It does seem to me that there has always been enough evidence to INDICT God, implicating Him in violence based

on a preponderance of the evidence, but that there has never been enough evidence to CONVICT God, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The vast majority of humankind, not exactly a jury of Gods peers (one take-away from the Book of Job?), has thus prudently (in my view) acquitted God. In doing so, we have not really declared Her guilty or not guilty, but have rendered, instead, the Scottish verdict, not proven, which some (such as those whod call God a recovering practitioner of violence?) have translated as not guilty and dont do it again!

Why this doubt (regarding Gods guilt)? Is it reasonable?

Well, even as we properly resist the urge to claim absolute certainty (mystery will remain), at the same time, its not like reality has provided us no clues whatsoever?

Indeed, down through the ages, the philosophers, poets and prophets have provided enough clues to thus acquit God, fallibly of course. (For a concise and accessible inventory of these clues, see Peter Kreefts _Making Sense Out of Suffering_, Servant Books, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1986). From an epistemic angle, while science correctly observes the emergence of meaning from matter, human philosophy, culture and religion, through time-honored tradition, have found it not only evidentially plausible, but existentially actionable for us to live our lives as if matter first emerged from meaning (without denying that matter has subsequently returned the favor, albeit on a lesser scale). The relational angle then asks: To Whom (else) shall we go? And we answer by living in truth, beauty, goodness and love, mystery perduring and our doubts and sufferings notwithstanding. So, the existential or performative significance of the clues provided by the philosophers, poets, prophets and people of God (simply) comes from placing suffering in the context of ultimate meaning rather than vice versa. For many of us, these clues have converged -even if to a limited

extent, as a fallible case holding to a greater extent, in the person of Jesus and they have been further authenticated in the community of His followers and by the Spirit, wherever love is found. (For an engaging and immediately relevant account of such authentications, see Ronda De Sola Chervins _Saints for Every Kind of Suffering_, Servant Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1994).

Some theodicy problems (If theres an all knowing, all good and all powerful God, why is there, also, evil and suffering?) have arisen in the context of general revelation or from a natural theology (mis)informed by metaphysics. Others have presented in the context of special revelation vis a vis the scriptures and traditions of the worlds religions. Some of these problems are pseudo-problems, such as might derive from attempts to prove too much from metaphysics, where general revelation is concerned, or such as might result from poor scriptural exegesis, where special revelation is concerned. Historically, then, much of the discussion regarding the problem of evil has been poorly framed.

While I believe there are ways to frame the issue in a manner that is both philosophically rigorous and theologically meaningful, being neither a philosopher nor a theologian, Im not sure how to best articulate the problem. My heart resonates, though, with such questions as those you have raised in the context of various theologies of nature, which are launched from poetic vantage points already positioned within the faith (unlike natural theology, which is mere philosophy and, too often, poor philosophy).

In summary, I am willing to say that common sense suggests that reality is far too ambiguous for us and far too ambivalent toward us for us to draw any coercively compelling conclusions regarding the precise nature (e.g. friendly or unfriendly?) of its origins. Im not sure one could get more philosophically rigorous than that, anyway, although Ive seen some attempts that, in my view, say way more than we could possibly know. The most theologically meaningful attempts that Ive seen do not aspire to be exhaustively informative (epistemic angle), as they wisely resist the urge to tell untellable stories,

but approach the problem of suffering and evil in a way that is robustly performative (relational angle), as they turn our focus to a new question: What are WE going to do about it? In response to: http://www.mikemorrell.org/2012/07/is-god-a-recovering-practitioner-ofviolence/