How can the Evil God argument be refuted?

I have a doubt about Stephen Law’s “Evil God Challenge”.
I have a doubt that has been on my mind regarding Stephen Law’s “Evil God Challenge”.
According to this argument, if an absolutely good God can allow evil for the sake of a greater good, then an absolutely evil God can also allow good for the sake of a greater evil.
If this symmetry cannot be refuted, how can it be proven that Allah is truly absolutely trustworthy?
In that case, would Allah’s revelation not also become uncertain? The possibility of an evil God who gives seemingly good teachings with the aim of ultimately deceiving and betraying people, could theoretically be raised.
It seems that in order to establish God’s trustworthiness, this challenge must first be answered.
How do scholars respond to this argument? At exactly what point does this alleged symmetry lose its validity?

Dear Brother / Sister,

The concise answer to be given to this claim is as follows:

“The Evil God argument posits that good and evil are two symmetrical entities; however, evil is not ontologically independent but a deficiency; therefore, the idea of an ‘absolutely evil deity’ is metaphysically impossible.”

First, let us state that this thought experiment begins with a flawed premise, as it treats good and evil as two equivalent values. In reality, “the absolute good is existence and perfection itself; evil, however, is not an independent entity, but rather a lack of existence and perfection.”

To express this mathematically, “absolute goodness is like 1, and absolute non-existence is like 0.” Everything that exists is between those two values to varying degrees. As an entity attains perfection, it approaches 1; as its perfection diminishes, it approaches 0. However, just as no entity can be absolute non-existence, no entity other than God can attain absolute goodness.

Therefore, the true opposition is “not between 1 and another 1, but between 1 and 0.” However, since 0 is absolute nothingness, no being can emerge from it; similarly, an existing entity cannot be completely reduced to 0. Therefore, all entities exist at different degrees of 1. Evil, too, is not an independent reality in itself, but merely a deficiency relative to a higher degree of perfection. Thus, the idea of an “Absolute Evil God” has no ontological basis from the beginning.

As for the details:

The reason the Challenge of the Evil God appears powerful at first glance is that it posits good and evil as two symmetrical realities. The entire argument is built upon this assumption. However, this presupposition is incorrect in both Islamic theology and Islamic philosophy.

Allah’s names and attributes express the perfection of His existence. Attributes such as life, knowledge, will, power, wisdom, mercy, and justice demonstrate the perfection of His existence. On the other hand, evil is not an independent, ontological entity in itself; it manifests as a deficiency, a lack, or the absence of good within existence.

Indeed, ignorance is the absence of knowledge, oppression is the lack of justice, illness is the deterioration of health, and death is the cessation of life. None of them is an independent essence; they arise from the diminishment of an existing competence.

We can explain it with a mathematical analogy.

Let us consider the absolute good as “1” and absolute non-existence as “0.” Everything that exists possesses a degree somewhere between 0 and 1. As a being attains perfection, it approaches 1; as it loses its perfection, it approaches 0. However, no creature possesses absolute perfection. Absolute perfection belongs solely to God.

In that case, evil is not a second “1” standing opposite “1”; it is the name given to the state of moving away from “1”. Therefore, setting an “Absolute Evil God” against the “Absolute Good God” is actually to establish a symmetry that does not exist ontologically.

The same concept can be understood through a physical example. Darkness appears to be the opposite of light; however, in physics, darkness is not an independent form of energy; it is the absence of light. Therefore, we cannot contrast a “source of light” with a “source of darkness.” Darkness cannot be produced; only light can be eliminated. Similarly, evil is not an independent entity opposite to good, but the absence of good.

Furthermore, the attributes that a being claimed to be “absolutely evil” should possess are contradictory in themselves. Knowledge, power, will, and existence are in themselves attributes of perfection. It cannot be said that a being possessing those attributes represents absolute evil because evil is not perfection itself, but the misuse or deficiency of perfection. If a being truly desires evil, it must also desire the annihilation of its own existence and power, which would render its existence impossible. Therefore, the concept of an “absolutely evil God” is inconsistent not only morally but also metaphysically.

The concept of tawhid (monotheism) presented in the Quran also declares that absolute perfection belongs to a single God:

“If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both.” (al-Anbiya, 21:22)

Although this verse does not directly address Stephen Law’s argument, it establishes that absolute power and absolute sovereignty must belong to a single deity. The conception of a second absolute principle, as opposed to Allah, who possesses absolute perfection, is incompatible with the Quran’s understanding of tawhid.

In conclusion, the fundamental assumption upon which the Evil God Challenge is based is incorrect because, ontologically speaking, good and evil are not two equal and independent principles. Goodness signifies existence and perfection while evil signifies imperfection and non-existence.

Just as it is impossible to conceive of an absolute and independent deity without imperfection, it is also impossible, according to the principle of tawhid, to conceive of a second deity equal to Allah. Therefore, the idea of an “absolutely evil God” is not consistent from a metaphysical perspective either.

Therefore, the symmetry established by the challenge collapses from the very beginning.

Questions on Islam