows logically and inescapably that evil god exists.

B) Now for my second argument, the dystelelogical argument.
The universe and planet earth are very hostile to life. Life can only exist in a small portion of the universe. The universe is hostile because evil god adores hostility. The universe is perfectly fine-tuned for hostility. If the constants were tweaked even a little bit, there wouldn’t even be stars.

Formally put:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to allow for hostility to life is either due to necessity, chance, or design

2. It is not due to chance or necessity.

3. Therefore, it due to design.

C) Now for my third argument, the moral argument:

1. If evil god does not exist, then evil does not exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore, evil god exists

OBJECTION! : Is something evil because evil god commands it? Or is something evil independently of evil god? If the former, then evil is subject to the arbitrary whims of an evil god. But if the latter, then we don’t need an evil god to ground evil.

I answer that evil god is the paradigm of evil. Evil god is evil itself: the ground of all evil (i.e. evil god is The Evil). Evil exists, and deep down we all know it. There’s no more reason to deny that evil exists than to deny the reality of an external world. But if you agree with me that evil exits, then I’ll think you will agree with me that evil god exists.

D) My last argument is not really an argument at all.
Rather, it’s the claim that evil god can be personally known and experienced wholly apart from argument or evidence. This is what philosophers call a ‘properly basic belief’. When one sees a baby tortured or an ugly animal, one immediately comes to believe in an evil god. Draw away from evil god, and he will draw near to annoy you. Thank you.


(1) This post is satire.



5 thoughts on “A Cumulative Case For The Existence of Evil God

  1. This post is satire

    Yes, but this is the very best satire. The argument is surprising robust, and certainly more historically accurate than any ‘good’ god hypothesis. The Creator, though, doesn’t necessarily have to be evil (which produces a number of historical/teleological problems), rather simply curious. My central thesis builds from this:

    Curiosity is a stubborn power.

    Unable to die, powerless to be no more, incapable of even experiencing the thrill of the fear of approaching annihilation, is it not inevitable that an uncreated aseitic being—God—would come, eventually, to focus His impossible powers to contrive artificial environments (entire worlds) inside which profoundly ignorant avatars could be cultivated and grown to probe and explore this extraordinary curiosity; evolving surrogates through whom He, the Creator, could taste the fear He alone could never savour, feel the suffering He alone could never know, and meet every pedigree of oblivion denied to Him by dying vicariously.

    Is this no more unreasonable than a man walking to the top of a hill, or traversing a mountain range, or crossing an ocean just to see what was on the other side?

  2. I don’t know about satire so much, but you do poke holes in the various arguments for the existence of god (of which I have collected dozens), the biggest of which is that the arguments cannot specify which god. They apply equally to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, and Zeus. Consequently these arguments are simply for the possibility that their god exists.

    These arguments are so lame that only a believer would accept them uncritically. For example in the Ontological Argument we have “It is possible that a maximally evil being (aka whatever) exists.” The premise is clearly flawed. Jesus doesn’t qualify, nor does any other god who has a mother (who had a mother herself, and she had a mother…. And to accept this is to accept a failure of imagination. If you were to characterize any such being and then gave that characterization to marvel Comics, they could whip up an imagined being that was more powerful still and do this ad nauseum. I think they would be better off following Clarke’s First Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. All they need is a being that powerful to be their god, why go overboard making false claims that just cannot be true when there are more acceptable claims that get you home.

    1. Philosophy of Religion blog (Does God Exist?)

      I’m convinced that apologists don’t understand what philosophy can do. I get the impression that they think we can get meaningful answers about reality just by sitting in a chair.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s