Skip to main content

Justin Vacula and John Murray

Very interesting conversation. Provides some nice insights into Murray's thinking and how his world view makes sense to him. Go here.

Comments

M. Stevenson said…
Murray doesn't really do much justice to the theist's position on your Evil God Challenge. My favourite part, at around 09:44:

Vacula: Why would the creator be all good, instead of all evil, or morally neutral? How can you get to that conclusion?
Murray: Well, because God is God. There is no evil in God. God is moral perfection.
Vacula: How do you know that?
Murray: How do I know that? If you want to see God, look at Jesus. Jesus is the express image of his person, the exact brightness of his...
...So I look at Jesus. Is there anything in evil, anything evil at all about Jesus?
*silence*
Can you find anything evil about Jesus?
*silence*
Vacula: Well no, I think you're missing the objection here.

Classic stuff, well played Justin!
August 13, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
I’m always amazed at people who claim they know the mind of God.

“The first marriage was performed by God”. “I am a personal witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

“If man had never chosen to sin…” there would be no natural disasters.

Our ignorance is based on what God “keeps secret from us”. “The big bang is ridiculous.”

“The more I read [the Bible] the more I believe its perfection.”

This is someone who reads a text to the effective exclusion of all others and has convinced himself that was is obviously mythology to others is fact to himself.

I thought Justin Vacula did a very good job.

Regards, Paul.
August 15, 2012 at 1:51 AM
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 - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more