“God as perfect good” in light of the black-and-white fallacy (also called false
dichotomy or false dilemma). The goal is not to deny or affirm theological
claims, but to clarify how certain reasoning patterns may distort what “perfect
good” could mean.
1. The Black-and-White Fallacy: A Brief Reminder
A black-and-white fallacy occurs when a complex issue is forced into only two mutually exclusive categories, ignoring nuance, gradients, or intermediate possibilities.
Examples:
• “Something is either perfectly good or totally evil.”
• “A morally good being cannot allow any suffering whatsoever.”
• “If God is good, He must act in the way I consider good.”
When applied to God, this fallacy often shows up in arguments about divine goodness, evil, providence, morality, and human suffering.
2. How the Concept of ‘Perfect Good’ Can Invite False Dichotomies
2.1 Good vs. Evil as a Simple Binary
Many popular arguments assume:
“If God is perfectly good, He must eliminate every instance of evil, instantly and fully.”
This treats good/evil as exhaustive and simplistic, but philosophers often treat moral goodness as:
• complex
• involving competing goods
• including higher-order goods (e.g., freedom, virtue, growth)
• relative to context
Thus, perfect goodness does not necessarily entail maximizing pleasantness or minimizing every harm. A more nuanced view sees good and evil not as on/off switches but as multi-dimensional moral landscapes.
3. Theological Perspectives That Resist Black-and-White Thinking
3.1 Classical Theism: Good as Fullness of Being
In Augustine, Aquinas, and classical theism:
• Evil is not a “thing” but a privation (lack of a due good).
• God as perfect good = God possesses the fullness of being, lacking nothing.
Here, “good” is not a simple opposite of “evil.”
Instead, “perfect good” means the metaphysical fullness of actuality, and evil is not a competitor category. The black-and-white fallacy misrepresents this by assuming God and evil are two opposing substances.
3.2 Free Will and Soul-Making Traditions
Irenaean and contemporary “soul-making” accounts propose:
• Some suffering is permitted for the development of virtues (courage, compassion).
• God’s goodness includes giving creatures moral freedom and developmental space.
The black-and-white fallacy emerges when we assume:
“A good God would either eliminate suffering or doesn’t exist.”
This fails to consider:
• degrees of freedom
• types of goods
• long-term vs. short-term outcomes
• moral growth vs. moral stagnation
Thus, the reasoning incorrectly restricts what a “perfectly good” being could rationally allow.
4. Arguments Where the Fallacy Commonly Appears
4.1 The Problem of Evil (Logical Version)
A common structure:
• God is perfectly good.
• Perfectly good beings eliminate evil entirely.
• Evil exists.
• Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
But premise 2 often presupposes a black-and-white model:
• good = removal of evil
• evil = any allowed suffering
Philosophers like Plantinga, Swinburne, and Adams show that a perfectly good
being may allow certain evils for logically necessary goods (free will, ordered
laws of nature, moral significance).
Thus the dichotomy collapses.
4.2 Divine Commands vs. Human Morality
Another dichotomy appears in moral reasoning:
“Either God commands X because it is good, or X is good only because God commands it.”
The Euthyphro dilemma is not exactly a fallacy (it's a real philosophical
challenge), but many simplistic treatments of it reduce moral ontology to only
two options.
Sophisticated views allow:
• God’s nature as the standard (neither option)
• Moral facts grounded in divine reason
• Multi-layered accounts of value
Thus, “perfect good” is not trapped into a forced binary.
4.3 Literalist vs. Allegorical Interpretations of Scripture
People sometimes argue:
“If Scripture shows God doing harsh things, then God is not perfectly good.”
This frames the issue as:
• either absolute moral perfection
• or an immoral deity
But philosophical theology considers:
• literary genre
• anthropomorphism
• progressive revelation
• symbolic teaching
• historical-cultural context
Thus the goodness of God is not assessed in a purely black-and-white manner.
5. Reconstructing a More Nuanced Notion of ‘Perfect Good’
A more robust concept avoids false dichotomies by recognizing that perfect goodness can involve:
5.1 Harmonization of Multiple Goods
Perfect goodness might mean:
• maximizing coherent goods,
• preserving moral agency,
• respecting laws of nature,
• enabling spiritual or psychological development.
These goods can conflict, which undermines the simplistic “good eliminates all evil” assumption.
5.2 Higher-Order Values
Values like:
• love
• autonomy
• justice
• growth
• relationship
cannot be reduced to black-and-white categories.
Perfect goodness might involve balancing them, not eliminating everything
unpleasant.
5.3 Non-Human Conceptions of Goodness
One source of false dichotomy is projecting our moral intuitions onto God, then claiming:
“Either God fits my moral expectations or isn’t good.”
But “good” may have an analogical, not univocal, relationship between human and divine contexts.
6. Conclusion
Examining “God as perfect good” through the lens of the black-and-white fallacy reveals:
• Many arguments about divine goodness presuppose oversimplified moral binaries.
• Classical theism, free-will defenses, and soul-making theodicies resist those binaries.
• A robust concept of perfect goodness involves complex, layered moral reasoning rather than simplistic oppositions.
• Recognizing these nuances helps avoid false dilemmas like “either God eliminates all evil or isn’t good.”
Put succinctly:
The black-and-white fallacy distorts the idea of a perfectly good God by forcing moral complexity into oversimplified categories, whereas philosophical theology sees divine goodness as richer, multidimensional, and not reducible to simplistic opposites.
Which, in a hypothetical situation should be discarded or even forgotten? Does it matter? What about a coin toss?
Think of it as your choice. Then substitute God with you. Or what if God gave humanity the choice? Remember God is supposedly a rational being and we reflect that image. So to make it about God is reflecting on you and vice versa. There is also how you see yourself and how it's integrated into God by psychological projection.
Before making the choice remember this.
Binary and spectrum morality differ vastly in both principle and outcome. Binary morality forces every action into right or wrong, oversimplifying nuance, while spectrum morality evaluates choices along a continuum, capturing subtle intent and consequences. This creates a wide gulf: the same action may be judged entirely opposite ways under each framework, showing how profoundly the approach shapes moral understanding and real-world outcomes.
Choice 1. Black-and-white or good vs. evil:
You’d perceive everything strictly as morally right or wrong. Every action, thought, or event would be instantly categorized. Life might feel morally clear and decisive, but you’d miss the gray areas: intentions, consequences, context, moral dilemmas. Nuance—like a morally conflicted hero or a well-intentioned mistake—would be invisible.
Choice 2. Spectrum a moral gradient:
You’d perceive degrees of goodness and evil, from subtle virtue to minor faults, from small selfishness to heinous wrongdoing. Moral life becomes richer and more complex: you could weigh intentions, context, consequences, and subtle distinctions. But it could also make moral judgment harder and less certain—sometimes agonizingly so.
So, in this moral-only framework, both “choices” are valid:
Black-and-white: clarity and simplicity.
Spectrum: richness and moral depth.
You have demonstrated that rejecting a black and white God is missing a premise. It is that black and white or spectrum - is as solid as the other.
And that morality is not about wellbeing, though it may allow it. It is could be about pragmatism as in having to do something.
Morality, as we know it, will collapse if we keep moving from binary to spectrum or vice versa as it suits. And if one is as convincing as the other, why not sit on the fence?
God only clutters. We need simplicity and clarity in the face of such a decision. Keep on topic and avoid the theology.