You're listening to, atheistically speaking. Oh, Hello and welcome to atheistically speaking. I'm your host Thomas Smith and this is

episode 211. And we're here today to continue the discussion with Matt Dilla Honey and Blake Junta.

So why don't we just get right back to it?

Can I ask you something, Matt if you did or were to accept for the sake of

argument that premise would you still have problems with the rest of the argument?

Do you think it still follows follows I mean if we're

talking about a perfectly loving God and we grant that part how do you feel

about the argument we haven't really talked about that probably because it wasn't

your argument yeah so I mean it's Shelenburg's argument.

So my problem begins at the first premise, but if I were to accept the premise and say that if a god exists, he's good or is the greatest good or whatever.

Therefore, God is perfectly loving.

I think perfectly loving is a very, very, very ill-defined term that is kind of weasily because it prays on our

understandings of love and we I don't know that we could ever understand what

perfect love is or if that sentence or that statement even makes any sense. I think it's it's perhaps an

over simplification and I don't know what conclusions you can draw from it. If you say

that you know this is a perfectly

delicious dessert, I don't know what that means other than you really really like it.

It's probably not the best way to address that.

I know what you mean though. I think that's a problem that I think I've discussed with Blake before and other

believers I think that believers have this idea that we can extend all these

properties to their maximum perfect conclusion but it and God is sort of the

sum of all these infinite properties.

...