Lately I’ve been thinking about the moral problems that the Bible often presents. When this topic comes up, the first thing that comes to mind is God’s command to kill the Canaanite children, and although many apologists like William Lane Craig have tried to argue that such an act was morally correct, the most adequate response is to affirm that the text is a hyperbole that does not imply that children actually died in the conquest. However, that problem can be transferred to the flood that occurred in the time of Noah, and although it can also be applied to other cases (such as the death of David’s newborn son or Sodom and Gomorrah), this is simply the clearest example that comes to mind. I want to carry out a process that I like to call “evaluation of theodicies under restricted conditions.” I’ve been thinking about this and I cannot find any that are truly satisfactory, and many of them simply seem like attempts to avoid facing the real problem and to downplay it. I would be especially interested in hearing new responses or stronger versions of existing ones, because so far none seem successful to me. First, I want to clarify the framework I am assuming in order to avoid answers that change the playing field. 1. The flood in the Book of Genesis corresponds to a real historical event (although possibly regional rather than global). 2. The event was caused or intentionally brought about by God. 3. God is morally perfect and omnipotent. 4. The flood was carried out as a punishment for human beings. 5. Children below a certain age do not have full moral responsibility, and therefore are not guilty of wrongdoing. 6. No one who is morally upright would want to kill innocent children when there is a way to avoid it. Under these conditions, I am evaluating theodicies with a very specific criterion: is the flood morally justifiable? The focus of this post is on children because it is easier to empathize with children than with animals or plants, since although they share innocence, there is debate about whether they have souls, suffer, or even consent to death, but the argument could also be extended to them.

If you want a high level dialogue on the PoE, please watch this.

Hey all, this video literally just came out. It is Dr. Yujin Nagasawa giving a presentation on his “Problem of Evil for Atheists” and is joined by renowned atheist philosopher Dr. Paul Draper. Dr. Nagasawa takes a similar approach to me on this topic, so if you’ve liked what I’ve had to say, you will certainly like this video. Watch here: https://youtu.be/qMTLXhoKUQ0

My response: that assumes that the worthwhileness of suffering on behalf of the subject who suffered is dictated by its necessity. Value is never assessed through the lens of necessity. For example, due to ChatGPT, students no longer have to learn how to solve math problems out of necessity. However, you’re probably uncomfortable with the prospect of raising an entire generation who relies only on AI to think for them. In this scenario, the value of thinking on your own is not dictated by necessity, but by the worthwhileness of a reality where creatures can engage in such a process. The philosopher Peter van Inwagen actually argues that there is no such thing as a minimum required suffering at all, because there is always some way to attain a good through a lesser means of suffering. Meaning, there is no possible way (not even for God) to get the highest manifestations of virtue, such as self-sacrificial love and meaning-making, with some minimum required suffering. The only relevant question at this juncture is: “If a finite creature is to suffer, is there a future for that creature to non-regrettably endorse their existence?” And not in spite of the suffering, but a retrospective resonance with the life they lived, where ultimately the negative impact of their suffering ceases to permanently maim them, where they live good, redemptive, and transformed lives. On the Christian worldview, that is the fate of suffering.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTrnCopw1/ He says something 3/4 of the way in about evil that summarizes a better way of what I tried to say to @Candace Jordan and @Brian Nicholson one time. I have nothing in my life that can equate to pain and how it makes me feel and how much it forces me to be both present and face the reality of a situation.