Tyler Durden

I agree, but for different reasons.
Fallacy of reification. Malevolence is not a substance, but the absence of the good. See, I can do Platonism as well as the best theologian.
Wrong. All benevolence does not require the treatment of everything as a substance. Try again!
Wrong. You mischaracterize the beliefs of the majority of theologians and Christians as theological absurdities, because I think they get the short shrift from the regulars here, and some in fact do not date back to the Dark Ages, but further back.But what justifies your presumption that you speak for the correct version better than anyone else? How does anyone know who has the true direct line to whoever is supposed to be God? I know, you want us to take your word for it, as opposed to a rigorous analysis.

Tyler Durden

An omnimax God is not a logical absurdity. The existence of unwarranted suffering is incongruent with the hypothetical omnimax God, who would be perfect in all possible worlds. Hence, the only conclusion from a hypothetical omnimax God and the existence of evil is that there is no such omnimax being.
Wrong. By the way, I regret to inform you, but Douglas Adams already cornered the market on humorous atheology 20 years ago.
Again, you are committing the fallacy of ambiguity or reification. Sloppy theistic reasoning is par for the course, I guess.
At least, you understand this.
Not at all. The only solution to such painful ignorance is death. All kidding aside, this is a species of the black and white fallacy, as well as a candidate for a non sequitur. There are more choices available to you than either brainfart.

NonContradiction

What are you talking about?


From my link: Of course, it should be noted that hypostatization is really just the use of metaphor - but, as a fallacy, it is metaphor which has been taken too far. It can be very useful to employ metaphors and abstractions in what we write, but they carry a danger in that we can begin to believe, without realizing it, that our abstract entities have the concrete attributes we metaphorically ascribe to them.

Where did I use any metaphors? If God doesn't love malevolence, then He isn't all-loving. If God does love malevolence, then He isn't all-benevolent. Where are the metaphors which I am taking too far? Where am I ascribing substance to mental concepts or constructs?

Please point out my sloppy theistic reasoning. Where are the abstract entities that I am ascribing concrete attributes to them metaphorically. You are falsely accusing me of commiting the fallacy of reification because you don't want to admit that what I am saying is true.

NonContradiction

You first agreed with me that an omnimax God was a logical absurdity. Then you turned around and said that an omnimax God wasn't a logical absurdity. It all sounds absurd to me.

NonContradiction

Are you sure that you want to say that? So a God that is logically absurd is superior to a God who isn't? So the only two choices that I have are between a logically absurd God or an inferior God?

What other choices are available to me? Any god, according to you, other than the omnimax version, would be an inferior lesser god. Therefore, it does appear as though my only choice is between a logically absurd omnimax God (superior God) or an inferior God. Atheism isn't a choice here because the PoE assumes the existence of God. In conclusion, I think that you are being grossly unfair here.

NonContradiction

I don't deny omniscience or omnipotence since to deny them would imply that God is ignorant of something or has a weakness.

In regards to God's benevolence and love, I believe that the only limitations on God's love and benevolence are logical. As I said before, if God doesn't love malevolence, then He isn't all-loving. If He does love malevolence, then He isn't all-benevolent. Logically speaking, God cannot be all-loving and all-benevolent. However, if one could quantify God's love or benevolence, then there would be no limitation. As God's power has logical constraints, so does God's benevolence and love. I don't believe that these logical constraints imply imperfection.