Farmageddon said:
For one, you provided no reason why any deity should be supposed to be bounded by logic, which was my main problem originally. Then there's also, supposing a deity so bound, the definition of omnibenevolence - which of course does depends on our definition of "good", as benevolence is the will to do good - and our hability to judge it. Your argument can only hold if you assume you absolutely know what's good and can with absolute confidence judge the "goodness" of the world. I ask why should it be reasonable to suppose that. I realize it makes more sense when speaking of very specific Gods, but the more generic it gets the less it does so. That's the reason I wrote about some of the possible ways one might define "good", to illustrate. I used theism on a broader sense, as in "there's some form of god". I realize now in our context it would mean a personal God. My bad. I'm not saying "we don't know that it's not, so it must be". All I said was "We can't really say for sure it's not. Might be, might not". There's no fallacy in that.
For this you need to suppose you are able to know and define this single, straight-forward objective of some supposed almigthy creator in two words - "human life" - and also give a very precise meaing to these two words in order to judge how well such goal is achieved. I don't think there's any reason to believe any of that to be true on light of a God, specially one from a religion which focus a lot on the concept of an after-life, which further complicates your simplistic vision of His "goal". It's a lot like my objection of your judgment of how much "benevolence" the world shows. |
the reason we can evaluate a deity via rational argument is because the premises are drawn directly from definitions of that particular deity. for example, if the claim is made for omnipotence, it then becomes true by definition. this is simply testing for internal consistency and contradiction with what is observed.
you couldn't, for instance, have omnipotence as a trait while being unable to do something.
your point about knowing what is good is important. It is drawn from christianity from "god" as "good" is simply obedience to god. if its obedient, it's good. if not, bad. murder is disobedient, therefore bad/evil exists.
it seems like you're arguing that the existence of god in some form is unknowable but we can know some concepts are invalid as I mentioned previously.
...
well the user put forward the purpose is human life, I simply used that in the argument. futhermore, the afterlife is obsolete. the only question is maximal purpose which is patently absurd given the rather tiny portion of the universe we can survive in.