Morality and logic are connected in the sense that you have to think consistently. You weigh. You deliberate. You consider.
DOES LOGIC COME FROM GOD OR RULE GOD?
We need logic and cannot avoid using it. When we are being illogical, we are still logically trying to be illogical. Logic can be understood in a holistic way — as in respecting yourself enough to avoid contradicting yourself.
Logic is forced on us in that sense. Religion tries to argue that God represents logic and morality. In fact, to shoehorn God into where he is not needed is hardly logical or moral. It amounts to trying to deflate reason and logic and using God as the pump to inflate them — to make them real.
So let us ask the question the God believers ask:
Does God make the rules of logic or does he discover them?
If he makes them, then he could make it possible for a dog to eat a dinner that consists of non-existent dog food.
If he discovers the rules, then the rules matter and he does not — if there is a choice. He would not be God. God, by definition, is that which comes first in everything and is to be valued totally.
The Christians reply that this is a false dilemma and the solution is that logic is an eternal part of God's nature. But logic cannot be part of God's nature, for if there were no God or anything, 1 and 1 would still be 2. And we can ask: “If logic comes from God's nature, is God's nature what makes logic logic, or is logic logic regardless of whether there is God or not? Does God's nature create logic or discover it?” It is not a false dilemma.
If God is an incoherent and anti-logical concept, then no evidence for his existence is any good. And he is.
GRATITUDE
Religious morality cannot function without gratitude towards God, and without forgiveness from him being validated by God. For example, if your enemy deserves to suffer, that is justice. But what about mercy? What about this person having the opportunity to be thankful if he is forgiven? A world where nobody is pardoned will be a hellhole.
In fact, if you endorse mercy and thanks for that reason, you show this is not about God but about being practical. Skepticism about those who say you need God because you have to be thankful to something is definitely appropriate. And they say God represents mercy, and we want to be merciful like him. Our skepticism grows.
There is a link between gratitude and forgiveness. You will not forgive X unless there is something about X to be grateful for. And what about being grateful for the opportunity to move on?
The idea of God being grateful to us is obviously wrong — but is implied by how we ask him for forgiveness and love. Religion says he can't be grateful, for he gives us all that we have. And yet, without the stirrings of thankfulness, how can we learn to love God, or forgive, or ask his mercy?
Christian love for God is really a disguised love for a humanised version of God. It is an idol, and we are pretending that we don't think we deserve anything from God. In fact, we think God should be about us. We think God owes us everything.
God does not have feelings or passions, for feelings and passions are what happen to you — so you are passive in a real sense. But God, as creator and maker of all from nothing, is self-sufficient and is always active. Nothing can happen to him — only because of him.
Would you thank a robot that has no feelings, even if it simulates them or pretends it has them? No. The idea of thanking a being who has no feelings and who cannot understand or experience feelings shows that believers are not thanking him at all — but an idol version of God in their heads.
To sum up: There cannot be a God who is relevant to us. Such a God is not truly a God to us.
THE METAPHYSICS OF GOD'S GOODNESS
Religion says God is utterly simple, in that he is one spirit with no parts — but with qualities we can distinguish, such as wisdom, love, knowledge, and so on. I will not discuss how this is just a rig-up.
Religion needs to avoid the problem question: “If God made all things, who made God?” It does that by saying he has no parts, so needs no making.
Religion says: “God knows that goodness exists and that 2+2=4 is true, so he is the knowledge of these. He is goodness, and he is 2+2=4, for these are part of his existence.”
Not so - for they would have to be separate from him — and they are not things but concepts. To say that God is not a spirit or a substance but just abstract truth — in other words, to call things like goodness, truth, mercy, and maths “God” — is to be an atheist.
This shows how many thought they were not atheists — and they were!
Goodness would exist whether God existed or not. So would 2+2=4. These things are not dependent on a God to make them. They are necessary truths.
Goodness would have to exist for God to exist. If God is goodness, then it has nothing to do with him that he is good — it is just the way he is. He is good by nature. The Christians won’t be keen on that, for it ruins the freedom defence argument.
The freedom defence argument says that because we cannot be good unless we can sin, God gave us free will — for he wants us to be good. It blames sin and suffering and death on human evil or the misuse of freedom, thus getting God off the hook.
It is a strange God of love who needs us to break “innocent until proven guilty” so that we can believe in him.
Anyway, goodness then makes God — and this is absurd, for it denies that God is the Supreme Being or sovereign, and goodness is not a thing or power.
How do God and goodness connect? Three solutions have been proposed:
Descartes’ view: God is sovereign and nothing controls or limits him. God is the Supreme Being. So he gives himself his properties instead of the properties being independent of him, controlling him, and him conforming to them. They don’t make him the way he is.
We must object for God is outside time and cannot change. We are told that God invents the properties and conforms to them. So God could have been evil if he had wanted to be — only we would have to call it “good” then.
Others say there is no such property as mercy or knowledge — so God is the way he is and is sovereign and supreme because there are no properties.
But of course, there are properties. If blue does not exist, the property of blue can still exist.
Aquinas “solved” the problem by saying that God has a nature and in him: his essence and his attributes are one and the same. It means that God is not a personal being — despite Aquinas saying he is! — but an abstract, like goodness. It is nothing like the personal God of the Bible. Christianity seems to personify God, but God is really a force.
Those who have tried to solve the problem of God say that God has a nature which is made up of properties, but God and his nature are not one indivisible thing. It is like my property of white skin and me are not the same thing. I am consciousness, and whiteness is not a part of that.
This denies the doctrine of simplicity but replaces it with a God made of two spiritual forces.
NOTE:
Much of the research has been gained from The Concept of God, especially Chapter 7, “Simplicity.”
CONCLUSION
1. Morality and Logic Are Human Necessities — Not Divine Ones
Logic is unavoidable — even attempts to reject it still operate within it.
We respect logic because we value consistency and coherence — not because of divine command.
Religion tries to claim that God is the source of logic and morality, but this is both unnecessary and illogical.
2. The Logic Dilemma: Does God Create or Discover Logic?
If God created logic, then absurdities (like non-existent dog food being eaten) could be possible.
If God discovered logic, then logic exists independently and God is not supreme.
The Christian claim that logic is part of God’s “eternal nature” fails — because logical truths like 1+1=2 would still exist without God.
This exposes a real dilemma, not a false one.
3. God Is Incoherent as a Logical Concept
A God who is above or beyond logic is not credible — because any argument for such a God must rely on logic.
Therefore, any evidence for God's existence collapses if God is incoherent or anti-logical.
4. Gratitude and Forgiveness Don't Require God
Religious morality depends on being grateful to God and seeking his forgiveness.
But gratitude and mercy are practical human values that work without God.
We forgive when we find something to be thankful for in the person we forgive — not because of divine command.
God cannot feel gratitude or emotion, so thanking such a being is like thanking a robot — meaningless and anthropomorphic.
5. The God People Worship Is Just a Human Projection
Believers worship an emotionally relatable version of God, not the emotionless, impassive deity described in theology.
The real God of classical theism is unrelatable and passive, making worship incoherent.
We create a humanised idol and call it God.
6. The Metaphysics of God’s “Goodness” Is Contradictory
Religion claims God is utterly simple (without parts) but with distinct attributes (wisdom, love, etc.) — this is philosophical sleight of hand.
Saying God “is” goodness or truth collapses into abstract atheism — treating non-personal concepts as divine.
Goodness and truths like 2+2=4 exist necessarily, whether God exists or not.
7. God Must Conform to Goodness, Which Makes Him Secondary
If God is good by nature, then goodness is prior to God.
This destroys the claim that God is the source of morality.
The “freedom defense” (that we must be free to sin so we can be truly good) collapses if God himself is not free to be evil — which he isn’t.
Thus, Christian morality is incoherent and self-defeating.
8. Philosophical “Solutions” Fail
Descartes: God gives himself his properties — but this is absurd if God cannot change.
Others: Deny that properties exist — but this is obviously false (e.g., "blue" as a property).
Aquinas: God’s essence and attributes are the same — but this makes God an abstract force, not a person.
9. Theological Claims Are Anti-Scientific
Claiming that an immaterial being sees or hears is unscientific — vision and hearing require physical mechanisms.
Saying God sees without eyes is less rational than saying a rock can see.
Conclusion
God is not needed for morality, gratitude, logic, or justice.
Attempts to tie morality or logic to God lead to logical confusion, incoherence, or anthropomorphism.
A moral God is either irrelevant, incoherent, or imaginary.
Therefore, belief in a moral God is itself amoral — and such a God would, by necessity, have to be amoral too.