Here is an argument presented by a person named “Rob” on the social media platform called Clubhouse. He denies that God exists based on the moral imperfection in the world. So, I asked him if he would provide me with the argument. He gave me this URL:  https://pastebin.com/yL7umbWg.  Here is the reproduction of the argument.  His original points are in bold.  I added my comments after each of his points in this color.

• P1: If God exists, then God is a morally perfect being.
  1. Since there are many different contradictory concepts of God, which God is being proposed?
     1. The God of Mormonism continues to progress in his wisdom which implies moral progression and a lack of “perfection.”
     2. The God of Islam does not progress in his wisdom but deceives people by his direct hand (Surah 4:157)
     3. The God of Christianity (a Trinity) does not progress in wisdom, does not deceive people by his direct hand, but allows evil to exist.
     4. Process theology says God is growing in wisdom and knowledge, which implies moral change and a lack of moral perfection.
     5. Open theists say God does not know all things exhaustively; thus his moral decisions can change.
  2. How is it determined that the definition of moral perfection is universally true so that it can be compared to whatever God is under examination?
     1. I only affirm the Christian, Trinitarian God.
     2. If the definition of morally perfect is not universally true, how can it be applied to any concept of God?
  3. The Christian perspective is that God reveals His moral character through the Scriptures.
     1. Therefore, God’s moral perfection is self-revealed and God is His own standard.
     2. To argue a standard that is external to the Christian God is to not properly represent the Christian God.
  4. Within the Christian perspective of God, since his moral perfection is self-revealed and He allows moral imperfection (that which is contrary to his moral character), then it necessarily follows that His allowance of moral imperfection is not a logical contradiction since both exist within his sovereign character and will.
• P2: The world is morally imperfect now.
  1. Without a standard by which moral perfection can be determined, how would anyone know if the world is morally imperfect? (See P1, 2 above)
  2. Actions such as rape, murder, theft, etc., from a Christian perspective, are morally wrong because God has revealed, from his character, that they are wrong.
  3. But since it is the will of the Christian God to permit them to occur, then there is an aspect of God’s character that works in harmony with his self-revealed moral perfection, that permits “evil” to occur. 
  4. If someone asserts that the previous point (3) is self-contradictory, then he must establish how the Christian God who, by definition, is the standard of moral uprightness and also allows moral failure to exist, is incoherent.
• P3: If God is a morally perfect being, then his actions cannot decrease the degree of moral perfection of the world.
  1. What is it mean to “decrease the degree of moral perfection in the world”?
  2. Why can’t the God of Christianity who reveals His moral character (moral perfection?) in Scripture, also not allow people to sin (moral imperfection?) against Him?
  3. Where is the logic that justifies P3?
• P4: If God is a morally perfect being, then prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect.
  1.  To say that there was a condition prior to God creating anything, and then to also state that in that same condition the world existed is incoherent.
  2. Without a universally applicable definition of moral perfection, this premise is meaningless.
  3. What is meant by “world”? Is it plants, rocks, water, or only people?
• P5: If prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect and the world is morally imperfect now, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world.
  1. To say that there was a condition prior to God creating anything, and then to also state that in that same condition the world existed is incoherent.
• C1: If God exists, then his actions cannot decrease the degree of moral perfection of the world. (P1, P3 Hypothetical Syllogism)
  1. What justifies this statement as being true?
  2. Just saying it is so, doesn’t make it so
• C2: If God exists, then prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect. (P1 and P4 Hypothetical Syllogism)
  • Again: To say that there was a condition prior to God creating anything, and then to also state that in that same condition the world existed is incoherent.
• C3: If the world is morally imperfect now, then if prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world. (P5 Rule of Exportation)
  • What does it mean to say the world was “morally perfect”? Again, without this being defined, the assertion is ultimately meaningless.
• C4: If prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world. (P2, C3 Modus Ponens).
  • Once again: To say that there was a condition prior to God creating anything, and then to also state that in that same condition the world existed is incoherent.
  • I’m surprised that this repeated incoherent premise is offered.
• C5: If God exists, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world.
  • There are different levels of God’s action: Ultimate Cause (the foundation of an event); Proximate Caus (the condition of the event); and Efficient Cause (the agent of the event).
• (C2, C4 Hypothetical Syllogism)
• C6: God does not exist (C1, C5 Negation Introduction)
  • Due to the numerous problems in this argument, obviously, the conclusion isn’t valid.