From an "unknown greater good" to "evil is necessary to prove God's existence" it's all a lot of hooey and post hoc justification.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
From an "unknown greater good" to "evil is necessary to prove God's existence" it's all a lot of hooey and post hoc justification.
Wow. Unbelievably turgid arguments, based throughout on a lack of differentiation between "evil" and "suffering", between the existence of a hypothetical divinity and his moral nature. I'm not trying to take a position one way or the other. Just pointing out that, while there may be some good points to be made here, the development of those points is unbelievably sloppy.