I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.
My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.
Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God.
The NT is not explicit in stating God is an absolutely perfect God but the greater theologian thinkers are naturally refining the idea of God as an absolutely perfect God. Note St. Anselm’s and Descartes’ presentation of the ontological God.
The path towards an ultimate absolutely perfect God is inherent in the idea of God as driven by a very primal existential impulse as it is only rational no theists will accept their God to be inferior to the God of others.
My argument is based on this ultimate point.
No, you started with a logical fallacy (see above).
And I know that you are going to go on with it.
Yours is very short-sighted and is proven wrong as above.
QED.
The fact that physics is the most empirical science does not mean that it is not also non-empirical. Mathematics, for instance, is closer to metaphysics than to physics, but it is needed in physics too. Mathematics is what you call “non-empirical”.
Mathematics is not a posteriori, but a priori which is still empirically-based. Note Kant’s proof on this.
Objectivity is not typical for non-theists and not typical for theists. It does not depend on whether you are a theist or a non-theist. So, you are biased.
There are degrees to objectivity. Theists beliefs has very low level objectivity. Theists relied on beliefs but theirs are not justified-true-beliefs that can be rationally justified, e.g. repeatedly tested by anyone at anytime with same ‘independent’ results, e.g. as in Science.
You are saying (in your signature) that you are “a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious”; you are suggesting that you are a non-theist. But all that is not true. You are either an anti-theist or a theist:
At least you seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).
What kind of logic is that?
That is a fallacy based on hasty generalization.
A medical doctor would likely spent most of his working hours with sick patients. Would that make the doctor a sick person? It is the same for anyone who is fighting evil acts, they cannot be evil rather they are good.
It is only semantics, I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.
At present I [adopting a Boddhisattva’s vow of compassion] have very strong intentions to counter theism because part of it is very malignant with its contribution to terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone theists who are inspired by certain evil laden words of their God [illusory].
To convince such evil prone theists their God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and ‘defang’ the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.
The majority of theists must also be convinced of the impossibility of God as they are indirectly providing moral support for the evil prone theists hiding beneath the skirts of the majority’s belief in theism.