It would repetitious but in your own words and then I can talk to you as opposed to many people.
To kind of illustrate how your objection doesn't make sense to me. If a person argues:
If God is benevolent, then there would be no evils/suffering in this world.
There are evils/suffering in this world.
God is not benevolent or doesn't exist.
Does it make sense to say "You have to believe in God to believe in that argument?". No because he is using it as a just hypothetical to argue that benevolent God is not compatible with this world. In other words he is using God to show God is impossible (specially if we define ultimate being as requiring to be benevolent (ie. to be worthy of ultimate reverence (worship) it must be benevolent).
That is not to say he is even assuming God exists or is even possible for the argument to work out. For example, it maybe God is rational impossibiltiy for other reasons (contradictions in attributes for example or whatever reason). However this argument works if premises are true regardless if God is possible or not. It doesn't assume he is.
I don't know what else I can show that I am not assuming a Creator exists for the argument to work, It's showing in a hypothetical world hypothetically in any possible world with any possible Creator sort of thing.
To kind of illustrate how your objection doesn't make sense to me. If a person argues:
If God is benevolent, then there would be no evils/suffering in this world.
There are evils/suffering in this world.
God is not benevolent or doesn't exist.
Does it make sense to say "You have to believe in God to believe in that argument?". No because he is using it as a just hypothetical to argue that benevolent God is not compatible with this world. In other words he is using God to show God is impossible (specially if we define ultimate being as requiring to be benevolent (ie. to be worthy of ultimate reverence (worship) it must be benevolent).
That is not to say he is even assuming God exists or is even possible for the argument to work out. For example, it maybe God is rational impossibiltiy for other reasons (contradictions in attributes for example or whatever reason). However this argument works if premises are true regardless if God is possible or not. It doesn't assume he is.
I don't know what else I can show that I am not assuming a Creator exists for the argument to work, It's showing in a hypothetical world hypothetically in any possible world with any possible Creator sort of thing.
