God is a morally perfect being

Okay, so I would define Morality as a rational enterprise made by conscious thinking. I have already defended the reasons for such a definition. Therefore if your definition is the basis for this argument then either refute my definition or your argument is useless. However, upon research, I have found that "moral intuition" does not defeat the moral argument. It is called the Argument for God from Moral Intuitions it was presented by Randy Everist of Moralapologetics.com I will give you the link: https://www.moralapologetics.com...= Addressing claim #1 I believe you have a semantic misunderstanding of the Moral Argument. The Euthyphro Dilemma the Moral argument shows that I am not just arbitrary grounding morality in God. I have looked at the Ontology or Morality and have logically deduced that Moral facts and duties must be grounded in a rational, necessary and unchanging source. The title of that being is God. The ontology of benevolence shows thus using rationality of which Morality can be deciphered. God if one exists is omniscient and thus would know what is right and wrong. You see the Good is just titled, God. The Good is not something different let dependent on him but instead, the Good is the necessary, rational, unchanging source in whom we would call God. Basically the Good=God and God=Good. A being worthy of our praise and worship. Reading your other thought I wonder whether you read my elaboration on the Moral argument in my first post which includes three new premises and a defence of Moral realism. Addressing Claim #2 I defended Moralism Realism in my first argument. I will take the time to define what Moral Realism is. Moralism Realism is defined as the following: Beyond our Cognition, there are actual Moral facts and duties we are discovering and learning about We can tap into this through a cognitive sense. We can use these moral facts to better operate in morality Moral facts would be true even if no humans believe them. A good example of this is Science. People debate over how to interpret Scientific data but no matter what we know that Science is stance independent and that it can explain a world that we know exists through our external senses. This does show that humans are not morally perfect beings and are still discovering moral truths and duties just like when various groups disagree about science it only shows we do not have a mastered understanding of the universe. Morality like Science is not dependent on humans as we are still discovering our morality but that does not disprove objective moral truths (moral realism). Another example is how Morality is not dependent on humans even though we moral actions are caused by us. Like the Laws of Logic, Moral Realism would be true even if no human was around to write them down. Moral Rationalism also removes the philosophy of Moral Universalism which is the idea that Moral laws are unbreakable. A videos addressing Sam Harris: The apparent moral relativism is an issue of Factual error, for example, Africans who believe it is right to kill deformed infants because they were made by an evil spirit but any other infant is to be spared. It is a matter of epistemology not ontology. Evolutionary Biology does not remove God. Evolution particularly Process structuralism of which I am an adherent would only show how we can to know Moral facts and duties, not their origin or ontology. As I said Morality is a rational enterprise it can be deciphered using rationality and reason but as I have defended Moral realism. I have shown that Morality cannot be based on naturalism particularly Human naturalism. It is based in a being higher than us to whom the title of God applies. As a relativist, you DO have to consider all morality equal as your morals are not greater than that of the KKK and school shooters. A being who is perfectly Altruistic would in your context as I understand it would be given the title of God as explained in the Moral Argument. The Ontological argument would address the idea of polytheism and your other thoughts. If you would Like I can further discuss this. To conclude God =Good and Good=God. Moral Realism exist and leads back to Good On your question. No God cannot because while God has the power he only functions in the Laws of Logic and it contradicts for God to create a stone he cannot lift. Blessings