RE: Argument from evil, restated
May 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm by John V.)
(May 23, 2013 at 3:20 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The tree would be the loaded gun. If there's no tree, there's no sin. I really cannot see what was the necessity of the entire farce, what goal God wanted to achieve that could not have been done without blatant entrapment.If there's no tree, there's no righteousness. It amazes me that you guys never think of the flip side. There's two ways to know evil and good. Doing evil...or doing good. If A&E consider the serpent's temptation and reject it, they become righteous.
Quote:You could do that with any possible example of malevolence.No, you can't do it with examples that really fit the definition of malevolence. Failing to prevent evil doesn't fit the definition. Maybe it made more sense in the original.
(May 23, 2013 at 3:20 pm)Godschild Wrote: Yes they have. If an atheist were to start questioning his/her ideas on this forum you and the rest would be screaming to the top of the mountain, you can't do that, it's not right. If one of you were to inquire into Christianity you would call them intellectually dishonest.Yes, IIRC FTR was contemplating deism some time back, and I don't recall him being congratulated by all the atheists.
