If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[The Happy Humanist]

The default position is always one in which we believe what is passed onto us from our parents, caretakers, society, culture, educational system, etc.. If that were not the case, then we should at 4 years old stop our parents as they say, "don't eat that, it's dirty" by saying, "mom, dad, I know that's what you believe, but let me form my own opinions as to what is dirty for me." That's just plain foolishness!

Interesting exposition of what the "default" position is. I always thought it was the one that posited the least amount of extraordinary stuff. I don't think we need to bring this down to a four-year-old level...otherwise "Santa Claus exists" becomes a default position. Talk about plain foolishness!

Personally, I like Descartes' approach, where the default position was "nothing exists." Needless to say, he didn't stick with that very long. My point being, the default position isn't always correct, it's just a starting point.

So, as we approach this question of A and B, we can look at it two ways. The first way is that the world does appear "natural" and not given to considerations of whether something is evil or not. The natural world acts as if there is no distinction between one creature being eaten and another creature having a meal. It all depends on your point of view. If you are a gazelle, then being eaten by the lion is a bad thing, and if you are a lion, eating the gazelle is a good thing. Nature appears not to care who wins. The odds seem to be equally in each others favor (all things being equal), so they struggle for survival. The theory of natural selection is a byproduct of this uncaring and ruthless nature of evolution, a world in which humanity evolved.

Sounds good to me. Or, I should say, sounds like a meritorious default position. Like Descartes, I am ready, willing, and able to be moved off this position, given good reason.

But, more significantly, it's made us realize what a miracle it is that we are here at all. This is the point to where B looks very doubtful.

Uh-oh. He's wielding the M-word. Beware...

Hence, the problem with B. We are saying in effect, that the world is a big Las Vegas, and we have beginner's luck. That is, the world is such that if you could spin the existence wheel over and over, perhaps each time it would come up deuces, but in our case, the only case our World has ever gambled, it came up 7's.

Ah-HA! Pardon me, but your perspective is showing. Harvey, you seem to be speaking as if the Earth exists in some kind of vacuum. (Well, OK, it does, but...) I mean, you are obviously aware that there are a gazillion other crap tables out there, and we have no idea how many times 7s have come up elsewhere! It could be zero, one, a dozen, or 300 million! If you shoot craps on a gazillion tables, chances are, somebody's gonna come up 7s! It just happened to be us!

Not only do we exist (happily so), but the gambling non-existent gods were looking down on us and gave us a world that was rich enough in variation that it could produce big bangs, inflations, galaxies, stars, planets, water, life, and could even evolve intelligence to comprehend just how lucky, lucky we are. This worldview, I'm afraid, is someone having rose colored glasses. No such luck exists in nature, and it sure as heck doesn't favor us first time gamblers. We are, I'm afraid, unlucky in terms of gambling odds.

I believe it was James Randi who came up with the following analogy for the mind trap you've fallen into: What you've just done, Harvey1, is to shoot an arrow randomly at the broad side of a barn, then draw a bullseye around it and exclaim, "Oh, my! Bullseye on the first try!" Again, the odds of a universe this size not producing the things you speak of are pretty...astronomical . If intelligent life didn't occur on Earth, it might have occurred instead on, say, Ceti Alpha 5, in which case, the inhabitants thereof would be exclaiming, "See? There must be a God! We just HAPPEN to be the perfect distance from the sun for the production of lots of delicious helium in our atmosphere, and it creates such beautiful glorms in our feltha gargs. This MUST be by design!" In the meantime, our non-existent selves would be grumbling, "Snake eyes! Craps!" Perspective, Harvey, it's all perspective.

In fact, now that I think about it, given the isolation provided by interstellar space, there may be 300 million civilizations in the universe, all exclaiming, "We couldn't have gotten this lucky without there being a God!"

The option that B cannot propose is that if nothing cannot exist (let's just assume that),

Everything you say subsequent to this may follow this perfectly (I'm still chewing on it), but I don't want to just assume this, I've not seen support for this at all. Is this something you have argued elsewhere on this board? If so, please point to it (to save yourself some typing). If not, can you tell me why it might be even slightly reasonable to assume this?

Now, it might be asked why an all-knowing being can exist even if it must exist. That is, just because I must eat to survive doesn't mean I will eat. The answer here is even simpler. If the phenomenal world must exist, and it can only exist if God exists, then whatever does not meet that criteria will not exist (i.e., it's not really part of the World), while God will exist simply because when you eliminate all that does not exist, it is only what must exist that is left over to claim its place as the rightful owner of the World.

Why do I feel like I'm being sold a Daily Racing Form by Chico Marx?

[The Happy Humanist]

Harvey: You may wish to belay your answer until I've caught up with this thread. I'm just now rediscovering it, and getting a better idea of just what your definition of God is. You say some interesting things (and then almost ruin it with a diatribe about how we atheists are only interested in dissuading people from believing in God). In any case, give me a day or so to absorb.

[spetey]

Hi folks!

Much has happened since I last posted. I'll try to capture the important stuff here. Mostly I'll be redirecting the discussion to the Problem of Evil, since it seems to be drifting into cosmology and fine tuning.

Harvey, I again have some important clarifying questions for you.

1. Sometimes you sound like you want to say the tsunami was a necessary event, because of determinism or something. Other times it sounds like you're saying that God had the ability to stop the tsunami, even if God didn't exercise this ability because [unknowable]. So my first question is: considerations of minimizing evil aside, was it possible for God to stop the tsunami, in the same intuitive sense it was possible for me to get four piece of mail instead of five?
2. You are of the view that God made many but not all of the possible worlds real, right? On your view, how did God choose which worlds to make real? Was goodness a factor? How much of one?
3. What's this new business about a quota of evil God has to fill? It's mysterious to me. Who's the quality control manager to whom God has to demonstrate meeting this quota? Is this a serious suggestion of some kind, or a temporary fancy of the moment that we should drop?
4. Why is it "reasonable" to continue thinking God is good and powerful despite the tsunami (God was just under unknowable "constraints"), but not "reasonable" to keep thinking Hitler is good despite the Holocaust (Hitler was just under unkowable "constraints")?

Happy Humanist: I thought your summary of the issue was very good. But I think it's the "unknowability" of Harvey's position that tips the balance, and not any default. I think we should always opt for the better explanation. Also, HH, I liked the glorms and feltha gargs. It sounded like vintage Vogon poetry.


spetey

[The Happy Humanist]

Also, HH, I liked the glorms and feltha gargs. It sounded like vintage Vogon poetry.

I actually minored in Vogon Poetry. My major was Klingon Opera.

[harvey1]

Hey Spetey,

Yeah, I've engaged into too much rhetoric of late, I'll try to tone it down. I apologize to all those whom I may have offended. I get caught up in the moment and if I'm at least bit aggravated by something I take the wrong way (or if I perceive a lack of openness to new ideas), then I can get rather nasty at times. I'm sorry.

[*] Sometimes you sound like you want to say the tsunami was a necessary event, because of determinism or something. Other times it sounds like you're saying that God had the ability to stop the tsunami, even if God didn't exercise this ability because [unknowable]. So my first question is: considerations of minimizing evil aside, was it possible for God to stop the tsunami, in the same intuitive sense it was possible for me to get four piece of mail instead of five?

I don't know if it were possible. It seems to me that it should be possible for God to stop the tsunami, but God may put his finger in one hole of the dam to stop the leak, but 2 or more leaks may appear elsewhere as a result.

[*] You are of the view that God made many but not all of the possible worlds real, right?

No, God makes every possible world that will conform to God's will. Any universe that doesn't conform to God's will is not possible (i.e., without bringing a paradox, which is an impossible situation).

On your view, how did God choose which worlds to make real? Was goodness a factor? How much of one?

That which conforms to God's will. So, it might be one that ends up in a heavenly state? One that is perfect in the end? I'm not sure.

[*] What's this new business about a quota of evil God has to fill? It's mysterious to me. Who's the quality control manager to whom God has to demonstrate meeting this quota? Is this a serious suggestion of some kind, or a temporary fancy of the moment that we should drop?

I'm using different terminology along the way, so it's not a new suggestion. The point behind it is that the World may impose constraints on God, and those constraints could be statistical-mechanical constraints rather than mechanical constraints (i.e., constraints that are imposed on a particular event such as a tsunami). I tend to favor this view, so we should address it if you want to understand my position.

[*] Why is it "reasonable" to continue thinking God is good and powerful despite the tsunami (God was just under unknowable "constraints"), but not "reasonable" to keep thinking Hitler is good despite the Holocaust (Hitler was just under unkowable "constraints")?

In the case of Hitler, we really don't know his constraints (he could have been totally insane), however in the case of Hitler he actually authorized a great deal of evil to take place. In other words, if he was under some constraints, they were very hidden constraints since it appeared to everyone around him that he really wanted to invade Poland, etc., so his acts should be considered evil acts.

In the case of God, God is trying to protect the World and provide a real eternal happiness for the all the conscious inhabitants (or so I believe), and to do that means allowing certain evil to exist. It's not God the Father (in Christian terms) bringing about the tsunami. Rather it is a much lower aspect of God's existence (which I might as well introduce at this point...). This lower aspect of God's existence is like our brain stem. It regulates the body--the universe--but it does so without being conscious of its actions. God allows these actions to exist since stopping them would result in paradox. So, God allows evil to exist until something can be done about it, and that's where the struggle for righteousness over evil must take place.

There, very short. Much easier to get a reply out to you...

[MagusYanam]

I actually minored in Vogon Poetry. My major was Klingon Opera.

Surely you know an aria from 'aqtu' and mellota'?

mello-Ho-Hota...
mellooooooootaaaaa!!...

*ahem* Sorry. At least Klingon opera is less monotonous than Cardassian popular literature.

[The Happy Humanist]

Surely you know an aria from 'aqtu' and mellota'?

Ah, yes, the Klingon "La Boheme." ...
BOOOOW-cha-Day!
KEEEEY-cha-Day!
Me-YO-cha-BEEN-evaaa-ka-MOOR...


I actually prefer the deep introspection of "tlhIngan jIH." Intriguing from the human perspective - the more it explores the Klingon psyche, the more it intensifies its mystique.

But we digress.

[QED]

In the case of God, God is trying to protect the World and provide a real eternal happiness for the all the conscious inhabitants (or so I believe), and to do that means allowing certain evil to exist.

Well, true, you don't know when something's nice if there exists nothing that is nasty to compare it with, but...

It's not God the Father (in Christian terms) bringing about the tsunami. Rather it is a much lower aspect of God's existence (which I might as well introduce at this point...). This lower aspect of God's existence is like our brain stem. It regulates the body--the universe--but it does so without being conscious of its actions. God allows these actions to exist since stopping them would result in paradox. So, God allows evil to exist until something can be done about it, and that's where the struggle for righteousness over evil must take place.

...You seem to me, once again, to be fitting your god and his actions around the armature of nature. Granted much of what you and many religious accounts say about gods involvement is consistent with observation, but this is a far cry from concluding that god must exists because of this.

You've also reminded me of the obvious problem with the notion of eternal happiness in heaven, where everything is really, really nice.

[spetey]

Hey folks!

Yeah, I've engaged into too much rhetoric of late, I'll try to tone it down. I apologize to all those whom I may have offended. I get caught up in the moment and if I'm at least bit aggravated by something I take the wrong way (or if I perceive a lack of openness to new ideas), then I can get rather nasty at times. I'm sorry.

Thanks for this comment, I appreciate it. I think we've both had moments of impatience on this forum. You channel such impatience into rhetoric, and I channel it into mean-spirited intellectual snottiness. It's more difficult than I would have guessed to maintain respectful, rational discussion with people of very different views--even when the others are trying their best to be calm and level-headed, too. But I still think it's very important to talk about these things. (And I blame that pernicious postmodernism stuff for the rampant subjectivism that let each little view hole itself away without feeling the need to engage contradictory positions.)

Also, it's remarkable the calming effect one conciliatory comment like yours can have.

I don't know if it were possible. It seems to me that it should be possible for God to stop the tsunami, but God may put his finger in one hole of the dam to stop the leak, but 2 or more leaks may appear elsewhere as a result.

Right, that's what I figured your view was--it was possible to stop the tsunami, but unwise in terms of trying to minimize evil. Right?

You are of the view that God made many but not all of the possible worlds real, right?

No, God makes every possible world that will conform to God's will. Any universe that doesn't conform to God's will is not possible (i.e., without bringing a paradox, which is an impossible situation).

I think there's a confusion in possible here again. You mean making the other worlds would have been "impossible" in the sense of unwise, right? But this isn't a common way to use 'possible'. We don't say it would be impossible to put your finger in a particular hole in the dam--we just say it would be a bad idea, because it would only cause two more leaks. Similarly it's not impossible to strike your own head with a brick--it's just not wise. The point is: had God so chosen, for whatever reason, to make worlds that God didn't actually make, God could have made those, right?

On your view, how did God choose which worlds to make real? Was goodness a factor? How much of one?

That which conforms to God's will. So, it might be one that ends up in a heavenly state? One that is perfect in the end? I'm not sure.

This quotation and the one above about what worlds God made seem to advance a mere truism: God chose to make the worlds that God chose to make--the ones God "willed". I know you hold that position! I want to know why you think God made certain worlds and not others. If God made worlds with no regard to whether they were good or not--a baby-torture planet here, an all-Mordor planet there--it would be hard to say that God is all-good, right?

What's this new business about a quota of evil God has to fill? It's mysterious to me. Who's the quality control manager to whom God has to demonstrate meeting this quota? Is this a serious suggestion of some kind, or a temporary fancy of the moment that we should drop?

I'm using different terminology along the way, so it's not a new suggestion. The point behind it is that the World may impose constraints on God, and those constraints could be statistical-mechanical constraints rather than mechanical constraints (i.e., constraints that are imposed on a particular event such as a tsunami). I tend to favor this view, so we should address it if you want to understand my position.

Yes, this sounds important. I think we agree that God is "constrained" by necessities (like 2+2=4, or being unable to make a rock bigger than God can lift). But how is God constrained by the world--the world that God made? This seems strange. Why didn't God make a world where tsunamis didn't have to come about? Couldn't God have made such a world?

Why is it "reasonable" to continue thinking God is good and powerful despite the tsunami (God was just under unknowable "constraints"), but not "reasonable" to keep thinking Hitler is good despite the Holocaust (Hitler was just under unkowable "constraints")?

In the case of Hitler, we really don't know his constraints (he could have been totally insane), however in the case of Hitler he actually authorized a great deal of evil to take place. In other words, if he was under some constraints, they were very hidden constraints since it appeared to everyone around him that he really wanted to invade Poland, etc., so his acts should be considered evil acts.

It sure looks like what Hitler did was evil. But maybe--I mean it's possible--that Hitler was being bribed by space aliens and actually heroically saved the majority of earthlings from a much worse fate, agreeing to go down as the worst despot in history just so we could live our happy lives today. I don't believe that, because it looks for all the world like Hitler did bad things that caused a great deal of misery and harm, and it looks like he wanted to do these things.

Similarly, the tsunami for all the world looks like a horrible incident that was not for the best. (You seem to agree on this point.) Sure, it's possible that God was doing us a favor with that tsunami, saving us from something far worse. But I have no more reason to think that than I do to think what Hitler did was good. I want to know why you think it's okay to believe that the tsunami actually was for the best (in the sense of wise for God to cause), but it's not okay to believe something similar for Hitler. In both cases we have prima facie horrific circumstances that, possibly, were justified by the prevention of worse circumstances.

In the case of God, God is trying to protect the World and provide a real eternal happiness for the all the conscious inhabitants (or so I believe), and to do that means allowing certain evil to exist.

I know you believe this. But why should I, or some neutral but rational third party, believe this? That's the discussion here. Why are you so sure that the amount of evil in the world (or World) is the absolute minimal amount necessary to bring us the greatest good?

It's not God the Father (in Christian terms) bringing about the tsunami. Rather it is a much lower aspect of God's existence (which I might as well introduce at this point...). This lower aspect of God's existence is like our brain stem. It regulates the body--the universe--but it does so without being conscious of its actions.

Is the suggestion that God isn't in control of God's own parts? The "lower aspects" of God sometimes spasm destructively despite the higher aspects' best intentions?

God allows these actions to exist since stopping them would result in paradox.

I know, so you've said--but I still wonder why. Why why why do you think stopping the tsunami would be "paradoxical"? Would it be paradoxical if we humans managed to figure out how to prevent tsunamis? Would we only bring about worse things if we managed it someday? Should we stop pursuing such research? Should we also stop trying to cure cancer and other apparently bad things, since they are part of God's plan for the best, and preventing them would only bring about paradox?


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello Spetey,

I don't know if it were possible. It seems to me that it should be possible for God to stop the tsunami, but God may put his finger in one hole of the dam to stop the leak, but 2 or more leaks may appear elsewhere as a result.

Right, that's what I figured your view was--it was possible to stop the tsunami, but unwise in terms of trying to minimize evil. Right?

Unwise is not the correct term, in my view. The correct way to look at is that God's actions must avoid paradox, and part of that criterion to remain free from paradox is that God must stay consistent. That means that God cannot violate the laws of physics unless it is not actually a violation. If God violates the laws of physics, then that would be paradoxial.

The laws of physics do not prevent God from acting in the world, but they do constrain God in such a way that the divine will must always be particular about the time and place of God's intervention. The reason that the laws of physics are not violated by God's intervention is because the laws allow a certain amount of indeterminate action to take place in the world (e.g., spontaneous symmetry breaking), and God can influence the world in such indeterminate moments (without violation) as long as God does so in a manner that stays consistent with a statistical measure in order for it to remain an indeterminate process. If God were to statistically follow a deterministic stategy at those key moments, then the laws of physics would be violated because God did not stay within the statistical norm of what should be apparently random events. If they no longer are statistically random, then the statistical record will not show indeterminancy, and therefore the laws will be violated--paradox results.

So, it is possible that God could have stopped the tsunami, but to stay within the statistical norm of indeterminancy for all the other events, God would need to allow something else to occur that God has identified as more important to intervene on rather than preventing a tsunami. In other words, God must pick the fights carefully, and not fight every battle. If God fights every battle, then paradox results. If God fights the wrong battle, then the will of God fails to achieve the necessary result.

No, God makes every possible world that will conform to God's will. Any universe that doesn't conform to God's will is not possible (i.e., without bringing a paradox, which is an impossible situation).

I think there's a confusion in possible here again. You mean making the other worlds would have been "impossible" in the sense of unwise, right?

No. Making the other worlds does not reach the Omega state, and the Omega state absolutely must be reached to avoid paradox. Hence the worlds that don't allow God to reach the Omega state for the World are not possible, and therefore not God's will.

But this isn't a common way to use 'possible'. We don't say it would be impossible to put your finger in a particular hole in the dam--we just say it would be a bad idea, because it would only cause two more leaks. Similarly it's not impossible to strike your own head with a brick--it's just not wise. The point is: had God so chosen, for whatever reason, to make worlds that God didn't actually make, God could have made those, right?

I'm not sure, but I would lean to the idea that God only makes the worlds that allow the Omega state to be reached. If God didn't make it, then that world doesn't allow God to arrive at Omega. Which means it is not possible to arrive at Omega.

On your view, how did God choose which worlds to make real? Was goodness a factor? How much of one?

That which conforms to God's will. So, it might be one that ends up in a heavenly state? One that is perfect in the end? I'm not sure.

This quotation and the one above about what worlds God made seem to advance a mere truism: God chose to make the worlds that God chose to make--the ones God "willed". I know you hold that position! I want to know why you think God made certain worlds and not others. If God made worlds with no regard to whether they were good or not--a baby-torture planet here, an all-Mordor planet there--it would be hard to say that God is all-good, right?

I don't hold that position exactly. God's will is to make worlds that conform to the Omega state which is in conformance to God's existence. So, God's will is always pursuing all those things that ultimately conform to God's existence. If something doesn't conform to God's existence (i.e., it is inconsistent with God existing), then that thing shouldn't exist as the Omega state and God's will should be to eliminate that before a final tally at the end of time is taken. If it had some kind of existence between the Alpha state and Omega state, then it should be obliterated so that when the Omega state is finally reached, that obliterated thing will be as if it never had been.

I'm using different terminology along the way, so it's not a new suggestion. The point behind it is that the World may impose constraints on God, and those constraints could be statistical-mechanical constraints rather than mechanical constraints (i.e., constraints that are imposed on a particular event such as a tsunami). I tend to favor this view, so we should address it if you want to understand my position.

Yes, this sounds important. I think we agree that God is "constrained" by necessities (like 2+2=4, or being unable to make a rock bigger than God can lift). But how is God constrained by the world--the world that God made? This seems strange. Why didn't God make a world where tsunamis didn't have to come about? Couldn't God have made such a world?

God's will is constrained by God's own existence. As part of God existing comes the notion that God is also a domain (in religious terms, the "kingdom of God"), or what I call the Omega state. This is the World that puts constraints on God's will. Another constraint is the Alpha state, and this state exists as part of the definition of the Omega state. This definition is important since existence is a reference to a causal link showing a history from beginning to end. Inbetween are the collection of possible worlds that show a history of how getting from Alpha to Omega is possible in the manner that is consistent with God as Truth (e.g., lawfully, minimally, etc.). If a world contains evil, then as long as it doesn't contradict God as Truth, then such worlds are inevitable.

It sure looks like what Hitler did was evil. But maybe--I mean it's possible--that Hitler was being bribed by space aliens and actually heroically saved the majority of earthlings from a much worse fate, agreeing to go down as the worst despot in history just so we could live our happy lives today. I don't believe that, because it looks for all the world like Hitler did bad things that caused a great deal of misery and harm, and it looks like he wanted to do these things.

Of course. Let's just take it as an assumed fact that Hitler did evil actions that are due because he was an evil person.

Similarly, the tsunami for all the world looks like a horrible incident that was not for the best. (You seem to agree on this point.) Sure, it's possible that God was doing us a favor with that tsunami, saving us from something far worse. But I have no more reason to think that than I do to think what Hitler did was good.

Again, we have indirect experience of Hitler as a human being, and we have good reason to believe that Hitler was evil. In the case of God, we do not know the constraints of God. Everything that you say is just wild speculation as to why God allows evil. You may have no reason to say God allows evil for a greater good, but that's besides the point, it is not for you to say. Of course, you can have your own opinions (which you do), but many of us believe God has very important reasons for allowing of evil, and we wait patiently for evil to be conquered. You don't believe that, then that's your call. If you want to give reasons not based on ignorance or speculation as to why God can't be good and still allow evil, then please provide them. As I said, I have reason to believe in an all-good, all-powerful God, so that is sufficient for me to think that there are good reasons. In fact, I believe my particular view is just one strategy to explain how an all-good, all-powerful God can exist--who knows how many other alternatives provide a reasonable explanation as to why an all-good, all-powerful God would be in the situation to allow evil.

I want to know why you think it's okay to believe that the tsunami actually was for the best (in the sense of wise for God to cause),

I don't think God's conscious mind caused the tsunami. I think God's conscious mind allowed the tsunami. There's a big difference between those two views.

but it's not okay to believe something similar for Hitler. In both cases we have prima facie horrific circumstances that, possibly, were justified by the prevention of worse circumstances.

We have reasons for believing that Hitler was evil and intentionally brought evil to people. There are many people who are constrained from preventing much suffering, that doesn't mean they caused the evil, nor does it mean they are not good because they can't prevent the evils. Perhaps they can prevent some horrible things, and they do as much as they are able. Similarly, you can't blame God for allowing certain horrendous acts of evil to occur because God is constrained to act.

In the case of God, God is trying to protect the World and provide a real eternal happiness for the all the conscious inhabitants (or so I believe), and to do that means allowing certain evil to exist.

I know you believe this. But why should I, or some neutral but rational third party, believe this? That's the discussion here. Why are you so sure that the amount of evil in the world (or World) is the absolute minimal amount necessary to bring us the greatest good?

I believe it because I have good reason to believe an all-good, all-powerful God. However, I also have mathematical reasons to believe that randomness might have some importance in God's nature, so I'm willing to believe that these things will have a way of working themselves out in good time.

This lower aspect of God's existence is like our brain stem. It regulates the body--the universe--but it does so without being conscious of its actions.

Is the suggestion that God isn't in control of God's own parts? The "lower aspects" of God sometimes spasm destructively despite the higher aspects' best intentions?

No, nothing like that. God simply is. God is an existence of order. That order is represented at very low levels in terms of mathematical and logical order, and at the higher end of the spectrum God is represented as a vast conscious mind "perceiving" and "knowing" everything in the universe, even our conversation. This existence of order acts consistently from the bottom to the top. The top "overrules" the bottom by a process of bringing about God's will in the world. Once the time is right, God will introduce a different kind of world that doesn't have our current physics, and that world won't have the evil that our world has.

God allows these actions to exist since stopping them would result in paradox.

I know, so you've said--but I still wonder why. Why why why do you think stopping the tsunami would be "paradoxical"? Would it be paradoxical if we humans managed to figure out how to prevent tsunamis?

Everything that is made inside the universe is part of the natural world, and therefore we can (at the moment) do nothing inconsistent with the natural world. Maybe someday our experiments in qm, sr, gr, etc., might have such kind of impact, but for now we are free from causing any paradoxes for the world. In the case of God, God is not part of the natural world, so any action that God takes could be in violation of the laws of physics, in which case God is behaving inconsistently. If God follows the laws of physics (which God of course will), then God has to be very clever on how God can influence the world and still accomplish the divine will. Of course, for God it's like watching an recorded NBA game when you already know who won the game. God knows that the divine will is successful since the Omega state exists. So, it is a matter of sticking to the game plan and success is guaranteed.

Would we only bring about worse things if we managed it someday? Should we stop pursuing such research? Should we also stop trying to cure cancer and other apparently bad things, since they are part of God's plan for the best, and preventing them would only bring about paradox?

No. We are in nature as part of the natural world, so our actions have no danger of perturbing the delicate balance that exists to our world. Since that is the case, it is our duty to do everything possible to do the right thing as much as possible.