Originally posted by Coletti
Definition are propositions. And all arguments are propositional. Since you have an undefined term, your argument has no weight.
The note on being ethically neutral is a red herring. Your argument depends on an understanding of what is the greater good (which is key to premise (2). But you can't get to (2) until you define moral. And since your (im ...[text shortened]... inition of moral is antithetical to the definition of God, the argument is begging the question.
Morally perfect is defined as above, hence it is defined. Moreover, the definition provided is
entailed by the theists own view, so no theist can reject it.
No matter what ethical theory ends up correct (except flat out skepticism), according to every theory (the theist's included), there will be some criterion or criteria in virtue of which some acts or events or states of affairs are morally preferable to others.
Given this, moral perfection is defined as above.
As far as the greater good is concerned, the theist can construe that however s/he prefers. The term, like all the explicitly moral terms in this argument, is meant to be neutral as to ethical theory. Every ethical theory will postulate that some ways the world could be would be better than other ways the world could be, and the theist is no different.
You are simply wrong that anything in my argument is question begging. Every moral term used is neutral as to ethical theory. The theist may conceive of 'morally preferable', 'greater good', and so on in a manner that accords with their faith. Nothing in the argument depends on this.