This presentation goes well until it gets to dismantling the definitions of the syllogistic argument. The terms good and evil can be defined by the god. If evil, as defined against the god, exists in the world, then the argument still stands valid. What the argument presents is an internal refutation. A god that is all good and omnipotent is self-refuting. I considered a stronger form of the argument one that also includes if the god is omniscient related to creating the world.
Defining good as the stuff we like and evil as the stuff we don't like in no way kills the argument. It just means such a god does not exist. The supposed simplification of the argument is a mischaracterisation of the argument.
This presentation goes well until it gets to dismantling the definitions of the syllogistic argument. The terms good and evil can be defined by the god. If evil, as defined against the god, exists in the world, then the argument still stands valid. What the argument presents is an internal refutation. A god that is all good and omnipotent is self-refuting. I considered a stronger form of the argument one that also includes if the god is omniscient related to creating the world.
Defining good as the stuff we like and evil as the stuff we don't like in no way kills the argument. It just means such a god does not exist. The supposed simplification of the argument is a mischaracterisation of the argument.