If there is a supreme intelligence, should we
assume by default that he or it is good?
Suppose you show there is a supreme intelligence that made all things. The
question then arises is what the default view of him or it should be.
The default is the view or position that it alone is
reasonable to take. For example, if you find water on your landing and
there is a hole above it in the ceiling the default is that there is a leak not
that somebody put the water there. If a view is the default there is a
less likely position that would become the default should we have the wrong
default. The default we must choose is the number one in the chart and
there are runners up.
It is up to the believers to prove that this intelligence is good. They need to
have a reason for trying to do this. There is no point in just saying the
intelligence is good - learn what good is first. Then God will mean something to
you if you find out he exists and is good.
We are not talking about whether the intelligence exists or not, but about what
it is.
The biggest default position will be lack of belief in the supreme intelligence
being good, bad or whatever. Disbelief is going further than mere lack of
belief. It cannot be the default.
The default then is saying that it is not known if the intelligence is amoral or
immoral or good. We start with a kind of agnosticism about if it can be known to
be moral, amoral or good.
The biggest default is the one we have to go with.
The default means the only reasonable option.
The second biggest default position is belief that the intelligence is amoral in
the sense of cannot think in terms of right and wrong.
The third biggest default position is that the intelligence is amoral in the
sense that it doesn't (not cannot) think in terms of right and wrong. Amorality
is the second and third for it is fairer and more realistic to suspect the being
of being amoral rather than bad and it is easier for a being to be amoral than
bad.
The fourth biggest default position is that it is probably immoral or probably
good or probably morally neutral (neutral means it is as bad as it is good or
vice versa). [With this one there are sub-defaults. If you cannot prove if
it is immoral or moral then you have to assume it is neither or both. That
is to say you assume it is morally neutral. To assume it is good or bad is
evil for it is choosing the wrong default.]
The sixth that it is very probably immoral or good or morally
neutral. [Again the morally neutral is the default option].
The seventh that it is provably immoral or good or morally
neutral. [Again the morally neutral is the default option].
Going through all the list shows that God's goodness cannot be a default or even likely.
The intelligence is not entitled to be described as God unless he is good. God
means a good being.
Our examination of the defaults in their correct order show that people have to
try so hard to defend belief in an all-good God that they end up looking and
being desperate. Their belief is low in the ranking as a default. It does
not count for it is so low!
Be an atheist and keep it simple and you won't find yourself looking for a
belief that condones the suffering of others. If you believe in God you have to
say he is right to let nature be so cruel and indeed that he was right to make
it as bad as it is. If it were easy to believe in God the condoning would be
less bad. But when they have to struggle and come up with excuse after excuse
for believing in God, the condoning is just repulsive.
The defaults show it is inherently unlikely for the supreme intelligence to be
good. Therefore it is inherently irrational to believe in a good God.
If you punch a child for fun, it is not just about what God says or how God is
offended. What about the harm? That must be important too! If the harm matters
at all, it matters whether there is a God or not. That proves that morality is
default. It cannot be avoided and the amoral person really has a morality after
all. It just does not look or act very moral but it is an attempt at morality.
Morality is a default and it is default without God. Therefore God cannot be the
ground of morality.
Morality is a human relationships default not a religious or God-related default.
Free will casts light on what we should take as the default position regarding God
If you believe in a loving God then you will believe free will is about choosing to be loving like God or not. God gave it so that you could really love for love is voluntary.
Think about if we are to be good or bad or neutral.
One of these and only one is the default. What is the default? Good? Evil?
Neither – which is the same as both together as equals? The last option is
neutral. If neutrality is the default then free will is not really about
choosing between evil and good. It is able to choose one of them but is not
about them. Thus free will if it exists would prove there is no God. If
free will were meant to be used for evil then that would disprove God too.
Good gets one score and non-good in both its forms outnumber it. So the
default is clearly not good.