'Health care' in this case is just progressive doublespeak, I'd say you're overcomplicating it. Just as they call abortion 'choice' instead of murder, they call contraception 'health care'.

I've always liked Kant's stance that a moral action is only moral when it is done without any rationalizations, emotions, etc. So when you start to think oh should I accept this gift from a student, I've worked hard, but the rules forbid it, etc., your decision will not be a moral one according to Kant. So moral actions should be done only because they are moral, nothing more, not because of empathy or something else.

DanielCC wrote:

The argument is that God's 'presence' in all possible worlds should render evil worlds impossible and they do not, prima facia, appear to be so.

I'm no expert, but the whole argument just stands on shaky ground. For example
''Gratuitous Evil is incompatible with the first and last Divine Attribute referenced above''

Firstly I don't think this is true. Even in completely evil world, the inhabitants of that evil were chose to be evil out of their own free will, I simply do not see how does that trump omnipotence and omniscience. I always like to refer to Paradise Lost in these matters, God speaking to Christ:

''Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. Not free, what proof could they have given sincere of true allegiance, constant Faith or Love, where onely what they needs must do, appeard, not what they would? What praise could they receive? What pleasure I from such obedience paid? They trespass, Authors to themselves in all, both what they judge and what they choose; for so I formd them free, and free they must remain''

We can define evil as something that is contrary to God and God's will. Thus, God did not create evil, God merely gave us a choice, a freedom to do something that is contrary to God's laws. - thus, God did not create evil, unless one supposes that God giving us freedom constitutes the creation of evil. The guy who put together that argument in the original post completely distances evil from this and see it just as something distinct from the other laws of the universe.

Now, if we agree that evil is necessary because it is basically an extension of free will, how can we say that an extension of free will trumps God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence? It simply does not and this is where the argument falls apart for me, because it basically states ''God presence in all worlds renders free will (or a direct result of free will) impossible''. And I think we agree that free will exists, thus the argument just falls apart

I was always kind of confused with the skeptics' obsession with the ''problem'' of evil. I argue that evil is necessary for free will, period. In my mind, that cuts off all the whining about evil.

As for the omnibenevolence, it may have bee dr. Feser who said well God can't force you into His presence, you can be a great person all your life but if you're an atheist, you're not going to Heaven because you don't want to be with God. And again, God's omnibenevolence can't trump free will bestowed upon us by God. So if you choose to do evil, what can God's omnibenevolence do about that if you have free will to do so? I mean, God is bound by laws which God instituted, this is also why I reject the argument that gratuitous evil is somehow incompatible with God's omnipotence.