New God Argument Version 4.0

Lincoln Cannon

8 July 2026

The New God Argument is a logical argument for faith in God, based on moral and practical assumptions that are consistent with current science and emerging technology trends. It doesn’t prove that God exists. Rather, it proves that if we trust in the superhuman potential of our civilization then we should also trust in that which may qualify as God. And atheism may entail distrust in our compassionate and creative superhuman potential.

For the last few years in conversations and presentations, I’ve been tailoring formulation adjustments to the New God Argument, aiming to improve accessibility and decrease frequency of common misunderstandings. This has resulted in version 4.0 of the argument, as presented below. Changes include the “Courage Assumption” as a new name for the “Faith Assumption,” references to “human civilization” and “superhuman civilization” in place of some references to “humanity” and “superhumanity,” and explicit reference to “alignment” and “singleton” along with “decentralization” as named parts of the Compassion Argument. Although some words have changed for clarity, none changes the intended meaning of the argument.

Generalizing Compassion

Before sharing the new formulation, I want to call attention to an observation about the Compassion Argument that I haven’t previously put in public writing. No part of the New God Argument has changed more, over time, than the Compassion Argument. I originally formulated it as three Charity Arguments, pruned it to one Benevolence Argument that focused on destructive capacity, renamed it to the Compassion Argument, qualified destructive capacity in terms of decentralization, and then generalized decentralization to power. Some might reasonably imagine these changes to mean that old formulations were simply abandoned because they were altogether incorrect.

However, a more accurate understanding would be that old formulations of the Compassion Argument were, in various ways and to varying degrees, weaker special cases of the new formulation. Put differently, the new formulation is a stronger, more generalized, and more prescriptive expression of the practical relationship between decentralized power and compassion. But an appeal to that practical relationship was already nascent. Let’s take a look at each of the old formulations.

Charity Argument from Angels: If any advanced civilization probably can stop the advance of any less advanced civilization in reach then the extent of our advance probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach. Here, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Charity Argument from Faith: If any advanced civilization probably has increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity then we should trust any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than us. Here, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally.
Charity Argument from Creation: If any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past then any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts toward us with at least as much benevolence as it expects any advanced civilization that created its world should act toward it. Here, I again appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Benevolence Argument: If posthumans probably have increased faster in destructive than defensive capacity then posthumans probably are more benevolent than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Charity Argument from Faith, renamed and using “posthumans” for “advanced civilizations.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally.
Compassion Argument 3.0: If posthumanity probably will connect experientially with its creations then posthumanity probably is more compassionate toward us than we have the capacity to imagine. This was an experimental formulation of the argument, renamed. In it, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between minds.
Compassion Argument 3.1: If superintelligent post-humanity probably would have more destructive capacity than humanity then superintelligent post-humanity probably would be more compassionate than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Charity Argument from Angels, renamed and using “superintelligent post-humanity” for “advanced civilizations.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Compassion Argument 3.2: If superintelligent posthumanity probably would have more decentralized destructive capacity than us then superintelligent posthumanity probably would be more compassionate than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.1, using “decentralized” explicitly. Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Compassion Argument 3.3: If superhumanity probably would have more decentralized destructive capacity than humanity has then superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.2, using “superhumanity” for “superintelligent posthumanity.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Compassion Argument 3.4: If superhumanity probably would have more decentralized power than humanity has then superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.3, using “power” explicitly. Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.

In the new version of the Compassion Argument, below, I return to the most general formulation (like the Charity Argument from Faith and the Benevolence Argument), appealing to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally, whether conceived as within or between civilizations. I also return to using “civilization” (like the Charity Argument from Faith) while maintaining use of “superhuman” (like the Compassion Arguments). Finally, I explicitly use “centralize” and “singleton” as the opposition to decentralization, to clarify one of the failure scenarios. As mentioned previously, I intend all of this to make the formulation stronger, more generalized, and more prescriptive without changing the fundamental meaning.

Courage Assumption

The Courage Assumption is a proposition that we, as a human civilization, will not become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization. The proposition may be false. However, to the extent we do not know it to be false, we may have practical or moral reasons to trust that it is true – even to make it true. In any case, the Courage Assumption is a common aspiration among secular advocates of technological evolution, and it may be consistent with the religious doctrine of theosis, also known as deification: the idea that humanity should become as God.

[COURAGE assumption] (“Courage Assumption”)
we, as a human civilization, probably will not become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization

Compassion Argument

The Compassion Argument is a logical argument for trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are. It doesn’t prove compassion. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization and decentralize power. If so, because superhuman decentralization would cultivate and depend on cooperation at extents practically indistinguishable from compassion, we should also trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are.

[ALIGNMENT assumption] (“Alignment Argument”)
EITHER we, as a human civilization, probably will become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization (“Extinction Hypothesis”)
OR we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will centralize power (“Singleton Hypothesis”)
OR superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are (“Compassion Hypothesis”)

[DECENTRALIZATION assumption] (“Decentralization Assumption”)
we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will decentralize power

[COMPASSION deduction from COURAGE, ALIGNMENT, and DECENTRALIZATION] (“Compassion Conclusion”)
superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are

Creation Argument

The Creation Argument is a logical argument for trust that a superhuman civilization created our world. It doesn’t prove creation. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization and create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history. If so, because creation of many worlds would result in emulated histories that vastly outnumber others, we should also trust that a superhuman civilization created our world.

[SIMULATION assumption] (“Generalized Simulation Argument”)
EITHER we, as a human civilization, probably will become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization (“Extinction Hypothesis”)
OR we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will not create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history (“Abstinence Hypothesis”)
OR a superhuman civilization probably created our world (“Creation Hypothesis”)

[FECUNDITY assumption] (“Fecundity Assumption”)
we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history

[CREATION deduction from COURAGE, SIMULATION, and FECUNDITY] (“Creation Conclusion”)
a superhuman civilization probably created our world

God Conclusion

The God Conclusion is a logical deduction for faith in God. It doesn’t prove that God exists. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization, decentralize power, and create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history. If so, we should also trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are and a superhuman civilization created our world.

[GOD deduction from COMPASSION and CREATION] (“God Conclusion”)
BOTH superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are
AND a superhuman civilization probably created our world

New God Argument

The New God Argument has evolved since Joseph West and I first formulated it in 2008. Along the way, I've simplified its language, published numbered versions, presented it at conferences, and responded to critics. The articles below trace that evolution in chronological order. I maintain the latest public formulation of the argument on the New God Argument website.