Replies

Thank you so much for your post! I’m not versed on Mill, so I’ll leave that to you and betty boop – but I do have a few comments on your remarks.

Well, really that it's not possible to be omnipotent and perfectly good and create evil. The last two Mill sees as mutually exclusive - one cannot be "perfectly good" and create evil. Something has to give, according to his reasoning, and so he chooses to abandon omnipotence as a way of avoiding the necessity of assigning responsibility for evil to God.

Naturally, I disagree. There can be no courage without fear, success without failure, wealth without poverty, health without sickness, up without down, here without there, good without evil. They exist only in contrast. Remove the contrast and you have unity – nothing and infinite, in Hebrew Ayn Sof - God at creation.

If objective morality exists, evil must also objectively exist.

I’m not agreeing that objective morality exists. I’m asserting that absolute moral law is decreed by God. It is not objective. By the process of creation, God revealed all the contrasts that we perceive as success and failure, courage and fear, good and evil, etc. – provided us the moral law and revealed Himself in the Word and then granted us the free will to choose.

Evidently Mill has a problem with this view.

So a being that is perfectly good can create evil and still be perfectly good? Like I said above, perfection is going to be easier to attain than I thought ;)

I’m not agreeing that objective morality exists. I’m asserting that absolute moral law is decreed by God. It is not objective.

No, I'm not saying that the substance of it is objective, but that the fact of its existence is objectively true. I mean, either it is or it isn't - forget about what it is, surely you believe that it exists in an objective sense. After all, if you're proposing that the existence of God's law is only subjectively true, this will be a much shorter discussion than I thought ;)