The KCA and NLCA both conclude that God (or a God-like entity) exists, but provide no information about the moral character of this entity. I have then provided one argument that God is good, and one argument that God is evil. Both arguments are, in my humble opinion, excellent arguments. So what now? We have 2 arguments with contradictory conclusions. They can’t both be right. In this blog post I ask myself: what is the most rational conclusion to make? To answer this question, I shall be discussing 4 options:
1) Assume that atheism is true.
2) Assume a dualistic cosmology.
3) Assume that God is evil.
4) Assume that God is good.
I shall go through each of these options, and see what we shall find.
1) Assume atheism is true
The first option is that atheism is true. Indeed, the proposition that there is no good God leaves many to conclude that atheism is true. But this to seems weird. Saying that there is no good God is not equivalent to saying there is no God at all, regardless of this entity’s moral character. But more importantly: the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Neo-Leibnizian Cosmological Argument both conclude that there is a God, though neither argument says anything about God being good. But admitting that an evil God exist, or even a morally grey God, excludes atheism. So we are still left with the dilemma regarding God’s moral character.
2) Assume a dualistic cosmology
This option, although not as well known or prevalent as atheism, is actually one of the oldest solutions to our problem, and dates back to at least the birth of Zoroastrianism (AKA Mazdayasna). Basically, we have concluded that:
- God is evil because an evil God would have the most rational reasons to create a universe (or, at least, a universe with similar moral properties as the actual universe we live in).
- God is good because a-priori a good God is more rationally conceivable than an non-good God.
So one can ask the following question: The evil God that has to create a universe, and the good God that can stably exist without a universe…are they the same God? What if they are 2 separate entities? Since the good God can exist stably without a universe, and the evil God has to create a universe, the good God can be thought of as the greater God, and the evil God as the lesser God. And this dualistic cosmology happens to be exactly what Zoroastrianism proposes. But they aren’t the only ones. The lesser known Christian denomination known as Catharism also believes a similar thing: That the devil created the universe (for its own twisted “cosmic gag-reel”, to quote Al Pacino), and that the good God, the greater God, is trying to safe us, all sentient beings, from this shitty material world. I must confess myself impressed that Zarathustra came up with this idea so many thousands of years ago. Admittedly, though, the dualistic cosmology raises a lot of questions. But that’s not important for now. What is important right now is that a dualistic cosmology, at least at face-value, does pretty much solve the dilemma of God’s moral character.
3) Assume God is evil
Ah, this is depression in its purest form, isn’t it? You think you’ll never be truly happy. Well, if God is evil, you can rest assured that your net value of happiness is going to be negative, and that’s a rather depressing thought. I shall spare the reader the depression by immediately telling the sick twist here: If God is evil, the rational conclusion is to assume that God is good. Here’s the thing: it is in a evil God’s best interest for sentient beings to suffer, and thinking that God is evil, is super depressing. But what are you going to do then? Serving an evil God will bring you nowhere (an evil God will neither appreciate nor reward you for servitude, or for anything else for that matter). The rational response is to shit on the evil God's face. The best way to shit on an evil God’s face, at least as long as you’re alive, is to be optimistic and hopeful. And sourcing that optimism and hope from the assumption that God is good, will most assuredly screw with an evil God more than anything else I can imagine.
4) Assume God is good
This one’s easy: simply assume God is good.
Conclusion
So, what do we conclude? Let me summarise:
1) One cannot solve the dilemma of God’s moral character with atheism, as we have already established good arguments that God exists (but feel free to be an atheist anyway; I’m not stopping you, and it is an otherwise excellent assumption to solve this whole dilemma).
2) Assuming a dualistic cosmology entails that the greater God is good, and the lesser God is evil, therefore the ultimate God is good.
3) If God is evil, the most rational response is to assume God is good anyways.
4) If God is good, well then God is good.
Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that God is good. If an evil God exists, than I say checkmate, 'cause I'm gonna assume a good God anyways.