Do you agree with Adams. Do you find as I do that she argues without illuminating why we naturalists cannot be consistent optimists, using only a non-sequitur>
I find her just another silly advanced theologian without regard for reality! What would be the evidence that she logically leads from the horrors to finding us inconsistent? Why would anyone not think that she wishfully wants God but ignores the impact of the horrors, whilst acknowledging them?
Why would anyone find her anymore credible than John Hick, the late ever-ready rationalizer for His exoneration? To call for participation cannot obviate the need to use reason instead of her wishful thinking that justice requires God to exist, or do you find her credible to superrate the horrors as evidence against Him?
She cannot assuage me of the horrors by finding Him as the answer, but am I wrong in thinking that? I inquire why she should think that she has superrated naturalism's objections to her God by turning the tables on us?