BTW, this is called the fallacy of "you too." (or "tu quoque") This is an argument which attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.
So, instead of addressing the problem with your view (divine culpability) you just dismiss the problem by saying "you have the same problem," even though our views are very different. You thus also beg the question by presuming foreknowledge has the same problems of divine culpability, when just about any objective observer would see it differently.
But, if someone can't distinguish between God's foreknowing of future evil events and permitting them and his actually originating the evil intent and predetermining the evil itself, I don't think we can have a rational and meaningful discussion either way...
And thus you've undone your appeal to mystery.
But it's only a logical fallacy if the argument is not true. Otherwise, Christ could not have accused the scribes and Pharisees of hypocrisy. Any objective observer knows that when one with the power to prevent an imminent danger he can forsee does nothing to safeguard his neighbor, then his guilt is as if he had premeditated the injury. And the Law testifies to that fact assigning the same guilt and prescribing the same penalty.
Your entire argument against Calvinism rests on an appeal to a carnal sense of justice. "If the idea originated with God, then . . ." Far from dismissing your argument, I met it head on and showed that you cannot escape the same "difficulty."
God eternally knew it, eternally planned it, and it has eternally been His will for His Son to suffer for the death and sin of His people. His integrity, holiness and goodness is not contingent upon the satisfaction of your carnal sensibilities.
The Calvinist can humbly accept that, because he has been converted. The Noncalvinist cannot because he is too proud.
