On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
Comments
This is typically what I've found with 'creationist' arguments. Someone with a little knowledge will always win an argument against someone with no knowledge, but when they come up against a real 'expert' the boot is always on the other foot .
The real insight here is that the Discovery Institute would attempt to bully someone off the internet, who demonstrates their ignorance and duplicity, even though they were aware of his legal right to do so.
This is more than censorship, it's paranioa. Luckily he wasn't criticising Islamic fundamentalists, otherwise they'd want his head, literally.
Regards, Paul.
proponents have come nowhere close to providing empirical evidence of abiogenesis. I believed in evolution until I began to study biochemistry, genetics and physiology. There is no doubt that existing sets of DNA information aquire changes with time. However, those who support (tocd) cannot provide empirical evidence of the origin of a cell.