The argument from evil requires premises which cannot be established, such as
P1: We are in an epistemic position to know that God could not possibly have a justification for permitting certain evils.
P2: We are in an epistemic position to know what God would or would not do.
P1: We are in an epistemic position to know that God could not possibly have a justification for permitting certain evils.
P2: We are in an epistemic position to know what God would or would not do.
Note very well that the argument from evil requires establishing a NEGATIVE EXISTENTIAL, that is, it must prove that there is NO POSSIBILITY of there existing a justification for evil that God could have.
Note further that proving this Negative Existential “there is no possible justification that God could have for permitting evil” carries with it “there is no possibility of there being such a justification which is beyond human comprehension.”
That is, it requires “There is a set of things we do not and cannot know, and I know that this set does not contain any of the following elements …”
The argument from evil is thus a Tower of Babel argument. It depends on the utterly unjustified (and prideful) assumption that God can be, so to speak, “cut down” to our level (or that we can “climb up” to God’s level) to sufficiently understand the mind of God —and judge Him.
That might work to topple certain rationalistic ideas about God, but it isn’t what Holy Scripture teaches. 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
