(May 26, 2018 at 2:29 pm)Edwardo Piet Wrote: I'm sure a similiar argument against God has been done in the past... but here is my formulation of an argument I call The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice.
The idea being, that if a perfect God always makes perfect choices then if he makes an imperfect choice then not all his choices are perfect so such a perfect God does not exist. Here's the argument:
Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.
My guess is that premise 2 is the only premise in dispute by most theists (most theists accept that God cannot do the logically impossible).
An example of premise 2 being true is a world that was otherwise exactly the same as the one we live in but just one less child died of cancer. That's a logically possible world that is an improvement on this one. And yet God hasn't chosen it, which means God's choice is imperfect, so if all God's choices are perfect then this means that such a God does not exist.
Discuss.
Premise (1) is not true. God chooses what is best. It is not logical that he would die on a cross. It is loving that he would die on a cross. This unravels your whole argument.
Premise (2) is also not true for two reasons:
(a) For your premise to be true, God would have to be able to control all the variables and therefore the outcomes. If God created people with free will, then he has by definition, subordinated his ability to control everything. Freewill entails a sinful world. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of some things.
(b) Your example has to be from a Christian worldview. Under such a worldview, a child dying of cancer is not the greatest loss. That child never existing would be a greater loss. OR, that child's life might have a butterfly effect of bringing about other greater goods. To support your premise, you would have to show this is not possible. You cannot do that.
With Premise (1) not being the case and Premise (2) being severely undercut, this argument fails to support the conclusion.