DIss0n80r wrote:The point Hum made, as I see it, is that a deity cannot be defined as equivalent solely to all that we call virtuous without effectively being limited and thus not God.
humphreys wrote:You're just changing the meaning of words now, that won't fly.
The "great" in "maximal greatness" has never meant maximal goodness, or implied an inability to commit evil acts. You say God is the totality of all that exists. Well, evil exists, so God has evil within his nature by necessity.
If that is the case, and greatness is merely goodness, a maximally great God would not encompass anything evil, and therefore a maximally great being cannot be the totality of everything that exists, that includes evil and unjustice.
Do you see that? By changing the meaning of the word you have made your case even weaker.
DIss0n80r wrote:This is a good example of why it's a waste of time to try to reason with people who hold strong irrational beliefs.
khanster wrote:DIss0n80r wrote:This is a good example of why it's a waste of time to try to reason with people who hold strong irrational beliefs.
Like your particular irrational belief that square circles can exist ...OK...
khanster wrote:God is maximally great and God does not perform actions which are not great.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests