Skip to main content

New Blog Look

Hi gang,

As you can see, the blog looks a bit different than it did yesterday.  I'm not sure, though, if I'm going to keep it.  Thoughts?

Also, I haven't been able to figure out how to get the RSS feeds and links to display with the new look.  Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Best,
EA

Comments

Steve Schuler said…
Hey Ex!

When I click on my link to your page I get the following message on a webpage:

"Dynamic Views in Blogger require the use of a modern browser, and are not currently supported on mobile devices.

You can visit a non-dynamic version of this blog, continue unsupported, or upgrade your browser by clicking on one of the links below."

I'm able to continue on to see the "non dynamic version" by clicking that (colored) test. I'm about to update my browser (IE) so I might be able to see your new "dynamic" design.

Steve
Adamoriens said…
Wow, the Mosaic option is striking. With the titles complete and the dates in view it would be the quickest way to navigate compared to the others, I think. I like to read through your "Assessing Theism" group of posts from time to time, it'd be cool to have a permanently-fixed link to the listing somewhere easy to find. Thanks for the blog.
mpg said…
We fear change.
Andyman409 said…
I've been having the same problem as Steve Schuler. I can only access your blog thru my brothers Mac.
Robert said…
It doesn't work on my phone. The site is impossible to navigate.

Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…