{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026223776223776224, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026223776223776225, 'mean_word_length': 4.963541666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Eternal Hell and Impaired Agency: A Reply to Marilyn Adams

In Marilyn Adams’ Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God , she argues that the presence of ‘horrendous evils’ 1 overwhelms the typical theodicies and defenses philosophers used in response to the problem of evil. 2 Further, Adams argues that God’s goodness requires him to eventually provide some kind of good that is incommensurate with the ‘horrendous evils’ within the context of an individual’s life in order to be consistent with the goodness of His character. Up to this point, her thesis is sound, 3 but her argument begins to become problematic when she specifies how God provides this incommensurate good. Adams concludes her argument by suggesting that the way God makes good on ‘horrendous evils’ ultimately is through the final, universal redemption of all persons together with Christ—i.e., Universalism. Whether or not a person freely chooses to become united with Christ is irrelevant for Adams; given the effects of ‘horrendous evils,’ some persons’ agencies are so impaired that God is no more violating their agencies than a mother who changes her infant’s diaper.