Dr. Stephen Law commented here today, saying that he had anticipated the kind of objection I raised in “Stephen Law’s Incoherent ‘Evil God.’” In his comment he directed us to notes he had prepared for his debate with William Lane Craig. Blake Anderson added considerably to my argument later in the day, and other commenters including G. Rodrigues contributed on the same topic. (There were other comments on that thread, too, but I think most or all of them presented arguments along a different line than mine.)
It seems to me that Dr. Law’s notes answer a different objection than the one I had raised. He deals with the argument that an evil god is impossible, whereas the argument here was that “evil god” is meaningless. It is nonsense masquerading as argument.
That’s a strong claim, I know. You’ll need to read the original post and discussion to see why I believe it’s defensible.
You might want to look at the parallel discussion going on at Edward Feser’s blog, too. See here for Dr. Law’s first contribution. He has also dropped in on the discussion at Doug Geivett’s blog.
I’m shutting off comments here because there’s no need to confuse matters by starting a new thread on the same topic. If you want to join in the conversation, please do so on the prior thread. (This post was strictly for the purpose of letting you know Dr. Law had entered the discussion here and elsewhere.)
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Comments are disabled for this post