State how things ought to be with that assumption.
Compare that to how things actually are.
If there is a contradiction between what is and what it ought to be, then you have proven that the original assumption is wrong.
But he didn’t do it properly because he didn’t state the assumption and he has more than 1 assumption. He has 4:
A1: God exists.
A2: God wants this : “God , like us, wants the best life possible”
A3: God needs this : “For God to have the best life possible, god needs to create all our lives as the best ever …”
A4: God has this burden : “It’s not our responsibility to parallel process all lives, because us, unlike god , didn’t create all this shit… That is gods burden .”
Therefore his conclusion, that God does not exist, is invalid. It’s possible that one of the other assumptions is incorrect.
“Manure of a large domesticated animal.”'–Buckwald. The irony is in the fervor of the stench. Not many who supposedly become aware of an absolute truth find the need to vilify those who may not be so fortunate as one who can’t see it. But, sooner or later all blanket statements lie by lack of inclusion.
Your testimonial does not constitute evidence or proof on its own.
I’m not interested in proving anything. I’m merely saying that your proof that “God does not exist” is flawed and that it does not prove that “God does not exist”. I gave reasons as to why it is not a valid proof.
You have an understanding which you are unable to pass on to others. You do not have a proof.
You could have made an assumption that “God exists and he has the characteristics of a wool blanket”. Then you would not have a “proof by contradiction” since we know that wool blankets exist.
The entire point of the proof is to show a contradiction which necessitates abandoning the original assumption.
If you have a general proof that “God doesn’t exist” then you need to account for the fact that many gods have been proposed(/discovered?) which were not all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all beneficent …
Otherwise you have to state the specific characteristics of the God and formulate the proof that “a God with these characteristics does not exist”.
Remember what I wrote today about the existence of hell?
I can’t create the sun but maybe God can create the sun but He can’t create “something else”. He is still god in comparison to humans and different from humans.
That’s because you only think of THE GOD taught to you in Sunday Christian Bible classes. Your concept of god is too limited.
If you look at the Old Testament … God is often nasty, often asks for information and can’t control the fallen angels. IOW, he fails in the 3 omnis.
I’m posting here because I know something about reasoning in general and “proof by contradiction” in particular. Someone taught me and I’m passing it on.
I can’t control whether you or anyone actually benefits.
Ecmandu, what you are saying proves me right, not wrong, young padawan.
What you refer to an over-bad. An over-bad is as bad an over-good.
Lighting your foot on fire is a repetition of 1,000,000 cycles, repeating a “good” loop of a song that only last 3 seconds is a repetition of 1200 cycles.
Thus lighting your foot is more monotonous than repeating a good loop of a song, and thus more painful, but both are bad.