Skip to main content

AHS Annual General Meeting

I am doing the AHS Annual General Meeting next weekend in Birmingham.. go here. AHS AGM 2012: The Evil God Challenge with Stephen Law 01:50, Thursday, 28th of June 2012 in AGM , Events Stephen Law AHS AGM Talk at 15:00 on Sunday 8th July Those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing and supremely benevolent God face a very significant problem - there appears to be overwhelming empirical evidence against what they believe. The world contains so much evil seemingly pointless pain and suffering that it cannot plausibly be considered the creation of a such a God. Maybe there's some sort of cosmic intelligence behind the universe, but it is not that one. But of course, as we all know, those who believe in such a God have developed all sorts of ingenious ways of explaining away the evil - in terms of free-will, character-building, God's mysterious ways, and so on. We will look at some of the most popular explanations. and then look at a novel, and psychologically very effective, way of revealing just how hopeless these explanations are. Law has written several books including “Believing Bullshit” and “The Philosophy Gym”, is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and Commerce and also runs Centre for Inquiry UK, a science and education-centric organisation. Tickets for the AHS AGM are still available and there are a few places left in the hostel for those who want them - BOOK NOW to ensure you don't miss out! Written by Michael Paynter

Comments

Ayisha said…
Thanks allot for help.
October 21, 2012 at 3:22 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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