(Note: this is not the same as the previous FAQ, “Isn’t it better to believe, just in case? After all, if I’m wrong, then I don’t lose much, but if you’re wrong…”. That one is a repudiation of Pascal’s Wager; this one is an answer to the remote possibility that there *is*, indeed, a God.)
This is a question often asked by believers (especially Christians) to atheists. What if we’re wrong, God does indeed exist, and after we die, as the saying goes, we do indeed meet our maker?
First, let me say that this is not a possibility that actually worries me, as I have every reason to believe that no god or gods exist. The universe appears 100% natural, and, while science is far from knowing everything, there isn’t anything out there, so far, that absolutely requires a supernatural explanation and can’t possibly — ever — be explained in naturalistic terms. In other words: a complete lack of evidence “for” is in itself very good evidence “against” (and it’s not like humanity hasn’t searched, for millennia), and therefore evidence suggests there are zero deities out there.
Second, if there was a god, it’s still virtually impossible that the human religions are right. Their gods are small, provincial, territorial, petty and tribal. And very human-like. They have human emotions (including a lot of jealousy), they tend to have a “chosen people”, they supposedly created a universe that we now know is incredibly vast and complex (and which was unknown when the religions appeared), but our insignificant little planet is still the only thing that matters in the universe — and our physical lives here aren’t even what really matters. (The idea of a universe old and vast like this, as simply “background scenario” for a test to see whether we’re saved or not… it boggles the mind.) The anthropomorphic gods of our religions are too obviously man-made to be the real thing. If there was a god out there capable of creating a universe, he/she/it would probably be much too complex for us to even notice — and he/she/it wouldn’t certainly be concerned with us, our morality, our sexual lives 
, nor would he/she/it judge us and create places for us to go after we died. In other words, if there was a god, it wouldn’t affect us in any way — and it would be infinitely greater than the petty anthropomorphic fictional deities of our religions.
Third, what if, despite all the above, there still was a god, and he/she/it was concerned with us, and did judge us in some way after our physical deaths? Well, it depends on its standards of judging. Maybe it didn’t care about our morality, or about being worshipped, but about something completely different. We have no way of knowing.
But suppose it did care about our actions. Then, the final question would be: is God good, or evil? I’m dismissing any corruptions of the meaning of “good” such as “whatever God does or wants is by definition good”. There must be some standard, other than the whims of a powerful being.
Therefore:
- a good god — which precludes the insecure sexuality-obsessed tyrant the three monotheisms believe in — would reward someone who lived a good life, generally being nice to other people, and full of curiosity to discover things, and to follow the available evidence to the logical conclusion. The available evidence doesn’t in any way suggest the presence of a god, so to believe in one anyway is nothing more than intellectually dishonest wishful thinking. A good god would reward good atheists and good believers, and punish evil atheists and evil believers — but would probably be a bit disappointed with the lack of curiosity and honesty shown by the believers (but then again, he/she/it would have some explaining to do: why stay hidden and make it so that the universe implies his/her/its non-existence?). A good god wouldn’t be an insecure or immature, so he wouldn’t need, desire or care about worship or any kind of ego-stroking at all. Therefore, I have no fear at all of a good god.
- an evil god — much like Yahweh or Allah (and if you don’t agree with me, you haven’t been reading your holy books) — would be much like a brutal dictator in a totalitarian dictatorship. No one is safe from such a monster; there’s no use in expecting justice or fair treatment. He owns you; you’re his property: a slave, no more. Sucking up might work for a time, but he can always torture or kill you on a whim, because, to him, you’re not really a sentient being; you are a tool to be used, a toy to play with. Still, sucking up — that is, worshipping him, and living your life just for him, obeying his commands blindly, no matter the suffering it causes — would probably be your best bet. Of course, that would also make you a disgusting little coward, devoid of any moral integrity. This god is the kind of being that would indeed create two places for us to go for eternity — one for endless torment, the other for sucking up to him even more. The only moral thing to do in the presence of such a monster, as he condemned and damned us for having the morality he lacks, would be to spit in his face, as a final act of defiance.
Fortunately, I don’t believe any of the above exists. I have no reasons to, after all. And the result? A feeling of freedom.
(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
The traditional definition of god does not meet the rules of coherence at a very basic level.
The traditional definition is - “God is that being than which none greater can be conceived” or “God is a being than which none greater is possible”. (Other terms are used in formulating definitions, in a way that amounts to the same or a very similar concept of greatness - “Maximality”, “Perfection”, “Supreme”, …).
These definitions are nonsense because greatness has a quantitative as well as a qualitative meaning.
This means that the traditional definition of god is similar to saying, “A number than which none greater can be conceived” or “A number than which none greater is possible”.
This quantitative aspect is hinted at in the “religions of the book”. They have god referring to himself as “We” and “Us”. In the Christian religion there is even a “mathematics of god” to explain the “Three Personal God”: 1 = 1 * 1 * 1. (There are other ways of understanding the “royal we” but my argument still stands).
Someone may argue that god has infinite greatness but it turns out that, mathematically speaking, infinities have different sizes!
Therefore the traditional definition of god refers to that which does not and cannot exist.
Really well put.
This point of view is so unassailably logical that it’s always hard to understand why everybody doesn’t see it.
Excellent post - well said.
I couldn’t have put it better myself! This is something which astounds me about theists (especially the crazy ones on the net), in that they portray their deity as a vengeful, hateful, cruel dictator who will condemn someone to eternity in torment for doing something the omniscient deity predicted would happen. Strikes me as being pretty mad.
I would hope that, faced with an evil dictator like this I too would be prepared to do the right thing.
Thanks for the compliments.
You may also notice that the “good god” in the post is of undefined gender, while the “evil god” is most definitely a “he”. This is intentional. Typically, evil gods — whether they’re Yahweh, Allah, the Aztec sun god, or a virgin-eating volcano god — are always male.
If we were to discover that some sort of god did in fact exist, it is likely that it would bear little resemblance to the god in which the Christians believe. I say this simply because the Christian concept of god is a logical impossibility with irreconcilable properties.
I know that this was made a long time ago but i just found it and though i needed to post.
1. There is a God and only 1 God
2. He cares for us. I mean if you created some thing wouldnt you care for it.
3. God judges us on how we lived our lives and if we lived by the ten commandments. Also if you dont know the ten commandments then i suggest you read up on things like that befor bashing other religions.
4. Science has always been against religion.