Stephen Law is a rank sophist. I have seen him literally using gnu tactics on his blog combos. Everything I have seen from him leads me to think he has absolutely nothing of worth to add to philosophy of religion. He clearly has no real knowledge of classical theism, for example, despite its overwhelming importance in the history of theism.

It seems a silly argument to me, as one might expect from Law. Surely sceptical theism is the claim we can't understand all of the way in which God has ordered the world, and therefore the reaaons behind some suffering aee not fully known to us. Law seems to take this to mean we can't understand anything about God or how he acts, but I see no reason to make this leap.