Posted: Apr 29, 2012 1:00 am
Mick wrote:
There's no necessary reason for atheists to reject this definition unless they think that goodness exists.
In general, someone (atheist or otherwise) with an IQ somewhat higher than that of a developmentally-disabled gastropod will reject the definition because it is necessary to the circularity of the argument. Circular argument is a necessary property of theology, and there is just no percentage in calculating theology for an evil god.
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.
Sure, if you say so, Alvin. Say hi to Simon and Theodore for me.