Let’s assume a different starting point for the trilemma hurdle.
See, skeptics sometimes pose a theist trilemma.
And I have referenced 5 common objections.
But even if you take a different starting point, is it all still so axiomatic?
I mean, one does not exactly follow from the other.
Again, assuming the first two are true, I am not sure where that leaves us but in a muddle of megalomania.
And if the second is true, how is the third even defined?
What if I were to present the trilemma to J. L. Mackie this way, assuming his starting point:No God exists.Man is the source of all definitions of love.Good exists.
-Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale, Why Suffering?
