.PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:49 pmGreatest, thanks for the cordiality first of all
I think that an option between cordiality and a more bullish reply is possible of course. But nothing grants cordiality, except our expectations. We expect a reply to be cordial, like yours, but nothing grants it.
Yes your second question is more complex. We can accept that evil is a side effect of free will so that we aren't automata. However, the elements are harder to understand if we believe God exists. I think my only hypothesis is against the dogma. To explain the elements, I think that God mustn't be almighty in that a universe had to be created according to physical laws, and God created it with the best possible physical laws, not with ideal physical laws, which would grant that Nature could never but benefit us, but aren't "physically" possible.
Maybe we don't even need to invoke the elements when discussing this. Just think about the guy that slips from a roof and falls in the floor, perhaps dying. What is the force of gravity doing there? Couldn't it be cancelled just for a moment in just one point?
I have just read an elegant article by Eric Kincanon in PhilosophyNow: Leibniz & the Big Bang.
I'm happy to learn that Leibniz thought that God's creation of Universe had to follow laws (more precisely Leibniz laws) & thus conform to non-arbitrary physics. Accordingly time & space couldn't be absolute as defended by Newton, something not in accord with Leibniz laws. Time & space had to be relative, as Einstein so demonstrated 200 years later. In line with Kincanon, Leibniz could have predicted the Big Bang 200 years in advance.