Ever heard of the Tao?
Note my arguments;
- God must be absolutely perfect - as argued.
- Thus God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
- Law of Non-Contradiction, God cannot be absolutely and perfectly evil.
- Any elements of evil proves contradiction
- Evil exists empirically as defined logically.
- God is contradictory, therefore cannot exist
Note the infinite is not judging the infinite.
In this case the supposed infinite contradict itself.
As such logically the idea of God is an impossibility - via reason not the empirical.
Since God is an impossibility, the question of God is a non-starter.
Whatever God or gods are presented, a God by default ultimately has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God - a Being than which no greater can be ‘conceived.*’
- thought of and reasoned.
That is false outside of a very precise form of monotheism. If I am a polytheist, then my gods are stratified, probably, by levels of greatness, and thus not ever god has to necessarily be perfect.
You missed my subtle point.
If one is a polytheist, one is likely to start off believing in many gods.
When it is highlighted to polytheist their gods are inferior they will rationally argued for a master god that is superior and dominate all other gods.
This is what happens with Hinduism where Brahman-God is the most supreme over all other gods.
My point is whatever God or gods are presented, the inherent tendency and psychological intent is to gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God when theists are cornered in some ways. No normal theists will accept any God as inferior to another.
Then there is the standard of perfect and how it is applied. The perfect hammer is not perfect at every task, but perfect at its purpose, or hammering. Thus gods are perhaps perfect not because nothing greater can be thought of or conceived but because it fulfills its purpose, its nature. Perfect Omnipotence is not necessarily tied to our well-being (with every “evil” being defined as damage to such well-being), but conceived as such by our will to power, to borrow Nietzsche’s concept.
You missed my point.
Note the links I provided re the meaning of ‘perfect’ which is synonymous with ‘absolute’.
As I had stated the normal psychological tendencies of theists is not to accept any God as inferior to another God.
This is what drive the evolution in the idea of god from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be conceived.
Thus a God per-se despite the variations in form MUST ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.
Thus perfect and absolute are inherent in the definition of a God.
For example if you do not claim perfect omnipotence for your God, then your god is then less powerful than another which is claimed to have perfect omnipotence. In this case the God with perfect omnipotence will have the power to control your lesser perfect god to kiss its ass or do other derogatory acts. This is why all rational theists will gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God so that their God is not inferior to any God, thus all theists will end up having the same on par God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Logically there is no other rational way than ending with an absolutely perfect God.
This is how Islam which came later and with advantage of hindsight proclaimed in the Quran, the monotheistic one and ONLY perfect God without exception.
Not to lose out, St. Anselm [1033AD] of Christianity came up with the Ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be conceived.
Actually I have already explained the above ‘Why’ many times but you have not read it.
I suggest you read the whole of this thread for knowledge sake.