Skip to main content

Swinburne, Philipse and myself at the CFI event last week



Labels:

Comments

sfarisbradistan said…
How was the event? I actually like Richard Swinburne. I think he's fair minded even though I disagree with much of his conclusions. He doesn't look very well. Is he okay?
May 17, 2011 at 8:12 PM
Stephen Law said…
Great - video will be released shortly. Swinburne looked a bit thinner to me but very well. I also like Richard. You can have a decent and honest conversation with him without him taking offence, etc. I think he's a genuinely nice man.
May 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM
The Atheist Missionary said…
You kind of have a "Rock me Amadeus" look in that photo!
May 19, 2011 at 12:13 PM
St Badger said…
I was there..I was lucky to even find out that this was on as it wasn't overly publicised. Guess I'm lucky that I'm a Christian who likes to frequent the BHS web-site :)

I thought both the speakers did a grand job, it gave me and my wife lots to discuss on the train back home!
May 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM
Stephen Law said…
That's my thoughtful face! Thanks for coming Dan. Where should I advertize in future?
May 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM
St Badger said…
If you want get people like myself who are interested on debates of this nature especially for Theists in the UK the best place would be www.apologetics315.blogspot.com...word would spread quickly from there. Another one would be Justin Brierley from the Unbelievable Radio show I'm sure he'd always be happy to give anything like this a shout out.

I should be studying at Hythrop in September..would be great to chat sometime :)
May 20, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Dan - hope to see you there!
May 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM
Paul R Syms said…
Stephen, I saw this and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for organizing. Two very small criticisms: Richard (I think) took a straw poll at the start, but I can't recall another poll at the end, before people had to leave for their trains, etc.. What would have been most interesting would have been to see if anyone was persuaded to shange their opinion as a result pf the debate. Second, and this applied to your Oxford evening (with Harris and Richard Dawkins) is that you need BIGGER venues! They are so popular ... apparently the latter sold out in 15 minutes!
May 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Stephen Law said…
Bigger would be good but this one was the first time ever got more than 150 for an evening weekday. Be interested to see if we can repeat it for conspiracy theories coming next....
May 31, 2011 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said…
I would really love to know where I can find a video of this debate.
October 9, 2011 at 11:23 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

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...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more