Cameron Bertuzzi, Justin Schieber Debate the Problem of Evil  

  RSS

Philip Rand
(@philip-rand)
Eminent Member
Joined:1 month  ago
Posts: 35
02/11/2017 9:21 am  

I found it particularly interesting that the arguments tabled by Justin Schieber are exactly the same arguments the Apostle Paul used in Romans to formulate the rationale of Christ.   For, the key point St. Paul exposed and made clear was this:

How can a morally perfect God justify injustice?

He can't, it is impossible for Him to do so.... so, then how did He achieve this?  

St. Paul in Romans gave an amazing answer to this...bullet proof in my opinion.

Cameron Bertuzzi... I would say that Skeptical Theism Phenomenology is not as strong philosophically as pure Theistic Phenomenology, i.e. the Berkeley form.

In many respects Stephen Laws Evil God Challenge when following through the trajectory of the challenge to its end; comes to the conclusion (as you do) that the evidential problem of evil is ultimately outside the order of intelligibility.  Law's Challenge in many ways is the key argument that a sceptical theist should use against the naturalist argument.


ReplyQuote
Cameron Bertuzzi
(@admin)
Member Admin
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 31
27/11/2017 8:12 am  

Thanks for the comments Philip. Where are you from originally?


ReplyQuote
Philip Rand
(@philip-rand)
Eminent Member
Joined:1 month  ago
Posts: 35
06/12/2017 4:31 am  

You are welcome Cameron.... Where am I from originally?

Ultimately, outside the order of intelligibility.... just like the problem of Evil...

An explicit formulation of The Evil God Challenge:

1/ There is no part of God, that Good God as a whole is a part Good and a part Evil.

2/ There is no part of God, that Evil God as a whole is a part Evil and a part Good.

Therefore the Evil God Challenge does not concern consequences (Good God or Evil God, i.e. determinability of evil/good) but of intelligibility, i.e. the criterion of God is the form of God taken given existential good and evil, not the composite, i.e. Good God or Evil God.

Mirroring an Evil God with a Good God highlights two ideas:

1/ a principle of limitation

2/existential differentiation of form

The Evil God Challenge is NOT a principle of determinability using good and evil.

Rather, God acts as restrictive, existential limit; God is non-formal, hence non-intelligible.

God acts as a general function of two different composites (Good God and Evil God) being the same God.

Both a Good God and an Evil God is unqualified in ability to limit the form of God. 

Therefore, both the Good God and Evil God are free of intelligibility on their own part.

The fact that the Good God and the Evil God are existentially different does not affect this; since determinability using existential evidence of good and evil in the world is ultimately outside the order of intelligibility.

This is the quick solution to the problem of evil thanks to Dr Stephen Law!


ReplyQuote
  
Working

Please Login or Register