GOD IS GOOD
In this post, I shall give an argument which I believe increases the probability of GOD being good. I will do so in these steps:
1) First, I will give one argument to think there actually is such a thing as objective morality.
2) I will give one argument to think that GOD is neither amoral nor morally ambiguous.
3) And finally, I will use the 2 previous statements, accompanied with Occam’s Razor, to show that GOD is not evil.
If the 3 steps are all successful, than the probability of GOD is GOOD is greater than that of GOD being evil.
The reasoning will be described below.
1) OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXIST
We all (or almost all) believe in the physical world, because we experience it. There is no logical necessity for our senses to perceive the physical world mostly correctly. But, in the absence of clear contradictory evidence, we believe in our experiences and thus conclude that the physical world we perceive actually exists objectively. Of course, our senses are not objective, but the extrapolation that the physical world exists objectively is generally acceptable for most people. It is considered to be part of Rational intuition.
If one accepts the objective existence of the physical world simply because we experience it without contrary evidence, then, if one insists on remaining consistent, one must accept all our experience for which there is no contrary evidence. This includes our moral experience. Therefore, being unaware of any comparably strong evidence that casts doubts on our moral experiences, I submit now that moral values and duties do objectively exist, in more or less the same way that I submit that the physical world objectively exist.
If moral values and duties are not objectively real then things like justice and suffering are meaningless concepts.
2) GOD IS NOT AMORAL NOR MORALLY AMBIGUOUS
If moral values do exist objectively, then there is some kind of moral law giver. One usually attributes this to GOD, and I find that the most probable answer, but only IF GOD actually exist. Of course, the KCA and NLCA both show GOD’s existence to be more probably than not.
If GOD exists (which HE does; see the KCA and the NLCA) and IF moral values and duties exist objectively (which they do, see above), then those moral values and duties are probably grounded by GOD. Why? Well, consider the possibilities which can ground moral values and duties objectively: Abstract objects, GOD, and socio-biological adaptations.
Socio-biological adaptations provide no groundings for the objective existence of moral values and duties. Indeed, they are in that case merely social constructs, aided by evolutionary biology. But there is no objective right and wrong. Thus, this option fails. The existence of abstract objects is highly questionable. Moreover, abstract objects, by definition, have no direct relation to concrete objects, yet moral values and duties always concern concrete objects (like people). GOD, however, is a non-physical, absolute, and yet also concrete object, and therefore has both the means to be the absolute standard of objective morality, and also the ability to interact with the physical world (seeing as the physical world wouldn’t exist if not by GOD’s Will).
But if moral values and duties are grounded in GOD, then clearly GOD has a moral dimension, so GOD is not amoral. For if GOD has a moral dimension, by logical necessity GOD is not amoral.
But not being amoral, does not automatically mean not being morally ambiguous. Morally Ambiguous is meant here in the sense as how humans are neither truly good nor truly evil, but a mixed bag of both (though clearly some humans are more good or evil than others). Yet, it seems improbable that GOD is morally ambiguous. For if GOD is the standard of moral values and duties, GOD's moral dimensions must be some absolute against which all things are made relative. If GOD is a mixed bag of good and evil, than GOD clearly is not some absolute standard.
The argument for GOD not being amoral, meaning that GOD does have a moral standard, can thus be summarised as follows:
1) If GOD exists AND IF objective moral values exist objectively, then moral values and duties are probably grounded in GOD
2) If moral values and duties are grounded in GOD, then GOD is not amoral nor morally ambiguous.
3) Both GOD and objective moral values exist.
4) Following (1-3), moral values and duties are probably grounded in GOD.
5) Therefore, GOD is probably not amoral nor morally ambiguous.
The above premises follow each other in a regular chain of logic. Occam’s razor forces one, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to suppose that the GOD of the cosmological arguments and the moral GOD referred to in the above argument are one and the same entity. Ergo: GOD is not amoral nor morally ambiguous. Speaking of Occom's razor, one could also note that a morally ambiguous God would be less simple than a morally unambigous GOD, and therefore, in the absence of any arguments for GOD's moral ambiguity, a morally unambiguous GOD would a-priori be the more parsimonious conclusion.
But simply because GOD is not amoral nor morally ambiguous, does not mean GOD is actually good, per-se.
3) GOD IS NOT EVIL
I consider the previous 2 points to be more probability true than their negations. So let’s assume these points are true. Moreover, I consider the Kalam Cosmological argument (given the A theory of time) or the Neo-Leibnizian Cosmological argument (given the B theory of time) to be valid. Thus far, we have therefore the following properties:
GOD is all-powerful (being the reason the universe exist, regardless of the mechanisms that lay behind it), all-knowing (knowing all about the universe), the greatest being (by definition, whatever being “god” would be dependent on, would be the true GOD), a GOD is not a-moral or morally ambiguous (see points 1 & 2).
GOD could, technically, only be one of 2 things: perfectly good, or perfectly evil. Given the properties just laid out, GOD is more probably perfectly good than perfectly evil. I have 2 reasons for this:
1) Most (if not all) deliberate evil known to humankind is the result of lusts, desires, fears, bigotry, or similar things. But these concepts are no concern for a all-powerful, non-material, all-knowing entity. Therefore, GOD has no reason to be evil. As the saying goes, to know the good is to do the good.
2) Evil, at least as we generally observe, is essentially parasitic upon good. If good and evil would be described in some mathematical terms, evil would be negative correlation, or destruction, and good would be positive correlation. Suppose you have the correlation matrix of some data. You cannot have a correlation matrix consisting completely of negative correlation. But you can, however, have a correlation matrix consisting completely of positive correlation. For example, if we have a an evil organization that wishes to bring evil in the world as long as possible, the members of this organization must be at least good enough to each other to co-operate efficiently, otherwise they would destroy their organization, and thus destroy their force of evil. So evil can co-exist with good, but 100% evil will lead to self-destruction. Thus, full negative correlation between all its members leads to self-destruction. Contrast this to a perfectly good organization. The members of this organization are good, and will be good to each other, as well as the rest of the world, and they can exist so as long as no outside force destroys the organization. Thus, full positive correlation between all its members is possible.
4) CONCLUSION
For the above 3 steps in my reasoning, I submit here and now, that GOD is more probable to be good than to be evil.
ARGUMENT SUMMARY
One can summarize the argument thus as follows:
1) IF objective moral values and duties exist, and IF GOD exists, then GOD is not amoral or morally ambiguous.
2) IF GOD is neither amoral nor morally ambiguous, then GOD is either good or evil.
3) IF GOD is all-knowing and all-powerful, then GOD has no reason to be evil.
4) IF GOD has no reason to be evil, HE is probably not evil.
5) IF GOD is not evil, amoral, and also not morally ambiguous, then GOD is probably GOOD.
6) Objective moral values and duties exist, GOD exists, GOD is neither amoral nor morally ambiguous, and GOD has no reason to be evil.
7) Following premises (1-6), the probability of GOD being GOOD may be greater than the probability of GOD being evil.
IMPORTANT POINTS
A few points should be made right away.
First, it should be admitted right away that this is a relatively weak argument. Unlike the KCA and the NLCA, this argument is an argument based on semi-intuition (i.e. "to know the good is to do the good"), rather than powerfully defendable statements like "the universe exists" or "whatever begins to exists has a cause".
Secondly, I of course realise that other factors, like the existence of an incomprehensibly enormous amount of suffering in the world (both human and non-human, and both in this world and in any potential hell-like environment), could, possibly, be used in an argument to decrease the probability that GOD is good.
OBJECTIONS
In the next sub-posts (see menu on the right), I shall deal with the objections I know of for each of the above 3 points. (currently, not yet published…)