Arguments against monotheism:
1. If there is only one god, who is simultaneously omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, then:
1.1. Why does this god allow extreme and unnecessary sufferance to thrive throughout his creation? Where does "evil" (what this god finds undesirable) originate from?
1.2. If the answer to the question "where does 'evil' originate from" is "free will" (the ability to make choices freely), and doubt is "sinful" (causing doubters to incur this god's wrath), why would a benevolent god give us both "science" (the ability to question and reason) and "free will" (the ability to make choices freely) simultaneously, knowing that it will inevitably lead to individuals incurring his wrath by engaging in doubt?
1.3. Why does this god despise so many positive aspects of his own creation, going as far as to mandate extremely cruel and dangerous practices intended to suppress them? How can a god who is simultaneously omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient create beings whose needs and desires offend him, knowing that the suppression of such needs and desires will lead to the creations in question having to choose between deprivation or incurring divine wrath?
1.4. Why is there so much physical evidence which contradicts the stories who are supposed to be the literal word of god (e.g. genetics and fossils providing evidence of human evolution, ancient texts and artefacts providing evidence for the polytheistic origins of Judaism, etc...)? If the answer to this question is "it's a test of faith" or "the devil did it, even though he's weaker than god": see points 1.1 and 1.2.
2. If there is only one god who is malevolent, then why do we not suffer 24/7? If the answer is that "he allows us joy in order to cause greater suffering", why would he need to do so if he is omnipotent? Why would he not use his omnipotence to maximize suffering by creating a hell on earth?
3. If there is only one god who is not omnipotent, what limits his power? How did he make the universe without assistance? If he had assistance, who provided this assistance?
4. If there is only one god who is not omnipotent, what limits his knowledge? How did he make the universe without assistance? If he had assistance, who provided this assistance?
Arguments against polytheism:
1. If there are multiple gods, all of whom are benevolent: see the above problems with benevolent monotheism. If these benevolent gods are in disagreement over what is "good" (pleases them) and "evil" (displeases them): see the below problems with "individualist polytheism" (multiple gods with free will and various different goals).
2. If there are more than two gods, why is this necessary? What justifies such complexity?
2.1 What would prevent multiple nigh-omnipotent gods from joining together to form greater entities together with other, similar gods?
- If the answer to this question is "they have free will and want to do as they please": see point 1.
- If the answer to this question is "they are not nigh-omnipotent", what is the limit of their power? If they had to cooperate to create the world, how did many gods with vastly different goals manage to do so for long enough? Do they have a god of their own, and if so, can you honestly call them gods?
Arguments against atheism:
1. If there is no creator deity, what caused the world to exist?
2. If the answer to the above question is "natural phenomena" (e.g. the big bang), why did such "natural phenomena" lead to existence? How did such "natural phenomena" itself come into existence? How does existence itself exist and continue to do so?
3. If there is no god whatsoever, then life requires unnecessarily complicated explanations in order to make logical sense.
Thus;
In accordance with Occam's razor, the simplest logical explanation (at our current level of knowledge) for the existence of the logically-consistent universe in spite of the problems above is Dualism. Indeed, the only logical explanation for the existence of such a flawed and fragile universe, taking into account the above problems, without needing to resort to absurdly complex, bizarre and irrational concepts, is the existence of two eternal, flawed and opposing deities, one benevolent and one malevolent, who keep a "flawed balance" (equal presence of benevolence and malevolence, resulting in sum neutrality) throughout the universe.
These two deities would be eternal in the sense that they are essentially "personifications" of benevolence and malevolence themselves. The benevolent deity being essentially the "personification" of the existence of all that is "intrinsically good" (joy, pleasure, freedom, justice, honesty, etc...), and the the malevolent deity being essentially the "personification" of the existence of all that is "intrinsically evil" (sufferance, deprivation, oppression, injustice, corruption, etc...).
These two deities would be flawed in the sense that they are neither truly omnipotent (each having omnipotence only within their domain, benevolence and malevolence respectively) nor free-willed (each being subject to the limits of reason and neutral rules of logic).
Work In Progress.