Then you misunderstood his point, which is not necessarily his fault and certainly not the fault of his analogy. He defined the property relation in this way: just as charge and mass are properties of fundamental particles, such that without the latter the former is unintelligible, so goodness is a property of God, such that without God goodness is unintelligible. You can push is analogy to extents he never intended with it, but that is your doing and not his. All analogies break down if you push them far enough. But why not contend with the analogy as he presented it, instead of pushing it to extent he did not?
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
