Why does Dawkins think it is wrong to posit that a paragon of 100% morals could theoretically exist?

Question

Let’s move on down Aquinas’s list. 4\\. The Argument from Degree >>We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God. >That’s an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute **any dimension of comparison** you like and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion. About Dawkins's counter-argument, I have two specific questions: 1. What's a "**dimension of comparison**"? How does it differ from just "a comparison"? 2. I read some counter-arguments and apologetics [here](http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_degree), but why does Aquinas's argument fail in general? 3. Why does Dawkins think it is "fatuous" to hypothesize that a paragon of 100% morals could theoretically exist?

Answer 1

NO, the smell is essentially physical and goodness is the spiritual working of a being insofar as he is not wholly material. I am reading on this now: Rickaby's abridgment and annotation of the Summa Contra Gentiles and Kretzmann's commentary The Metaphysics of Theism.

Dawkins could not (literally) be more wrong. If the Creator is responsible for what is good in the world and the finite cannot exhaust the in-finite then God is perfect goodness and all the goodness we see is partial

Dawkins is a very sloppy thinker and philosopher Mary Midgeley has made a career of pointing out how unsophisticated his thought is

God has Will and Intellect and because those are not material (it's more complicated than that but see the above books) The obvious counter-argument to Dawkins is "what goodness could be missing from God that a Dawkins would be in a position to know about? :)