u/ActuallyMan

▲ 10 r/PhilosophyofReligion+3 crossposts

​

Traditional theodicy argues that God is the 'Unconstrained Architect' who chose this specific world (including its capacity for horrific suffering) because it serves a higher purpose. However, if we look at the life of Jesus, we see a God who fights against sickness, weeps at death, and submits to injustice.

Does it not provide a more logically and morally coherent view of God's character to see Him not as the designer of these tragedies, but as the 'Master Craftsman' who inherited a reality governed by binding constraints and chose to enter it to lead us through it?

See some of my formulation below...

The Two Universes

​Universe A (Non-Devastation Possibility)

​A conceivable mode of reality where:

​Growth, love, transformation, and “redemption-like” goods exist

​Without requiring prior devastation or suffering

​May involve:

​Different perceptual structures

​Non-conscious negative signaling

​Alternative valence weighting

​Status: Plausible, but not verifiable from within our world

​Universe B (Actual Reality)

​The world we inhabit:

​Suffering, loss, and devastation are real

​Meaningful goods are deeply intertwined with those conditions

​Status: Empirically undeniable

​Epistemic Constraint

​We reason from within Universe B

​Therefore:

​Our ability to evaluate Universe A is limited

​“Only imaginable” ≠ “impossible”

​Principle:

Epistemic limitation does not equal metaphysical impossibility

​The Fork (Control Question)

​If Universe A is genuinely possible:

​Either:

​God chose or permitted Universe B instead of A

​God did not have access to Universe A

reddit.com
u/ActuallyMan — 10 days ago