As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
This would also make god imperfect.
Just for the sake of argument… According to what standard? Yours? Why should we follow your standard?
My standard is logic, reason, and evidence.
Why shouldn’t you follow my standard?
From my other comment:
Assuming you don’t believe in God…
Basically you’re in no position to determine whether God is imperfect or not if you can’t justify the tools you use to make that assessment.
Prove it exists, then we’ll worry about if it’s perfect.
I just did using the transcendental argument. God is the necessary precondition for universals such as logic and reason. They exist therefore God exists and these universal metaphysics are a reflection of his divine mind.
What is the epistemic justification for your world view? Make sure not to use universals or subjective experience because the former is in question and the latter is arbitrary.
You didn’t prove it, you made another claim that you have to prove.
What is the standard of proof for the transcendental?
Emperical evidence.
It needs to be testable and reproducible.
There’s no evidence that souls and spirits even exist.