(December 15, 2015 at 8:30 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 2:02 pm)athrock Wrote: Evil is the absence of good. It does not actually exist as a "thing" itself. Consequently, "not existing in all possible worlds" is simply the absence of "existing in all possible worlds" and that is an evil thing - not a good thing - for a maximally supreme being which must, by definition, be "good".
"Good" and "maximally supreme" are not synonyms. At all. You're equivocating the use of the word "good" in the moral sense and in a sense of (suspiciously undefined) greatness. This point makes no sense.
If I did, it wasn't intentional. But I think what I wrote still makes sense.
(December 15, 2015 at 2:02 pm)athrock Wrote: And no, "maximally great" is not another way of saying "omnipotent". We can conceive of a god who is all-powerful but NOT omniscient and thus unable to prevent all evil. But a maximally great god must be both omnipresent and omnipresent along with a bunch of other stuff.
Is there anything limiting this "maximally great" being? Can it do whatever it wants?[/quote]
As long as it is not self-contradictory. The classic "Can God make a square circle" argument comes to mind.
(December 15, 2015 at 2:02 pm)athrock Wrote:Quote:Which is why the skeptic's problem of evil objection fails, btw.
Well, I'm not making that objection, so, whatever. My objection is that you are making unsupported assertions and then making complete leaps in your premises to get to your conclusion.
Thank you. Please keep me honest and on my toes.
