(October 10, 2013 at 1:55 am)max-greece Wrote: "3. if God is morally perfect, he wouldn't want evil in the world."
If this is a basic tenet of the argument then you cannot go on to define morality as:
"moral evil is the deliberate disobedience against God and his commandments."
This makes defining God as "morally perfect" a nonsense.
I'm going to have another go at this - because either I am missing something or I am not expressing myself very well:
There is nothing in the definition of moral perfection in the above to relate it to the concepts of good and evil.
If moral perfection is to follow God's commandments then those commandments could be good, or evil, or neither.
For example:
God issues a commandment not to eat pork.
There is nothing inherently evil about eating a pork chop as against a beef steak.
Or:
God instructs a man to sacrifice his son to him.
This is an inherently evil commandment and a totally pointless one. You cannot argue a "test of faith" case for an omniscient god. He already knew what the man would do.
We can conclude therefore that whether or not one follows God's morality is entirely independent of good and evil in an objective sense.
Therefore you can't even state:
"3. if God is morally perfect, he wouldn't want evil in the world."
