On James Sterba’s Refutation of Theistic Arguments to Justify Suffering

In his recent book Is a Good God Logically Possible? and article by the same name, James Sterba argued that existence of significant horrendous evils, both moral natural, is incompatible with God. He advances discussion invoking three requirements creating an analogy how just state would address such while protecting freedoms rights to which all are entitled. I respond argument has important ambiguities consistent application principles will require remove natural evils. This deleteriously restrict not only human decision making, but also knowledge necessary make judgments. replies this critique appealing possibility limited divine intervention, rejoin reasons why middle ground viable.