Apologists continue to attempt to argue that god is a logical conclusion. I am unable to get my head around this contention. Not because I lack the intelligence to understand, I am simply unable to do the mental backflips that seem to be required to make the argument that god is a logical conclusion. It seems as though they inject the word god into a premise without demonstrating what they mean by god. I’ve heard many definitions of what people call god. Yet none of them are logically sound. My favorite is the “maximally great being”. What does this mean? They attempt to explain that it means that god is the maximum being that one can imagine. My first issue with that is that I am apparently able to imagine a greater being than they are. A maximally great being, in my mind, would not create anything. Why? Because it would be maximally great! It would be complete without need or desire. Need or desire drive creativity. A perfect being would have no conceivable reason to create anything.
Let’s assume that this maximally great being that I envision does decide to create. I would envision a maximally great being free from ego. This means that it would have no desire to let its creations know that it exists. It would simply observe. Which of course is odd in of itself, because that would suggest that it wanted to see what would happen next. Do we see why a creator god runs into problems if we want to give it the property of perfection? Any action it would desire to take would seemingly contradict perfection.
I will reduce my expectations of a maximally great being a notch or two. I still have serious questions about the “creations” I observe. I cannot imagine these creations to come from the mind of a perfect being. Perhaps that’s because I myself am not perfect. Perhaps if I was, I could understand why it would make such flawed creations. From the seemingly wasted space of…aaaaah… space, to the numerous errors in biology. The religious keep telling me that I cannot deny a god if I look around at the awesomeness of existence. When I look around, I do see existence as awesome. That perspective changes if we inject a perfect creator. It is no longer awesome. It becomes less than mediocre. Why? Because I would expect better from a perfect being. Which is why I say, I can apparently imagine a greater being than they can. It doesn’t matter that they claim that I don’t understand their god. I am strictly speaking to the definition of god being a being that none greater can be conceived. To me that seems a logical absurdity. Because, it would appear that one can always conceive something greater. I could be wrong. Tell me what you think in the comments section below.