One frightening possibility is that God is evil. In this post I will give 2 arguments for the proposition that God is evil. Please do not read this post if you are easily stressed or depressed, as this post won't make your life any easier.
So the 2 arguments are as follows: (1) The argument from animal suffering; (2) the argument from the existence of the universe,.
ARGUMENT 1: ANIMAL SUFFERING
The problem of evil is a well-known problem. There are many counterarguments for the problem of evil, usually in the form that God can have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil and suffering in the world. Morally sufficient reasons are reasons such as that evil is in part a consequence of free will, or will help us build character, etc. Whether these counter-arguments are good arguments or not I'll leave to the reader to decide. But most if not all of these counter arguments only hold for humans. They generally don't hold for animals. Animals can only be said to have very limited free will, if any. They are not morally responsible entities. They therefore do not perform sins, and do not require salvation nor deserve punishment. And yet, the average animal suffers more than the average humans ever have (at least on earth).
As you are reading this sentence, I'm guessing tens of thousands of animals around the world are being disembowelled, torn, slowly dissolved in acid, and/or being submitted to other forms of utterly satanic forms of torture. Biological life was designed to consume other life. And sentient beings usually don't like to be consumed. Nature is really sweet, isn't she? Of course, some genius philosophers, like again William Lane Craig, simply wave away animal suffering by saying that they might not truly be aware of their suffering. Yet, every behaviour of sentient animals makes it overwhelmingly obvious that they truly do suffer: they fear whoever caused them pain, they try to avoid the individual, they may even take vengeful actions against the individual, etc. Saying that they might not truly be aware of their suffering, is just as genious as saying: "getting hit by a truck might give you super powers; perhaps we should all try getting hit by a truck".
Anyways, I see no reason for a God good to have any form of morally sufficient reasons to allow animal suffering, as any morally sufficient reason only holds for morally responsible entities, and animals therefore don't apply.
So the argument goes as follows:
1) God exists
2) If God is good, God has morally sufficient reasons to allow all evil and suffering in the world.
3) Since animals are not morally responsible animals, there are no morally sufficient reasons to allow animal suffering.
4) Following premises 2 and 3, if God exists, God is evil.
5) Following premises 1 and 4, God is evil.
In the next argument I'll show how coming up with a silly excuse for animal suffering will not help much.
ARGUMENT 2: THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE
There are many arguments that have been proposed to deal with perhaps the hardest and oldest problem in traditional monotheism: if a good and all-powerful monotheistic God exists, how come there is evil in the world. The most immediate response to this question is to say that the statement "a good and all-powerful monotheistic God exists" and the statement "evil exists" are not inherently contradictory, as a good God might have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil and suffering in the world. But this is of course not a true solution to the problem, it is merely shows that there is no contradiction. We do not KNOW if God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil and suffering in the world. Sure, God might have such reasons, but then again, he might not. Similarly, I could say that getting bitten by a spider might give you super powers, but it also might not. But lets get a temporary solution to the problem of evil. Let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that human sins will create evil and suffering throughout all space-time, and that this is so endrenched in the entire space-time continuum, that even temporal order is irrelevant. So that the evil deeds of Hitler not only affected history from Hitler's time onward, but that even the suffering of animals in pre-historic times is caused by human evil. Clearly, this solution is hilariously unrealistic, to the point that it is nothing short of absurdity. But the exact mechanism is not important, just that there is "a" solution to the problem of evil.
Here comes the real problem. Solving the problem of evil creates a bigger problem. For God, when creating the universe, KNEW this was going to happen (at least, if one assumes that God is all-knowing, which is traditionally assumed). God knew that there would be evil and suffering, regardless of what our solution to that problem was. So, why the hell did God create the universe in the first place? If God does not create a universe, or creates a universe but does not let it produce sentient being, than necessarily all sentient entities in the world would all-loving, all-good, just, and rational. Because in such a world, the only sentient entity is God itself, and God is all-loving, all-good, just, and rational. Some Christian philosophers, like William Lane Craig, have stated a few times that God created the universe to allow entities to know God's love. But this answer is almost an insult to most people's intelligence. For God itself is Love, and knows God's Love. If God creates no sentient entities, than all sentient entities know God's love, for then God is the only sentient entity. In traditional Christianity, the problem is actually even worse, for traditional Christianity states God is a trinity. So God the Father knows the love of The Son and The Holy Spirit, and the The Holy Spirit knows the love of The Father and The Son, and so on. So for the Christian God it is even less reasonable to create a universe with sentient beings. One response I have heard from Muslims several times is that God creates because if God does not create, God would not be a creator. But there has not been given an inherent necessity for God to be a creator, so this argument is an obvious tautological fallacy. At least Craig tried to give an argument, but this is just silly.
If God's sole existence maximises the average goodness of all sentient beings in a universe, and no reasons have been found for God to create a universe, I submit that a good God has no reason to create a universe... but an evil God definitely has reasons to create a universe. You see, God can hardly be evil to itself. What is God gonna do? God cannot truly hurt itself, for God is indestructible. God cannot lie to or deceive itself, for God knows all truths. For God to maximise evil, God has to create sentient beings with free will (because true evil requires the ability to knowingly and willingly choose evil) and moral understandings. So an evil God has a very, very reasonable reason to create a universe, for without a universe an evil God cannot maximise evil.
Summary of the argument
The argument for God being evil, a-priori assuming it is God's will for the universe to exist, thus can be summarised as follows:
1) A good monotheistic God has good reasons not to want a universe with free & morally responsible sentient beings , whereas an evil monotheistic God necessarily wants a universe with free & morally responsible sentient beings.
2) If the universe exists, it exists because it is God's will for the universe to exists.
3) The Universe exists.
4) Following premises 2 and 3, the universe exists because it is God's will for the universe to exists.
5) Following premises 1 and 4, it follows that God is evil.
Objections to the argument
Now, one obvious objection to this argument would be as follows: An evil God would want to maximise evil and suffering, but there are still good things, at least in human experience. There are, however, a number of problems with this objection:
1) Inequality is a real form of evil. But if everyone gets the same amount of shit, then there is no true inequality. For inequality to exist, at least some individuals must be "lucky" in at least some aspects. Therefore, an evil God would allow a small few individuals to be have some good experiences. And that is indeed what we see in the universe: truly lucky people are rare. Most people are in some form of pain.
2) Desperation is a real form of suffering. There is no true desperation without hope. So to maximize desperation, a small proabbility of goodness must exist to fuel that useless hope.
3) The majority of good things that is present in the universe, is not the consequence of what the universe has given us (indeed, nature is constantly working AGAINST our happiness). Instead, most of the good we have is the consequence of human intervention. Nature is not good. Humans have made nature bend to our will, at least to some extend.
4) Another very important problem is that the discussed objection is only about human experience. Sentient animals, at least in the wild, suffer far more than we could even comprehend., as discussed in the first argument.
But what about the great goodness in human life, love? Well, love is fraud with problems. Familial love is hardly worthy of being called true love; it is merely a biologically designed care for one's own genes, and still even then most parents still tend to be horribly cruel to their children. Romantic love is far from unconditional; romantic love, in its nature, is at least to some extend based on materialistic principles. Never can one speak of truly unconditional romantic love. Friendship-love is the best type of love. But genuine friendships are is far more a product of human action than something that nature provides us. God did not create friendships; friends created friendships.
After thoughts
I have not really heard a philosopher truly address this argument. And I understand why. For one to accept this argument is to accept Lovecraftian horror, which may lead to depression.