General Discussions > Religion / Philosophy Talk
Anti-God just as likely as God, Peter Millican.
Shibboleth:
Light is light whether we perceive it or not.
As far as evil it depends on how a religion defines evil. The Gnostic will say that evil is a thing and to have it one must have an antithesis of God or a Satan.
The Christian (depending on what synod) will say that evil is the absence of good and its existence is due to the fact that we are separated from God and perfection. This is the theology behind theosis, sanctification, and effective grace.
jomike:
--- Quote from: Beleth on Jul 06, 2012, 07:07:57 AM ---Light is the perception of photons in a certain range of energy levels. For the photons to be perceived, they must exist.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but good doesn't have empirically verifiable existence as light does; goodtons don't stream through the universe being detected (or not) by the morality-retinas of sentient beings. Thus the standard negative definition of evil as "the absence of good" is a rhetorical sleight of hand. Good and evil are concepts only; thus it's just as valid to define "good" as "absence of evil" as it is to define "evil" as "absence of good."
--- Quote from: Beleth on Jul 06, 2012, 07:07:57 AM ---My question is: Can the creator of the universe possibly be described as an anti-God, or are we just talking about the morality aspect of God here?
--- End quote ---
The thought experiment is WRT to the conventional definition of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. The evil god hypothesis posits God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-evil. What Law and Millican point out is that any argument for an all-good Creator can be turned around and used to argue for an all-evil Creator. Most people find the evil-god idea absurd, but the challenge is to explain why evil-god should be any less likely than good-god, without appeal to intuition or popularity ("everybody knows...")
jomike:
--- Quote from: Shibboleth on Jul 06, 2012, 09:40:54 AM ---The Christian (depending on what synod) will say that evil is the absence of good and its existence is due to the fact that we are separated from God and perfection. This is the theology behind theosis, sanctification, and effective grace.
--- End quote ---
But an inverted-Christian (Naitsirhc?) theologian would say that good is the absence of evil, and its existence is due to the fact that we are separated from evil God and perfect evil. Evil God is aggrieved that despite the many weaknesses He has built into human nature, many of His creatures nevertheless stray & choose to do good by their fellows. He accepts this, because a certain amount of good must be permitted to exist in the world so that the greatest number may freely come to know Him.
Shibboleth:
Sure. Although I suppose that God would be the definer of what is good and what is evil.
jomike:
--- Quote from: vespine on Jul 03, 2012, 08:31:31 PM ---I recently watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican, a professor of philosophy at Oxford. The full thing is on YouTube. I really can't stand WLC, but I thought Millican handled himself exceptionally. As far as I am aware he isn't really a "debater" and this might be the only big debate he has had, or at least the only one which is available online, I've not really heard of him before, but for anyone who is into watching these debates, I recommend this one. Millican doesn't seem well known, or at all, in the skeptics community, I searched for him on this forum and couldn't find anything, but he seems to me like possibly one of our hidden gems.
--- End quote ---
Vespine, prompted by your post I had another listen to the Craig-Millican debate, and the Craig-Law debate which preceded it. I completely agree with you that Millican is a hidden gem, and I wish we could hear more from him. He was quite effective in his debate with Craig. I thought he was more clear & polished than Stephen Law (although Law was more forceful & focused in pressing the "Evil God" argument). Millican did a better job than Law in dealing with Craig's Gish-galloping, and he was especially effective in the Q&A where he pointed out & demolished Craig's habitual appeals to "rational intuition."
As far as I know no single opponent of Craig's has ever effectively answered all of his arguments in one debate. That probably is impossible, given that Craig, as a professional apologist & debater, has been fine-tuning his half-dozen stock arguments for twenty-five or thirty years, whereas his opponents all have day jobs. That said, some of Craig's opponents have effectively addressed his specific arguments separately; Millican was one IMO. Here are several others worth listening to if you are interested in this sort of thing:
The Kalaam cosmological argument -- Victor Stenger vs. William Lane Craig
The moral argument -- Shelley Kagan vs. Craig
The moral argument, the "hiddenness" of God -- Austin Dacey vs. Craig
The Resurrection -- Bart Ehrman vs. Craig
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version