(June 6, 2016 at 9:38 pm)SteveII Wrote: I think I addressed the main point of the first part of your post (at least enough to keep discussing it) in the post above.
Regarding this statement, you run in to a problem of where to draw the line on "permitted" suffering. Are you saying that it is God's moral duty to remove all suffering in a world of free people? How would that work? Can you rationally draw a line between natural evil and evil caused by people's choices and say that is where an intervention is permitted and that is where one is not?
It is any moral person's duty to act in such a way as to eliminate gratuitous suffering.
This doesn't eliminate all suffering, but it does put you in the position of endorsing natural disasters that extinguish countless lives as morally justified. The question is whether you can do this while without altogether denying that humans can apprehend moral facts.
A Gemma is forever.
