God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Mister Agenda]

Nice attempt at deflecting the question. In a purely natural Universe why would might not make right?

Because might does not make right in any universe. Might is irrelevant to what is morally good or justified, except that with great mightiness comes great responsibility.

How is that a non-sequitur? We use the exact same reasoning daily, Walt Disney owns Mickey Mouse. Makes perfect sense.

Mickey Mouse is a character, not a person. If you want a good analogy, think of an example where it's okay to own a person.

SW, sorry not to reply to your response to me in full. The gist of your position seems so like circular reasoning and presupposition to me that I can't fathom a way to interpret it otherwise.

Presupposition is not the same thing as circular reasoning so you’ll have to be more specific as to which I am invoking.

Both: "God is good because He is the ultimate standard of goodness, I start there not end there."--SW

If you're a presuppositionalist there's no point in trying to reason with you, you abandoned reason entirely when you decided it's okay to take assuming you're right as your axiom. That's a rabbit hole, and I don't see anything rational to be gained by following you down it.

Convenient. Everyone has axioms and there is nothing irrational about having them as long as they lead to a coherent and consistent conceptual scheme.

The rationality of an axiom depends on how self-evident it is, not the quality of the schemes you can erect on it.

Besides, you apparently believe we all secretly agree with you anyway, and what's the point of having a discussion with someone like that?

Everyone knows God exists that’s correct (Romans 1), I cannot figure out why you seem so surprised that you’re debating a Christian who actually believes what the Bible says.

I'm not surprised by your belief in it, I'm surprised by your need to say it to us when it's obvious to any idiot it just makes you and other Christians sound like you never progressed past a playground level of argumentation. It's actually counter-productive, like telling me I'm going to go to hell if I don't convert: I already know your position on that, what would be news is if you DIDN'T think that, but hearing you say it reminds me that your religion requires you to believe that I'm consigned to eternal torture and that you agree that's my just fate, that it's what SHOULD happen to me. Watching you lot stumble around ignoring the rather good advice of Jesus to be 'as wise as serpents and harmless as doves' is actually gratifying as I could never do more to discredit theism than what the evangelists for it do. Jesus is never portrayed as trying to convince someone who didn't believe the rest of it that they'd go to hell if they don't accept him as their saviour, but what did he know, eh?

I do not see how that makes discussion pointless however. It’s a shame because you are one of the more enjoyable posters to engage with on here.

-

It would be easier to say the same about you if you weren't sniggering that I already believe you. Apparently you don't believe that 'a fool says in his heart, there is no God'. And if Paul were divinely inspired, you'd think he would come up with something better than the fallacy of affirming the consequent to make his case.