Argument For Arheism

God = Maximally Great Being
This argument is valid (Modus Tollens)

P1: If it a maximally great being exists, Then all contingent beings have all the properties a maximally great being would have except necessary existence

P2: Not all continent beings have all the properties a maximally great being would have except necessary existence.

C: A maximally great being does not exist

P2 is not controversial.

I will defend P1. . .

Since God is maximally great then he is maximally good. A maximally good being has all good making properties to the maximal extent. Being generous is a good making property. Therefore, A maximally good being has the property of being generous to the maximal extent. If a being is maximally generous, Then any being he creates would have all the qualities he does except necessary existence (as created beings cannot have necessary existence but must be contingent). After all, If it was not the case that any being a maximally generous being created had all the same qualities except necessary existence, Then he would be "holding back" on good making properties he could instantiate, Which contradicts his maximal generosity. He could not hold back due to limitation as a maximally great being is also maximally powerful. Therefore, The fact that we find ourselves existing instead of beings with all the qualities a maximally great being would have except necessary existence, Entails that a maximally great being (God) does not exist.

"There is God, And he is there in all his glory, And he creates a world which is infinitely inferior. . . The question is, Why did he not create another "god"" - Philosopher John Leslie

"Our consciousness is so genetically inadequate, It could not possibly reflect a God who would create us. . . With this astoundingly inadequate, Immature, Ignorant. . . Probably more morally evil than morally good. I cannot believe that a perfect being would create such things as humans. . . The main reason that God does not exist is that humans exist. That makes it self-evident that God does not exist. " - Philosopher Quentin Smith

"God would only actualize a world containing other gods who had everyone of his attributes accept necessary existence. . . " - Philosopher Horia Plugaru

I said continent instead of contingent in P2, My apologies.

Arheism?

Is that a mistype of atheism? Or something else? Also don't quite understand what you are saying in the post overall.

have you gotten out of freshman logic class yet? , Didn't think so

You forgot (Hidden) Premise 1. 5
I have a personal opinion fallacy just itching to be posted and laughed at. . .

The logic is airtight "skipsaweirdo", Anyone who has the cognitive faculties to understand logic should see that. Modus Tollens is a valid form of logic, The fact you did not know this just shows you really should not speak on what you do not know.

The concept of maximal generosity follows from maximal goodness. Maximal generosity entails giving as many good-making properties that you can to any being you create to the maximal extent. This means a maximally good being would create only the best contingent beings possible. Observation contradicts the hypothesis that the only contingent beings that exist are the best contingent beings possible. Therefore, Theism is confirmed as false.

I am sorry if simple logic is too complicated for you to grasp skipsawierdo. The only fallacy committed was your bare-assertion.

Listen up dummy, You plugged into modus tollens subject matter that isn't valid to be argued using that particular format. You would have learned this had you done something beyond first-semester freshman logic. . . . . So yeah, I'm the one who can't "grasp" your blathering. . . . . . . Bwhahahahahahahah

The logic is airtight skipsaweirdo

BWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. . . . . Sorry, Your ignorance is laughable. You are a waste of time

All you did was say it is not a valid subject matter to plug into Modus Tollens. The problem is that this is just a bare-assertion fallacy. You have given no reason to think what you said is true, You just behave immaturely even though you have given no reasoning to support your bizarre claim that Theism is not a valid subject matter. How are premises about God not a valid subject matter? You would basically have to say the philosophy of religion is not valid.

Either you are trolling, Or you are logically inept. Not to be rude, But, Since you want to act like a child perhaps I will point out your inadequacies.

Like I've said before Rationalthinker, You should change your name. Your ignorance of the use of modus ponens and tollens is your problem. It isn't an assertion, It's a fact. You would know this had you been educated past the use of wikipedia.
Your logic isn't sound nor even worth a conversation, That's why I tried to educate you on why "misusing" modus tollens and ponens results in a personal opinion fallacy. You simply started with something that you think is personally valid then argued in a circle.

P1 If rational thinker argues invalid subject matter via ignorance of the proper use of modus tollens, Then his conclusions are only his opinions
P2 Rational thinker argued invalid subject matter via modus tollens
C Therefore, His conclusions are only his opinions

Premise one is a given, Assuming you're educated enough to know it's true.
Premise 2 is an obvious extension if a logical train of thought is applied and comprehended. The conclusion therefore is sound.

Argument of Perpetual "Belief"-based Ignorance

P1 It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good, And
P2 Satan certainly requires "belief" in order that any "believer" "believe":
i. Evil is good
ii. Satan is god
iii. "belief" is in-and-of-itself a VIRTUE(? ), And
P3 Any all-knowing god(s) would know satan requires "belief"-in-and-of-itself for potency, Thus never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
C "Belief" in any god is satanic.

Argument of Perpetual "Belief"-based Ignorance

P1 It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good, And
P2 Satan certainly requires "belief" in order that any "believer" "believe":
i. Evil is good
ii. Satan is god
iii. "belief" is in-and-of-itself a VIRTUE(? ), And
P3 Any all-knowing god(s) would know satan requires "belief"-in-and-of-itself for potency, Thus never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
C "Belief" in any god is satanic.

Evil proves God

test

No - such a statement is necessarily ignorant. Defining evil is the problem-in-and-of-itself.

Once it is done, If ever acted upon a person is "entangled" in the good/evil dichotomy.

The argument implies that the two consume each other ad infinitum anyways, So to never choose one or the either accomplishes twofold i. Prevents any/all entanglements, And ii. Allows one to perceive what is there instead of what is "believed" to be there due to the adopted "good/evil" framework (ie. Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Therefor, All eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers" in either one or the other. Else: knowing any/all *not* to "believe" for.

Any all-knowing god would know it takes "belief" to ever "believe" evil is good.

No - such a statement is necessarily ignorant. Defining evil is the problem-in-and-of-itself.

Once it is done, If ever acted upon a person is "entangled" in the good/evil dichotomy.

The argument implies that the two consume each other ad infinitum anyways, So to never choose one or the either accomplishes twofold i. Prevents any/all entanglements, And ii. Allows one to perceive what is there instead of what is "believed" to be there due to the adopted "good/evil" framework (ie. Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Therefor, All eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers" in either one or the other. Else: knowing any/all *not* to "believe" for.

Any all-knowing god would know it takes "belief" to ever "believe" evil is good.

what a tard you are, Better add me to that list idiot

But the question is - what is evil?

Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.

So what is evil?

Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.

Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.

Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.

Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.

How would you argue against this?

That even if someone called themselves a moral nihilist, They're still a human, And would still act as a human and think as one. Seems human enough to me to react to world in terms of good and evil.

Also could call something subjectively evil.

Or come to the moral nihilism conclusion, Then stop looking at it because one finds it depressing and insanity inducing (Though not all people react that way).

That even if someone called themselves a moral nihilist, They're still a human, And would still act as a human and think as one. Seems human enough to me to react to world in terms of good and evil.

Also could call something subjectively evil.

Or come to the moral nihilism conclusion, Then stop looking at it because one finds it depressing and insanity inducing (Though not all people react that way).

ok