Argument from Absoluteness

[max-greece]

Kind of on the spot, and sort of inspired by another argument I made a little while back, namely this one:

---

1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient paradigm of moral goodness itself. [From typical apologist response to the Euthyphro Dilemma]


2) The existence of moral evil in the world is the necessary result for God to actualize the best of all possible worlds: a world with creatures possessing free will in the libertarian sense and thus the only possible world with moral goodness. [From the Free Will Defense]

3) Either #1 is true or #2 is true.


4) If #1 is true, then the existence of moral evil in the world cannot be explained by an appeal to the intent to actualize the only possible world with moral good (#2), because the thing which can properly be called 'morally good' is God himself. [Necessary consequence of the Platonic answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma]


5) If #2 is true, then God cannot properly be called the paradigm of moral goodness because then true moral goodness is then possible by agents whom are not God.


C) Therefore, if God exists either #4 is true or #5 is true, but both cannot be.

---

So basically, the inspired argument goes something like this:

P1) To be absolute is to not exist in relation to anything else.

P2) If God exists, he exists in relation to his creation. [Both in terms of the properties he possesses (i.e his omnipotence vs. our impotence) and in terms of his wanting us to have a personal relationship with him]

C) Therefore, if God exists he cannot be absolute.

Might be a crap argument, but it came to mind as vaguely interesting.

This rather reminds me of a reverse ontological argument I posted on these forums a few months back.

Just to re-cap:

The original Ontological Argument:

Imagine the perfect entity, AKA God. The thing that would make that entity more perfect is if it existed. Therefore God exits.

My reverse (slightly improved from last time):

From observation we can deduce that nothing that exists is perfect. God is perfect. Therefore God doesn't exist.

As was pointed out in the original thread its not a particularly good argument. It is, however, IMHO a better argument than the original, if for nothing else, in that it does not contain the word imagine in a proof.

I have never seen any other proof that uses "imagine". Explanations of proofs may, but not the proofs themselves.