Actually, I have to support Chad's position here.
A formally positive claim was made : Proof of god's non-existence.
The proof provided was incomplete : It never assumed omnipotence on god's part and yet assumed he had the power to create the perfect world.
The proof did not specify what was meant by the terms: If good and evil are objective concepts then their objectivity was never established. If they are subjective concepts, then upon whose subjective judgment do they rely and why should that be considered standard.
The argument assumes facts not established: Such as evil exists.
Finally, the argument is logically invalid: The best possible world (with minimal possible evil) is not the same as a perfect world (no evil). Omnibenevolence - the infinite desire to do good, does not imply the infinite capacity to do good.
All the arguments leveled against common and similarly shoddy theistic arguments for the existence of god are valid against this proof of his non-existence as well. Turnabout is fair play.
A formally positive claim was made : Proof of god's non-existence.
The proof provided was incomplete : It never assumed omnipotence on god's part and yet assumed he had the power to create the perfect world.
The proof did not specify what was meant by the terms: If good and evil are objective concepts then their objectivity was never established. If they are subjective concepts, then upon whose subjective judgment do they rely and why should that be considered standard.
The argument assumes facts not established: Such as evil exists.
Finally, the argument is logically invalid: The best possible world (with minimal possible evil) is not the same as a perfect world (no evil). Omnibenevolence - the infinite desire to do good, does not imply the infinite capacity to do good.
All the arguments leveled against common and similarly shoddy theistic arguments for the existence of god are valid against this proof of his non-existence as well. Turnabout is fair play.
