Another objection to the ontological explanation of God’s nature is that, according to the explanation itself, God could also be maximally evil. Aside from the fact that it would make God contradictory (both maximally good and evil simultaneously), which is logically absurd, we know that good is greater and more desirable than evil. Therefore, since one of the two must win out and good is more desirable, God is good (thus ruling out a philosophy like the Taoist yin yang of two opposite but equal forces). Still, some might say that they would prefer an evil God to a good one. What would it mean for God to be maximally evil? Evil, by definition, is the opposite of good. God, being good, acts in a manner that not only benefits others but, also benefits Himself. Even an evil person does good in that they might do harm to others but, they are doing so to advance their own interests. To be maximally evil, God would have to not only do harm to others but, to Himself as well. Anything less than that would result in evil-God trying to do at least a minimal amount of good, if only for Himself. Since a maximally evil being would necessarily have to do evil to all, including himself, that being would be incongruent with it’s own existence and is therefore not logically tenable. Therefore, it remains that the MGBP must be the greatest good possible and cannot be maximally evil. This description matches the biblical definitions for God’s nature.