So you are not paid to teach. You just scream some 'teachings' at passers-by do you? — Bartricks
But yes, there is no requirement - certainly wasn't when I was appointed anyway - to have any formal teaching qualification in order to be able to teach in a university. Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. Perhaps we should hire you to come in and tell us how it's done? — Bartricks
Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. — Bartricks
Just more about how whether x is compatible with y turns essentially on whether s exists. — Bartricks
You justify premise 2 by claiming that it is possible that God created everything except humans. — Raymond Rider
God knew that humans would eventually come about, but He certainly did not want them. God merely permitted humans to come about but was not involved in their creation. — Raymond Rider
Evil is a deprivation of goodness, much like cold is a deprivation of heat and does not actually exist. — Raymond Rider
To start, I do not believe that theists (or anyone at all for that matter) can claim that humans possess the property of aseity. First, there are just too many obvious examples of humans existing contingently. — Raymond Rider
I would need to hear an argument from someone about why a theist should believe in pre-existent souls, as I think it is rather counterintuitive to think that I existed before I showed up on earth. — Raymond Rider
Second, I think that affirming that there are things which possess the property of aseity apart from God causes a few problems for theism. This would involve the denial of God's ontological priority, an important good-making property. If there are things which exist in and of themselves apart from God, then God is not ontologically prior to those things. Thus, this would require us to believe that God is not perfect, as he lacks a good-making property. — Raymond Rider
No, he can't. His omnibenevolence forbids that. So he's not omnipotent. — EugeneW
You just showed one. — EugeneW
No I didn't. Describing a thought is not the same as showing you it. I am aware of my thoughts in a way that you are not - I have an introspective awareness of them that you lack. That's not an essential feature of a thought - God could show us his thoughts if he wanted. But I personally lack the ability to give you an introspective awareness of my thoughts. All I can do is tell you about them. And believe me, some of the thoughts I am having about you are ones you don't want to know about. — Bartricks
Thanks for the compliment! If he would destroy the universe he would be ultimately evil. So he can't destroy it because he's omnibenevolent. So he's not omnipotent. Simple as that. — EugeneW
And more thoughts... — EugeneW
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.