If materialism is true then you are correct. I don't think it is, but that's my own opinion. You could be right.
I'm 200% sure I'm right. Hyperbolically speaking. Of course, that doesn't mean I am
Wait, I thought you said it had to be two contradictory things: IE: Omnipotent and omniscient, you didn't say anything about it being benevolent.
I added that, in order to be worthy of worship
, a god also needs to be benevolent. In other words, it's not necessary for a god to be benevolent, unless said god also wants to be worthy of worship.
Anselm was a theologian and philosopher who argued that god exists by definition; I was saying that you appear to be making the same mistake in exactly the other direction: IE: That God 'doesn't' exist by definition. The problem is that both of you appear to have designed definitions for god that suit your respective view of the issue.
I defined what a god is to suit my search for perfection. During said search, I realized that "perfect" was unattainable, but an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being was the closest to "perfect" one could get.
Yes, but you seem a little dogmatic about it. Assuming materialism isn't wrong, materialism may be true. Stating it as an established truth is an error.
Assuming String theory isn't wrong, it may be true. Assuming anything
isn't wrong, it may be true. Where exactly is the relevance of that?
I state it as an established truth because it's what the evidence tells me. If you have evidence that materialism is wrong, present it. Put up or shut up, as it were.