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.
I’m not using “theistic arguments”. I’m not arguing for or against the existence of God. I don’t care about that.
You tried to do a “proof by contradiction” without understanding it or its limitations. I’m explaining why it failed.
If you tried to prove something about lampshades, the result would have been exactly the same. Nothing to do with God, everything to do with correct reasoning.