Stephen Law thinks so. Wonder what his refutation of the AFR is?
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I don't like Stephen Law.
His treatment of the theistic arguments in the post is bad. So what if they do not necessarily prove a God of religious interest? Still disproves his naturalism. And he doesn't touch on the ontological arguments, which do prove, if anything, the existence of a God of religious interest.
Also, a supralapsarian theodicy doesn't require free will or soul making or anything of that sort.
As far as what Law says in this post, his position is consistent with supernaturalism or non-naturalism, just not consistent with traditional mono-theism.
Do we need an all good God to account for reason? I think we need the falsity of naturalism. but that is something different.
The discussion of the moral qualities of God is interesting. It may be that reason takes us to the existence of a God, but faith is required to believe that God is good. (assuming the ontol. arg is not sucessful)
2 comments:
I don't like Stephen Law.
His treatment of the theistic arguments in the post is bad. So what if they do not necessarily prove a God of religious interest? Still disproves his naturalism. And he doesn't touch on the ontological arguments, which do prove, if anything, the existence of a God of religious interest.
Also, a supralapsarian theodicy doesn't require free will or soul making or anything of that sort.
As far as what Law says in this post, his position is consistent with supernaturalism or non-naturalism, just not consistent with traditional mono-theism.
Do we need an all good God to account for reason? I think we need the falsity of naturalism. but that is something different.
The discussion of the moral qualities of God is interesting. It may be that reason takes us to the existence of a God, but faith is required to believe that God is good. (assuming the ontol. arg is not sucessful)
Post a Comment