Comments elsewhere on theodicy, de-conversion, sex and fat

[pw201]

I've been commenting in other places. You might be interested in where:

The Evil God Challenge

Comments

[wmconnolley]

s/phase/faze/

[pw201]

Fixed!

[wmconnolley]

Ta. Meanwhile, my problem is that the Law blog comments you've pointed at resemble, alas, the typical piles of steaming tripe (with the odd rose buried therein, of course) that one sees at a typical no-moderation mass-appeal GW blog (e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/07/china-rejects-paying-eu-ets-carbon-emissions-surcharge/).

I can't see even any discussion of the EGC challenge there; everyone seems to have missed the point. Are there any interesting answers to the challenge that I missed?

Side note: you say "accepting the standard theodicies for the problem of evil)" and I don't know what a theodicy is, and that article isn't really very helpful in providing examples.

[gareth_rees]

A theodicy is a (purported) solution to the problem of evil. (OED: "A vindication of the divine attributes, esp. justice and holiness, in respect to the existence of evil.")

[gareth_rees]

On "grounding" , the OED says,ground, v. 2. To set on a firm basis, to establish (an institution, a principle of action, belief, science, conclusion or argument), on some fact, circumstance, or authority.
So when BenYachov writes, "God is the ground of all goodness", he must mean something like, "God is the authority as to what is good". But you're right that there's a good helping of Platonic theory of forms going on there-but that shouldn't be surprising in a Thomist. In particular, Aquinas's discussion of this very question gives an explicitly Platonic answer.