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
@Alex -- Surely, you just want the page pointed to by the "here" hyperlink at the end of the above post? Since you're asking, I think you might find this video interesting too.
Also, if anyone is interested in how I calculated this then read my original post. But be warned, there's a (tiny) little math involved.
To quote a friend who was reading my post "Oh, to be honest, I didn't read that. Just saw maths and then it was over..."
Apparently the RAF believe philosophy to be a desirable study for recruits. Perhaps when confronted with a brain that insists the ‘plane is straight and level. While instruments indicate a perilous attitude. Being able to appreciate that your mind might just be plain wrong, is advantageous.
physicists are astronomically (ahem) smart.
They certainly need to be. As dark matter, force and space, appear leaps of intellect commensurate with devising a deity. Lets pray they pan out.
MCAT -> Medical College
LSAT -> Law School
GMAT -> Management
GRE -> Every other graduate school.
That's why you don't see medicine or law.