At 8:02 PM, Francois Tremblay said…
Define moral righteousness (a weaker claim than omnibenevolence) as such:
"Posit a volitional being B. When making a choice where there is at least one perfect alternative and the cost of the implementation of all alternatives are identical (or in the case of a god, where the cost is automatically zero), B will choose a perfect alternative if B is morally righteous."
(1) If a god exists, then it is Creator.
(2) If a god exists, then it is morally righteous.
(3) Given (1) and (2), a god would not have created a non-perfect universe (defined as containing natural or human evil/suffering).
(4) We observe natural and human evil/suffering.
(5) No god exists. (from 3 and 4)
So a perfect God would have created a perfect universe? This of course means that a universe completely under his own control would be a better universe than one which contains creatures that have freedom in the libertarian sense. If creatures have freedom in the libertarian sense, then it's possible that those creatures will make it less than perfect despite God's wanting it to be perfect.
Further, if the universe isn't God himself, and God is the standard of perfection, then the universe, however good, would fall short of the standard of perfection, namely God.