Major premis: No one who really knows God could deliberately choose to be evil.
No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. (1 John 3:6.)
Minor premise: God wants all to come to know Him.
…God Our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:3-4.)
Conclusion: All will be saved.
Yes 
It’s only Arminian as far as you’ve gone.
You’re missing another premise: God will succeed in bringing all to know Him.
There are a number of interesting scriptural affirmations of this, often only regarded as judgment verses. I’ll leave those as an exercise for the reader. 
That’s a logical conclusion. Just like it is illogical to believe that anyone who is mentally whole, healed, and knows God for who He is would then choose to not be in relationship with him.
What’s messing with me is the amazing implications of 1 Jn.3.6. For one, I must not know the Lord nearly as much as I think I do for I continue to sin. And two, from experience I’ve found that as I’ve come to know the Lord more, the less I sin and the more I walk in faith and love, and the less I walk in fear and selfcenterdness. And three, the antidote for sin is knowing the truth, seeing God!
surely the Calvinistic approach isn’t worth considering. the “limited atonement” nonsense can be easily disproven, which makes “election” infinite in scope, which is in fact the only way Calvinism would work
There are fatal flaws in both Arminian and Calivinist theology, yet they both have partial strong arguments from scripture so you can’t throw them out entirely (baby out with the bathwater).
agreed, though calvinism is by far more guilty of this in my opinion.
but if you do throw the bathwater out and keep the baby from both, you get universalism lol
Just like in science darkness is the absence of light so it seems that one could logically come to the conclusion that evil is the absence of God.
I agree.
