Christian Theism cannot solve the moral problem of existence.

[Craig McLoughlin]

 I have well respected Dr. Craig over the years and through him I took the moral argument very seriously - to the point that now I see clearly that it refutes some of what he believes.

On Dr. Craig's position of Molinism, God actualises the world which is most "feasible" and "desirable" for Him to actualize. And thus …. God brings "specific people" into existence that He knows for certain will end up in everlasting separation from Himself. Moreover, these "specific people" go on sinning for all of eternity future in their rebellion against God.

So, what we have on Dr. Craig's position, is that God willingly brings eternal sinners into existence.

How is God being morally good TO each of those specific people that He willingly brings into existence ( and who will sin for all of eternity future ) ?

---

Dr. Craig's position clashes with the Ontological Argument because in the Ontological Argument God is morally perfect.

If God is not 'ultimately' [ eternally ] morally good to each and every person that He Willingly brings into existence, then God is NOT morally perfect. To say that He is ( under these circumstances ) is just to play semantics.

--

There are only two positions that 'appear' to be morally best for man.

1. There is No God and all life ends at the grave.

This eliminates moral accountability for anything anyone does in this life. There would No judgement and No everlasting sinners separated from God.

Or …

2. There is an eventual reconciliation between each person and God in the ages to come ( after this life ). This would be Universalism.

Molinism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Everlasting Conscious Torment, Annihilationism / Conditionalism are ALL morally flawed theologies and doctrines.

---

[roudenko]

I wish I had the logical clarity and intellectual confidence to feel comfortable in making a response, but nonetheless, I will make an attempt...

There is an appeal to Universalism, in that it appeals to our emotional response to perceived injustices. However, I've learned through y experiences, that there are rational and logical responses to things that are counter to the emotional response that may arise.

I consider that our perspective of what is morally "good" is limited by our inability to fully comprehend what would be ultimately morally just. Without that perspective, I feel that we would default to more of the emotional response.

God the creator actualized a world that operates under His defined set of laws according to His nature. This world follows the established "natural" laws like weather, geology, and other natural processes, and allows for our free agency and the chance that people could freely choose to defy or ignore God altogether. If God were to intervene directly to prevent such a person from coming into existence, then I feel that would violate the order of the world that he established.

I wish I could summarize the point I am trying to make here, but let me just say that I cannot see how we, with any sense of certainty, can say that God does not meet his own moral standard of goodness unless Universalism is true.

[Axe Elf]

This objection rests upon the somewhat flimsy assumption that ultimate, objective, universal "morality" (or, the measure of "goodness" of the universe) is based on the well-being of each and every individual human.

That seems to be awfully egocentric, at best, and laughable, at worst.

Looks like this is a pretty old post, so I don't know if the author is still interested, or even still of the same opinion, so I'll just leave it at that, until invited to elaborate.

[RKosche]

I am very interested in this discussion.  Please continue.  In my limited understanding I would ask that why did God proceed with creating people that will both follow Him and not follow Him?  In His foreknowledge why not simply not create the people (and angels for that matter) that God knew would eventually choose to not follow Him.  In this way people still have the free will to choose to follow God, and those that God knew would not follow Him would then be spared eternal suffering.

I can only imagine that one possible answer might be that there is a problem with my understanding of free will.  Meaning, is there something in God given free will that necessitates the evil of not choosing to follow God?

[shoyt]

Molinism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Everlasting Conscious Torment, Annihilationism / Conditionalism are ALL morally flawed theologies and doctrines.

You've only seemingly argued against Molinism. For instance, Open Theism suggests God can't prevent evil just in case His nature only allows for possibility, is freedom-giving, empowering. This is what Oord argues in "God Can't" and his argument is logically valid. Further, merely on the view of Consequentialism, something is contextually evil. For instance, a lie can be moral or immoral given the right context. It's not relative but contextual. So if some end is necessary and can only obtain through one means, that means is justified even if in some other context it wouldn't be.

So while I can accept a few of your premises, I can't see how you get to your conclusion.