Proof of an omnipotent being

[Certainly real]

1) We cannot understand impossibilities (things that can never exist such as married bachelors)

2) That which is not an impossibility either necessarily exists (necessity) or at the very least can come into existence (possibility). Where necessity or possibility is not the case, impossibility (round square) or meaninglessness (sdfjksdfj) is necessarily the case and vice versa.

3) We understand human and unicorn. Given 1-2, either p) humans/unicorns exist (necessity) or q) humans/unicorns can come into existence (possibility). With humans we know that both p and q are true. With unicorns we don't know if p is true, but we know that q is true because unicorns are hypothetically possible as opposed to hypothetically impossibile.

4) Like human and unicorn, we understand omnipotence (almightiness). Therefore either p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity) or q*) something omnipotent can come into existence (possibility)

5) Nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. This is because omnipotence logically requires reach and access to all things. This requires true omnipresence (to be all-present). Since nothing can become truly omnipresent without being truly omnipresent in the first place, nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. Also, that which is truly omnipresent cannot magically shift from being non-omnipotent to being omnipotent. That would be a case of something coming from nothing (which is absurd)

6) Given the fact that we cannot understand impossibilities, and given the fact that we understand omnipotence, then either p* or q* or both must be true. 5 shows that q* is logically impossible, therefore; p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity). In other words, neither impossibile, meaningless or possible; therefore necessary.

You can change omnipotence to true Perfection (God) and you will still get the same result.

[Meno_]

Certainly Real said,

") Given the fact that we cannot understand impossibilities, and given the fact that we understand omnipotence, ...."


I would think we certainly can understand "impossibilities" and can not omnipotence.

Why? We can characterize an impossible geometric design like a square circle, by interpositioning them by drawing them on the piece of paper, but how on earth can we illustrate omnipotence logically? , as per a similar illustration?

Understanding appears to reversely attribute omni / or absolutely configured totalities to recognition, whereas appearent impossible configurations have minimally some basis for a developing possible understanding.

[MagsJ]

We can imagine the possible.. actualIty, and the impossible.. illusory, insofar that the former can come to fruition, but the latter cannot.

The imagination/mind is the vehicle through which we traverse reality.. differentiating between possible/actualIty and impossible/illusory as we go along, or by forward-thinking a plausible outcome.

The Universe is said to have come from nothing, but perhaps the Universe is one big nothing that is full of things, a container.. perhaps we are self-contained, like a house or flat.

Nice post..

[Meno_]

We can imagine the possible.. actualIty, and the impossible.. illusory, insofar that the former can come to fruition, but the latter cannot.

The imagination/mind is the vehicle through which we traverse reality.. differentiating between possible/actualIty and impossible/illusory as we go along, or by forward-thinking a plausible outcome.

The Universe is said to have come from nothing, but perhaps the Universe is one big nothing that is full of things, a container.. perhaps we are self-contained, like a house or flat.

Nice post..

Thanks. When will the day come when I can attribute all my mistakes to being bi lingual?

Anytime soon but I'm not holding my breath.

[MagsJ]

Thanks. When will the day come when I can attribute all my mistakes to being bi lingual?

Anytime soon but I'm not holding my breath.

One’s opposition doesn’t always make way or room for attributing mistakes, to what can only be seen as a(n) (unavoidable) flaw due to circumstance, in some.. i.e. you.

I had been finding the trans-Atlantic grammatical differences hindering, in fully being able to understand my US peers here, but I think I’ve managed to translate more correctly through repetition of dialoguing.

[Meno_]

Thanks. When will the day come when I can attribute all my mistakes to being bi lingual?

Anytime soon but I'm not holding my breath.

One’s opposition doesn’t always make way or room for attributing mistakes, to what can only be seen as a(n) (unavoidable) flaw due to circumstance, in some.. i.e. you.

I had been finding the trans-Atlantic grammatical differences hindering, in fully being able to understand my US peers here, but I think I’ve managed to translate more correctly through repetition of dialoguing.

Therefore mistakes have to be factored into a primary manifested karmically determined precept.
I totally believe this as well, and not from a position of defensive rationalization , to try to mitigate the human , catholic , universal guilt of men just merely men!

[Mad Man P]

3) We understand human and unicorn. Given 1-2, either p) humans/unicorns exist (necessity) or q) humans/unicorns can come into existence (possibility). With humans we know that both p and q are true. With unicorns we don't know if p is true, but we know that q is true because unicorns are hypothetically possible as opposed to hypothetically impossibile.

4) Like human and unicorn, we understand omnipotence (almightiness). Therefore either p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity) or q*) something omnipotent can come into existence (possibility)

This is either an argument from ignorance or an equivocation between the two meanings of the word "possible".
There is such a thing as logical possibility that is distinct from a real possibility.
If the argument is strictly one of real possibilities then it is an argument from ignorance to say because we do not know whether or not something is impossible, it therefore must be possible.

If not, then you are equivocating between those two meanings of the word possible.
It's logically possible that I have the power to shoot lasers out of my eyes, that the earth is flat or that narnia is a real place...
All of this is logically possible because it can be meaningfully communicated and comprehended, without being internally inconsistent or producing a contradiction.

But it may well be impossible in reality for those things to be true or even become true.
The limits of reality and the rules that govern how it functions, whatever they may be, might not permit all that logic permits...

Thus, your hypothetical possibility can just as easily be a hypothetical impossibility when talking about reality.
We may suppose that faster than light travel is possible or we may suppose it's impossible in reality, because we simply do not know one way or the other.
What we do know is that it's logically possible... which means we can write fiction about it that people will be capable of comprehending... much like with gods.

[Ecmandu]

I always say this to people:

Nobody gives a fuck about omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence!

Even YOU certainly real!

The ONLY omnistate that anyone cares about is:

Omnibenevolence!

Ask yourself this question: “is my consent being violated in any way, shape or form?”

If you answer “no” to this, you are some sort of bizarre sadist or masochist - there are hells for people like this, where they will “tap out” or “cry uncle”...

If you answer “yes” to this, then you know omnibenevolence hasn’t been born yet!

[Meno_]

I always say this to people:

Nobody gives a fuck about omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence!

Even YOU certainly real!

The ONLY omnistate that anyone cares about is:

Omnibenevolence!

Ask yourself this question: “is my consent being violated in any way, shape or form?”

If you answer “no” to this, you are some sort of bizarre sadist or masochist - there are hells for people like this, where they will “tap out” or “cry uncle”...

If you answer “yes” to this, then you know omnibenevolence hasn’t been born yet!

Or, You may not wish to contest it, not necessarily because intrinsically its not contestable, but because it may become contensciously regressive, ad absurdum.

The slippery slope can't reverse the loss of the force of gravity, when trying to go back the other way.

Just say'n one in the whole , always wanna return.

Don't expect much in terms of returns, diminishing or not. A kind of anti Sysy pus journey.

But the guy was right about narcissism, it is defensive against the ego, it tries ever so hard to dig itself out of a reabsortive state, to avoid the vicious tentacles of a gravity, best defined as situationally very grave.

But such absurdum, of regressions infinity, approaching the absurd better stay within the margins of poetry.

Mind You there is very much an attempt at inclusivity, yet the marginal restraints are intention laden by an unconscious need

[Certainly real]

It's logically possible that I have the power to shoot lasers out of my eyes, that the earth is flat or that narnia is a real place...

Consider this:
Can you think of something that is meaningful and coherent but can never exist? Consider round squares. We know they can never exist. What's the difference between a round square and a unicorn? We know that unlike a round square, a unicorn can exist and may well be existing right now in some other planet, galaxy, or universe. If a unicorn has never existed and can never exist, then it's just like a round square (can never exist has never existed). But it's not like a round square. The crucial difference is that existence accommodates unicorns, whilst it does not accommodate round squares.

Now consider the concept of omnipotence. It's not like a round square, and unlike a unicorn, it cannot come into existence. If we reject that that which is omnipresent is also omnipotent, then we are by definition saying that the concept of omnipotence is like a round square (existence cannot accommodate it). But this is absurd because omnipotence has a clear semantical value and it brings with it logical implications (nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state). So existence must be able to accommodate it.

There may well be parallel universes wherein which a place exists that matches the description of Narnia (provided that there is no absurdity inherent in Narnia). At the very least, there can be a place that matches the description of Narnia. Existence accommodates this. So if matter behave in a certain way or the Big Bang happened different, we could have a place like Narnia. What's the alternative, that we say Narnia is an impossibility? Aren't we then treating Narnia the same as a round square? Aren't we being inconsistent then?

It may well be that you develop the potential to shoots lasers out of your eyes. All it takes for these things to occur is for matter to behave in a certain way. And if we view existence as infinite and eternal (which we have to if we want to avoid paradoxes in our belief system) then the occurrence of all these possibilities (there being a parallel universe with you shooting lasers out of your eyes etc.) become more realistic.

Again, can you think of something that is meaningful and coherent but can never exist? And with that in mind, how do you account for concepts such as infinite, eternal, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence?

But it may well be impossible in reality for those things to be true or even become true.
The limits of reality and the rules that govern how it functions, whatever they may be, might not permit all that logic permits...

You cannot shoot lasers out of your eyes without the right circumstances being in place (it would be absurd otherwise). With the right physiological change occurring in you, you being able to shoot lasers out of your eyes, becomes reality. So you shooting lasers out of your eyes, is a hypothetical possibility. As in existence can bring it about. What's the alternative, that we say existence can't bring it about? Do we have any authority to say this?

You have in you the belief that the imagination is only limited by absurdities. If it's not absurd and it's not meaningless, you can imagine it. Yet when it comes to existence, you believe that existence is more limited. What justifies this belief? What has lead to this belief? Is it not more coherent rationally to view existence as able to bring about all meaningful and non-contradictory state of affairs?

If I am told there's a demon in my bathroom, as far as I'm concerned, it's a hypothetical possibility. I can imagine a demon in my bathroom, so at the very least, this means that matter or existence can behave in a way wherein which a demon in my bathroom occurs. Whether it does this or not is a different matter. But whether it can do this or not, the answer is that it certainly can (provided that there is nothing absurd about this)

Only when something is contradictory can we say...it is not true of existence or existence cannot bring it about
When something is not contradictory, we have to say...it is true of existence or existence can bring it about

[Mad Man P]

You have in you the belief that the imagination is only limited by absurdities. If it's not absurd and it's not meaningless, you can imagine it. Yet when it comes to existence, you believe that existence is more limited. What justifies this belief?

Because I can imagine contradictory realities.
I can not exist in a reality in which x is impossible and yet also possible, I must necessarily occupy only one of these realities...
But I can imagine both such realities and both are LOGICALLY coherent.

For example I can imagine a reality in which it's possible for me to shoot lasers out of my eyes by way of magic or other such supernatural power.
I can also imagine a reality in which no such forces exist, can exist or will ever exist... thus it would be impossible for me to shoot lasers out of my eyes, by such means.

I do not know any facts that directly contradict the existence of magic or a supernatural force that may permit me to shoot lasers out of my eyes.
But then, neither do I know of any facts that support the existence of such forces and therefore cannot exclude being in a reality where they do not and cannot exist...

This leaves me in a state of ignorance about which of these realities I occupy.
We can discuss what's reasonable to assume or infer from evidence but that's a different topic.

We do sometimes express this "not knowing" with the word "possible"... as in "it's possible that humans will one day build time machines" meaning "I have no idea if humans can build time machines"
But we also use that word to express things we DO know to be permitted in reality. Like "it's possible for humans to build cars" for example.
Equivocating between those two meanings is deceptive and logically unsound.

I would grant you omnipotence is "possible" in the sense of "I have no idea, but it's a coherent statement"... that is to say "logically possible"
But that does not lend itself to any argument without it being an argument from ignorance...
What you require for your argument is the "we know it can happen" affirmation... the "real possibility" which is distinct from logical possibility.

[Certainly real]

Because I can imagine contradictory realities.

For example I can imagine a reality in which it's possible for me to shoot lasers out of my eyes by way of magic or other such supernatural power.

I can also imagine a reality in which no such forces exist, can exist or will ever exist... thus it would be impossible for me to shoot lasers out of my eyes, by such means.

I can imagine a room, a country or a whole world that is devoid of electricity (these are hypothetically possible things of existence to bring about). I cannot imagine the whole of existence as having being always devoid of electricity or becoming entirely devoid of electricity (not hypothetically possible of existence). Negation is a thing our minds can do. For example, I take my phone out of the room, the room is no longer with my phone in it. I have negated the phone out of the room. When you apply negation to existence, logical problems occur. For example, try negating a phone from existence. You cannot because it is absurd for something to come in or go out of existence. So people who claim they can imagine these kinds of negations are mistaken about what it is they are actually imagining. It's like when someone claims they can imagine something coming from nothing. The "nothing" that they are imagining is not truly nothing. It is something. So it only looks as though they are imagining something coming from nothing.

You can imagine a world or a particular reality wherein which the kind of supernatural powers or magic you speak of don't exist. Shooting lasers out of one's eye is sufficiently and clearly meaningful. Therefore, this is something that existence can bring about.[/u]In other words, whilst I can credit you with imagining a world or reality that is devoid of such supernatural powers, I cannot credit you with imagining the whole of existence as being devoid of such supernatural powers. I can credit you with imagining existence as being devoid of square circles.

This leaves me in a state of ignorance about which of these realities I occupy.
We can discuss what's reasonable to assume or infer from evidence but that's a different topic.

My focus is not on one particular reality. If it was, your point would hold. I am referring to the whole of existence. Existence encompasses all realities.

We do sometimes express this "not knowing" with the word "possible"... as in "it's possible that humans will one day build time machines" meaning "I have no idea if humans can build time machines"
But we also use that word to express things we DO know to be permitted in reality. Like "it's possible for humans to build cars" for example.
Equivocating between those two meanings is deceptive and logically unsound.

But I'm not equivocating between those two meanings. We don't know if such a thing as a time machine is possible or not because a time machine is not clear and sufficient in meaning and logical implications. We don't know all the logical implication regarding it. So we cannot say time machines are a possible feature of existence. But for example, if you said something like flying cars, then clearly, flying cars are a possible feature of existence. We don't know if our human race will ever build flying cars, but we know that flying cars are a possible feature of existence.

We don't know if a 6th dimension is a possible feature of existence or not. So we don't know if it's a hypothetical possibility. But we know that flying cars, unicorns, humans, omnipotence...and all other sufficiently and clear meaningful terms are features of existence. I am not equivocating between these two uses of the word possible. If what I say is wrong, then you should be able to give me something sufficiently clear in meaning and logical implications (that is not absurd) that has never existed and can never exist.

I would grant you omnipotence is "possible" in the sense of "I have no idea, but it's a coherent statement"... that is to say "logically possible"

But logically speaking, omnipotence (like omnipresence/existence) is not a matter of possibility. Nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. For any given thing, when we don't have all the premises, it's possible that x is the case or x is not the case. When we have all the relevant premises, it's no longer a matter of possibility. It is a matter of necessity:

It is necessarily the case that unicorns are possible
It is possibly the case that time machines are possible
It is necessarily the case that square circles are impossible
It is possibly the case that existence has a 6th dimension
It is necessarily (not just possibly) the case that becoming omnipotent is impossible
It is necessarily (not just possibly) the case that omnipotence is a feature of existence or that existence is omnipotent

But that does not lend itself to any argument without it being an argument from ignorance...
What you require for your argument is the "we know it can happen" affirmation... the "real possibility" which is distinct from logical possibility.

[/quote]
The "we know it can or can't happen" is clear when the matter at hand is sufficiently meaningful and clear in its logical implications.

Can you give me something that is sufficient in meaning and logical implications (not absurd) that has never existed and can never exist?

[Certainly real]

I always say this to people:

Nobody gives a fuck about omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence!

Even YOU certainly real!

The ONLY omnistate that anyone cares about is:

Omnibenevolence!

Ask yourself this question: “is my consent being violated in any way, shape or form?”

If you answer “no” to this, you are some sort of bizarre sadist or masochist - there are hells for people like this, where they will “tap out” or “cry uncle”...

If you answer “yes” to this, then you know omnibenevolence hasn’t been born yet!

Hi Ecmandu

Consent only comes into play once free-will is established. Your consent was not violated. Every act that you willingly do, you consent to. Whether that act is good or evil, is another matter. If it is evil, then you are in effect consenting to being evil, and therefore making it perfection for you to suffer in Hell. If it is good, then you are in effect consenting to being good, and therefore making it perfection for you to be happy in heaven. Where has your consent been violated?

Peace,

Nyma

[Ecmandu]

Certainly real,

Even with free will it’s possible to never violate anyone’s consent forever.

When you stub your toe, did you decide that?

No. Was that your big plan for life that you worked up to?

[WendyDarling]

EC,
By not being careful when you act, you consent to the consequences of a stubbed toe.

[von Rivers]

'Possibility' can refer to physical possibility, or logical/conceptual possibility. Physical possibility is a more narrow. (E.g., It is conceptually possible to imagine an apple that defies gravity and falls upwards, but that is physically impossible).

Premise #5 is extremely dubious, and weak, and problematic for you when you disambiguate 'possibility'. Assuming it was strong, it would support only the conclusion that "omnipotence" is "conceptually possible" but "physically impossible". But why would anyone want to support that conclusion

This is usually a problem with ontological arguments that start from premises about what you can conceive of. --They end with conclusions only about what you can conceive of, not what actually exists or doesn't.

[Certainly real]

Certainly real,

Even with free will it’s possible to never violate anyone’s consent forever.

When you stub your toe, did you decide that?

No. Was that your big plan for life that you worked up to?

You have no control over what happens to you despite the appearance of things suggesting otherwise. You cannot harm or benefit yourself an atom's weight. At all times, you are at the mercy of the Omnipotent. It's not Omnipotent if its power is not absolute. So long as God is not evil, God is Perfect. Is your consent being violated an imperfection?

All you do, is consent to what you want to be in terms of good and evil. Every instance wherein which you choose something, you literally choose. You literally consent to it. Where something happens to you that you did not want to happen to you, it does not matter if you consented to it or not. What matter is whether it was perfectly deserved or not. Everyone getting what they truly/perfectly deserve, is perfection and necessarily true of Existence/God. If what happened to you was perfectly deserved, then that's perfection (even if you did not want it to happen to you or consent to it).

[Certainly real]

'Possibility' can refer to physical possibility, or logical/conceptual possibility. Physical possibility is a more narrow. (E.g., It is conceptually possible to imagine an apple that defies gravity and falls upwards, but that is physically impossible).

Premise #5 is extremely dubious, and weak, and problematic for you when you disambiguate 'possibility'. Assuming it was strong, it would support only the conclusion that "omnipotence" is "conceptually possible" but "physically impossible". But why would anyone want to support that conclusion

This is usually a problem with ontological arguments that start from premises about what you can conceive of. --They end with conclusions only about what you can conceive of, not what actually exists or doesn't.

I think I understand where you're coming from. I will try to convey to you where I'm coming from. Do you agree with the following:

Existence = Actually/truly infinite. Since Existence is Infinite, there is infinite time, space, and potential available for all hypothetical possibilities to come to pass. If something is hypothetically impossible, then it's not a hypothetical possibility. Thus Existence has to be truly infinite for all hypothetical possibilities to be truly hypothetically possible. If Existence was not truly Infinite, then an infinite number of items of thought or hypothetical possibilities could not exist.

Do you agree with the above?

[Zeroeth Nature]

Like human and unicorn, we understand omnipotence (almightiness). Therefore

What, you just wanted to leave it at that? Show us you understand omnipotence (almightiness)!

You can change omnipotence to true Perfection (God) and you will still get the same result.

Show us you understand true Perfection (God).

[Certainly real]

What, you just wanted to leave it at that? Show us you understand omnipotence (almightiness)!

That which can do all that is doable. That which can bring about all hypothetical possibilities. This is a semantical component of God/Existence/Omnipotence

Show us you understand true Perfection (God).

Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. Your 'perfect' life is made better by existing in a perfect existence as opposed to an imperfect existence. Thus perfection is only true of a perfect existence and there is nothing better or greater than a perfect existence.

If an existence is such that not everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve, then that existence is imperfect. Only an Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good, and Omnimalevolent towards evil Existence/God can guarantee that everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve (including Itself). Thus, Perfection is impossible without God/Existence.

Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of = a perfect existence = God existing
Perfection = a perfect existence = God existing
Perfection = God existing
God exists is a semantical component of Perfection just as being three sided is a semantical component of triangle.

A perfect existence is not perfect if it's not existing. Thus existing is a semantical component of Perfection.

[Zeroeth Nature]

What, you just wanted to leave it at that? Show us you understand omnipotence (almightiness)!

That which can do all that is doable. That which can bring about all hypothetical possibilities. This is a semantical component of God/Existence/Omnipotence

Show us you understand true Perfection (God).

Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of. There is nothing better than a perfect existence. Your 'perfect' life is made better by existing in a perfect existence as opposed to an imperfect existence. Thus perfection is only true of a perfect existence and there is nothing better or greater than a perfect existence.

If an existence is such that not everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve, then that existence is imperfect. Only an Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good, and Omnimalevolent towards evil Existence/God can guarantee that everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve (including Itself). Thus, Perfection is impossible without God/Existence.

Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of = a perfect existence = God existing
Perfection = a perfect existence = God existing
Perfection = God existing
God exists is a semantical component of Perfection just as being three sided is a semantical component of triangle.

A perfect existence is not perfect if it's not existing. Thus existing is a semantical component of Perfection.

What you demonstrate here is not understanding, just knowledge.

https://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/knowledge
https://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/understanding

And who says anyone deserves anything, by the way?

[Certainly real]

And who says anyone deserves anything, by the way?

The semantics of Existence, Perfection, good, and evil. All semantics are the way they are because Existence is the way It is. We are in Existence and we have access to these semantics. Thus, Existence says good deserves good and evil deserves evil.

[Zeroeth Nature]

And who says anyone deserves anything, by the way?

The semantics of Existence, Perfection, good, and evil. All semantics are the way they are because Existence is the way It is. We are in Existence and we have access to these semantics. Thus, Existence says good deserves good and evil deserves evil.

That doesn't follow. Also, what do "good" and "evil" mean? Is there more to them than just empty semantics?

[Certainly real]

And who says anyone deserves anything, by the way?

The semantics of Existence, Perfection, good, and evil. All semantics are the way they are because Existence is the way It is. We are in Existence and we have access to these semantics. Thus, Existence says good deserves good and evil deserves evil.

That doesn't follow. Also, what do "good" and "evil" mean? Is there more to them than just empty semantics?

It follows because semantics are infallible. If you want a more comprehensive answer, then I recommend that you read the first post here:

philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com

Let's say evil = that which is unfair/absurd and that that which is unfair/absurd treats x differently to how x ought to be treated. For example, if you treat a triangle like a square, then you are absurd because pure reason dictates triangles have three sides and squares have fours sides. You going against reason is you being unfair to Existence or absurd in relation to Existence.

So, if pure reason dictates Existence is Perfect (which it does) then it is absurd to treat or view Existence as anything other than Perfect. If you think x is a good person, you would not degrade x or treat as anything other than a good person (unless of course you are evil). So when pure reason (pure reason is higher in authority than empirical observations) dictates that Existence is Perfect, it takes evil/absurdity/unfairness to view It or treat It as other than that.

I am concerned by your belief that existence is paradoxical. How can you reason in a paradoxical existence? To say that you can reason in a paradoxical existence is to be absurd. I cannot reason with that which is absurd/paradoxical/irrational. None can do this. Not even you.

[Ecmandu]

You know Certainly Real,

Some of this is salvageable. Unfortunately zero sum realities (with winners and losers) are by definition imperfect. (Since you think semantics are perfect).

It’s possible (and I know this for a fact) for existence to be constructed so that everyone can manifest their desires without harming anyone in any way shape or form.

Win/Lose realities are our current system. I’m on the project of a better system. I’ve pointed out abysmal flaws in win/lose realities elsewhere on this board, and to be perfectly honest, I’ve barely scratched the surface of it here.

For example (per your argument): if god is the only being who knows what’s good or bad, and can be the ONLY being who knows this, then everyone else (by definition) is ignorant relative to God. If they knew what your hypothetical god knew, none of them would ever do stupid shut - EVER!

How exactly do you punish mentally regarded people... talk about ABSURD! (Which you just defined as evil) - therefor (by your own words) you just contradicted yourself