Re: Good and evil
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:40 pm
Hold it right there, cowboy, you used that same sort of shallow reasoning in your argument against the existence of God in your thread: "God is an Impossibility" in which you proclaimed the following,...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:05 amLet say, assuming God exists. [Assumption A]seeds wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:55 pmWRONG!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:21 am
God by definition has to be omnibenevolent, omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent and omni-whatever-good.
As far as we humans are concerned, God, by definition, simply has to be the singular living Entity who created this particular universe and thus made our awakening into existence possible.
In other words, qualifying for the title of "God" has nothing whatsoever to do with an Entity's disposition, or whether or not it lives up to some "ideal" notion of what the terms "omni-benevolent" or "omni-good" mean.
_______
Then I propose,
God by definition has to be omnibenevolent, omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent and omni-whatever-good....
- P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.
...of which I put out of its misery (as in debunked, embalmed, and buried) in several posts, including this one...
The bottom line is that you can arbitrarily "propose" that...seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pmI’m sorry, but all you are doing is presenting strawman arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God could be real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am ...The point is, an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.
I, as a bonafide theist (a Berkeleyanish Panentheist, to be precise) have already carefully considered your P2...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am I don't see you countering any of my premises successfully?
Just take my P1, P2 and later notes by the horn and show me why they are invalid.
...and have exposed its flaw by clearly pointing out to you that the Creator of this universe does not have to live up to some kind of ideal form of “perfection” in order to exist and qualify for the title of “God.”
You, however, simply chose to ignore what I said and have continued to use your debunked premise as the primary reason for why God’s existence is impossible.
The absolute best conclusion that can be derived from your arguments is that theists believe in a wide range of nonsense with respect to God.
However, if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence....
_______
...however, that doesn't necessarily mean that the proposal is factual.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:21 am God by definition has to be omnibenevolent, omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent and omni-whatever-good.
_______