Hi Arcanus
Thanks for the comments. I accept that those suffereing black swan fallacy should contain a 'probably' there is no god. See earlier in this thread.
As for defeaters around the logical problem of evil and reasonable unbelief. I am not sure that they are as strong as you indicate. They largely rest upon adding a third premise which is consistent with both 1) a god being all good and 2) there being evil or hell etc etc. Plantingas free will defence being right up there with them. The problem with these "defeaters" is that they are themselves defeated see Ray Bradleys forensic rebuttal of both Platniga and Lane Craig.
As for the non-sequitor on freewill/divine commandments. I think that is wrong, there is a problem there for the theist; unless you want to redefine free will?
Thanks for the comments. I accept that those suffereing black swan fallacy should contain a 'probably' there is no god. See earlier in this thread.
As for defeaters around the logical problem of evil and reasonable unbelief. I am not sure that they are as strong as you indicate. They largely rest upon adding a third premise which is consistent with both 1) a god being all good and 2) there being evil or hell etc etc. Plantingas free will defence being right up there with them. The problem with these "defeaters" is that they are themselves defeated see Ray Bradleys forensic rebuttal of both Platniga and Lane Craig.
As for the non-sequitor on freewill/divine commandments. I think that is wrong, there is a problem there for the theist; unless you want to redefine free will?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
