Why dies Adans use the non-sequitur that we atheists cannot consistently be optimists? In trying to absolve putative God for permitting evils, she tries to equate our optimism with her illusions, in effect.
We don't face the problem of justice that she poses. Her argument is that from justice: since we cannot get many people who commit high crimes to justice, then perforce God the Great Jurist must exist. Wouldn't you find that a non-sequitur?
She cannot whatsoever equate that illusion with our optimism as its bases itself on reality: I see that my life is improving. I see that Pres. Obama is one of the greatest of presidents due to Obamacare. I see progress along many fronts, and even failures can lead to success.
So much evil exists that I inquire how can one believe in God? Faith cannot instantiate Him and cannot superrate the fact of the horrors that she knows quite well.
Why dies she equate her illusions with optimism, which grounds itself in empiricism? And empiricism gives grounds for pessimism. Why, why then wouldn't she find the Devil as Plantinga does responsible perhaps for natural evils? Why doesn't she becloud us with that? Haughty John Haught finds that why, that those atheists who conclude that life is absurd are taking atheism to its conclusion. Hardly.
These two show that advanced theology is as silly as any form of fundamentalism. They prattle so seriously about the optimism in her case and the pessimism in his, but neither confronts reality.
Doesn't enough horrors exist, that God cannot be coherent and non- contradictory as omnibenevolent and so forth, when they exist?
Do you find enough goodness to want to live? Do you favor helping others?
Why can she not discern that enough horrors exist to discount Him but enough good to find life meaningful and beautiful at times?
She does discount free will as a reason for why the horrors? She finds that kindergarten teachers would do grievous wrong in allowing their charges to have the free will to torment each other.
Besides, how can one possibly think that we have contra-causal free will anyway?
Does she make sense to you?