Nestor, I directed my last comment, regarding moral absolutes, specifically towards those who elsewhere dispute objective morality. They are disingenuous, because for them, theodicy is an argument of convenience. They want to judge God based on a moral standard they say does not to exist. I gather from your writings that you believe moral absolutes may apply. This means that your responses are sincere, something I greatly appreciate. With that in mind, please let me address your objections.
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']I can easily imagine better possible worlds[/quote]
AND
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']Even if you argue that... God could easily rid the world of (as we are told in many religious traditions that eventually he will), is needed for greater acts of goodness to be realized, it still remains unreasonable to believe that none of the evil observed could have been reduced without the loss of opportunity for such acts.[/quote]
In summary, Epicurus’s riddle purports to be a logical refutation of God’s concurrent omnipotence and benevolence, not an emotional appeal. For all of their complaining about this being a crapsack world, I know most people would say, on balance, that:
1-Despite the pain, life is still worth living.
2-They’re glad to have known the people they loved, even though they are now gone.
People love to look gift horses in the mouth. I also can imagine better worlds (starting with free beer). Given all the cruelty and misery its easy to overlook the good. Examples abound in Holy Scripture of incredulous Patriarchs. Abraham argues for mercy towards Sodom. Job challenges His Creator. Jacob wrestles with the Angel of God. Even Jesus Christ in His humanity pleads to be spared from the Passion. Many, with some justification, interpret these as examples as blind faith and unconditional trust. There is some of that. Personally, I see them as object lessons about balancing intellectual understanding with emotional responses.
Faced with Epicurus’s riddle, I too recognize the prevalence of unrelenting cruelty and our precarious place in a hostile universe and struggle accept my limited understanding of Divine Providence in light of my intellectual knowledge of God’s nature. So in one sense I agree with you. The existence of evil is a persuasive emotional argument and for many it is overwhelmingly compelling. My point, however, is the argument of Epicurus isn’t the purely logical refutation it appears to be.
You raised a second objection in passing. Holy Scripture reveals two instances of Paradise: The Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem. On first blush it does appear that God could indeed provide an earthly paradise free of both natural and moral evil. I think with deeper exegesis it becomes apparent that this interpretation is simplistic. Unfortunately I am not prepared at the moment to wade into those thickets.
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']... you can only hold out on faith that the simplest and most evident explanation is incorrect, though consequently this is by definition an irrational belief to hold.[quote]Generally, I agree that people should prefer the most parsimonious theories. Ruling in favor of simplicity serves as a useful guide so long as provision has been made for all relevant phenomena and considerations.
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']If ... God's creation is "according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility,"...appearances would suggest that creation reflects anything but the work of an orderly, intelligent, or benevolent creator.[/quote]I intended my comment about Divine intelligibility to address the lack of on-going miraculous interventions. I take all the blame for not being sufficiently clear.
Both my comments 1) that ”A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent.” and 2) “The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it. are indeed non-sequitors with respect to the issues you raised. They are both about desirability of free will.
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']I can easily imagine better possible worlds[/quote]
AND
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']Even if you argue that... God could easily rid the world of (as we are told in many religious traditions that eventually he will), is needed for greater acts of goodness to be realized, it still remains unreasonable to believe that none of the evil observed could have been reduced without the loss of opportunity for such acts.[/quote]
In summary, Epicurus’s riddle purports to be a logical refutation of God’s concurrent omnipotence and benevolence, not an emotional appeal. For all of their complaining about this being a crapsack world, I know most people would say, on balance, that:
1-Despite the pain, life is still worth living.
2-They’re glad to have known the people they loved, even though they are now gone.
People love to look gift horses in the mouth. I also can imagine better worlds (starting with free beer). Given all the cruelty and misery its easy to overlook the good. Examples abound in Holy Scripture of incredulous Patriarchs. Abraham argues for mercy towards Sodom. Job challenges His Creator. Jacob wrestles with the Angel of God. Even Jesus Christ in His humanity pleads to be spared from the Passion. Many, with some justification, interpret these as examples as blind faith and unconditional trust. There is some of that. Personally, I see them as object lessons about balancing intellectual understanding with emotional responses.
Faced with Epicurus’s riddle, I too recognize the prevalence of unrelenting cruelty and our precarious place in a hostile universe and struggle accept my limited understanding of Divine Providence in light of my intellectual knowledge of God’s nature. So in one sense I agree with you. The existence of evil is a persuasive emotional argument and for many it is overwhelmingly compelling. My point, however, is the argument of Epicurus isn’t the purely logical refutation it appears to be.
You raised a second objection in passing. Holy Scripture reveals two instances of Paradise: The Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem. On first blush it does appear that God could indeed provide an earthly paradise free of both natural and moral evil. I think with deeper exegesis it becomes apparent that this interpretation is simplistic. Unfortunately I am not prepared at the moment to wade into those thickets.
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']... you can only hold out on faith that the simplest and most evident explanation is incorrect, though consequently this is by definition an irrational belief to hold.[quote]Generally, I agree that people should prefer the most parsimonious theories. Ruling in favor of simplicity serves as a useful guide so long as provision has been made for all relevant phenomena and considerations.
[quote='Nestor' pid='1188856' dateline='1454029167']If ... God's creation is "according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility,"...appearances would suggest that creation reflects anything but the work of an orderly, intelligent, or benevolent creator.[/quote]I intended my comment about Divine intelligibility to address the lack of on-going miraculous interventions. I take all the blame for not being sufficiently clear.
Both my comments 1) that ”A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent.” and 2) “The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it. are indeed non-sequitors with respect to the issues you raised. They are both about desirability of free will.
