This page exists for listing problems / potential problems with MSL. (MSL is a natural theology and its implications.) Also, for solving those problems.
These problems might be inconsistencies, lack of called-for evidence, unwarranted assumptions, etc. -- generally things that mean my claims are not successful as stated. They may also be cases where it's not clear what I was saying.
If you want to submit a problem or solution, email me.
If you find a problem or solution and post it in a comment on the blog, I will copy it over here.
Potential problem?: 1. God finds unbearable suffering unbearable -- so, as Legitimacy, it's morally wrong. 2. Does he find it unbearable as what he is or as who he is? Definitely as what he is. The suffering has power on that level. 3. If we need to have God's heart, does that mean that we need to feel as much pain over evil as he does? But we can't? (4. One path for a solution: we need to be disposed to feel as much pain in order to be in tune with him. If necessary to share in what he is, we can be given that nature. In heaven, there is no unbearability or evil, so there it doesn't matter.)
Open question: Pascal's Wager: which heaven is better, which hell is worse, when comparing religious promises/threats? (Which heaven is a better infinity, which hell a worse infinity?) Inspired by https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/o7BoboZkDrZtkFBi2/consider-religion
Open question: If someone dies young, why couldn't God give them an extra however-many years in the Millennium to make up for it? (Possibly I answered this on the blog already.)
Review: re-read "Energy Healing Minus the Nonsense" by Max Goodbird. He seems to "physicalize" internal "proprioceptive"/"tactile"/"somatic" sensations that arise from seeing something (something like "it's just a feeling in your body"). Or, this is something that the drift of his ideas might imply. I tend to think this internal proprioceptive/etc. sensation of something you see is part of the perception of the object itself (perceptual objects include tactile contact with skin, and "action at a distance" through sight, so why not "touch at a distance" through internal proprioceptive/etc. feeling? I have also tended to see this proprioceptive, etc. feeling to be part of the "meaning" of a thing, its connotations. Does Goodbird's way of seeing invalidate mine? Is it possible to figure out which way is right?
Potential problem: If God has to reject sin, does that mean he has to destroy the past at some point? Past memories could contain sin. (Maybe I already answered this in Formulalessness?)
Open question: Is it meaningful to say that people can approach things without preconceptions? Is there any element to perception that is purely naive and firsthand? (This might help flesh out the "ordinaristic".) (Interesting connection: Reformed are into total depravity, original sin, the Fallenness of man and also into intellectual history and maybe some into the idea of the inescapability of preconceptions. Restorationists reject total depravity, maybe also original sin, don't emphasize the Fallenness of man as much, and generally are not into intellectual history. Alexander Campbell, ex-Reformed Restorationist, emphasized getting rid of preconceptions when reading the Bible.)
Potential problem: Is it possible that the things that MSL relies on (notably logic, but maybe other things) are simply parts of Western culture, and thus are not valid in other cultures? I don't know if I'll get into Aristotle, but in principle I could ask, did Aristotle discover logic when he developed it further than anyone had before, or did he invent it? (The ambiguity of "develop".)