Logical Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

I'm sorry if this topic has [probably] been done to death on this board but it's one of my favorite subjects with respect to Christianity and I thought I would bring it up.

Epicurus put the problem fairly well when he supposedly said:

If God is willing to prevent evil but unable,
Then He is impotent.
If He is able but not willing,
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing,
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing,
Then why call Him God?

Now, rather than get into the whole debate over what "evil" means, I'm going to make this a little easier by simply talking about suffering. I think most of us can probably agree that suffering is undesirable and that a being which causes or allows unnecessary suffering can't possibly fulfill the definition of "benevolent."

Thus we arrive at the question: if God is omnipotent (can actualize any logically possible state of affairs), omniscient (absolutely knows all possible states of affairs), and omnibenevolent (never malevolent), then why does suffering exist in the actual world?

I'll pre-emptively remove the most typical response: that of the "free will" theodicy. Suffering isn't entirely explained by the existence of human free choice -- after all, what free choice was responsible for, say, child leukemia? Beyond that, an omnipotent being should be able to create a world in which there is no physical suffering that remains conducive to free will.

I could go on, but I'd rather focus on responses as they come. Thoughts?

[Meow Mix]

I agree with you on this. Oh, so does the specific Christian group I belong to. I understand that this might cause problems, but it's important to know that Christianity is not the monolithic 'everybody believes the same thing' that so many atheists and non-Christians expect when they debate 'Christianity.'

I'm an ex-Christian; I understand there are many different ideas within Christianity. As for those who don't believe you're a Christian because your ideas might differ than theirs, I agree with you -- that's their problem

Why? Is there some rule that says that God has to do something a certain way in order to BE God? Is the fact that Deity is omnipotent a requirement that He EXERCISE it?

Well, because in this case God's inaction is allowing further suffering. If God is able to put a stop to it NOW using His omnipotence yet allows it to continue in favor of a slower method then that is in itself malevolent. Suppose a doctor had the cure for cancer but instead of giving it to a patient without side effects chooses to allow the patient to suffer for a while before finally administering it slowly -- is such a doctor malevolent? I'd say so.

For me, the "problem of evil" isn't. That is, the premises are false, according to my understanding of Who God is....and who WE are. I can absolutely see the argument in terms of how you define God, or how you demand God to be in order to apply the argument against Him, but....

What happens when you present this argument to someone who has a different notion of Who God is?

The Problem of Evil only applies to those who believe its premises; it doesn't apply whatsoever to those who have different premises. In order for PoE to apply, it must be agreed that God exists, that God has sovereignty over the laws of the universe, that God is omnipotent (can actualize any logically possible state of affairs), that God is omniscient (absolutely knows all logically possible states of affairs), and that God is omnibenevolent (is never malevolent). If all of these are believed the contradiction arises with the existence of suffering. If even one of these is not believed or believed to be slightly different, the PoE does not apply at all to that person.

[JehovahsWitness]

Actually, this is not my question, I have no problem with the cause and effect system

So my actual question is, why are the consequences what they are?

You might as well ask why does water, when the temperature drops below zero, freeze? The difference between cause and effect and cause and consequence is two additional syllables not much else.

The system of "cause and effect/consequence" that you have {quote} "no problem with" {unquote} dictates that all actions will result in a corresponding effect according predetermined laws (in the case of water physical laws). In a universe of actions (rather than chemical reactions) the same principle applies, any action will carry a consequence according to the a predetermined law.

Why THOSE laws? Why not no laws to govern cause and consequence?

Without law whether physical or moral there is chaos, and as I explained in my previous post (see above) intelligent beings cannot be happy in such an environment, neither indeed can any society successfully function. God put in place one moral law, one single law under which the order of human society could successfully operate, that of their need to recognise His sovereignty. Why?
Because, like water, we were made in a certain way and operating outside of that field would bring us harm.

Why were we not made capable of breaking that law WITHOUT consequence? Because such a thing would create pure evil and that could not be part of the plan of a benevolent God.

Imagine, if you dare, a world were not only could Hitler decide to cook up Mrs Geenbalm but were there were no moral or supreme law by which this could be judged as inacceptable? Where a man could rape a baby and God would say, that particular action is simply that, one of any number of actions, no divine law has been violated, no divine retribution should be expected. Would you chose to live in such a world? The principle that humans must use their god given powers within a scope, that each action has a consequence in line with divine law and that this balance will be respected, gives us as humans the sense of justice we crave. Why create us with such a craving for balance? A tour of Auswitch is all we need to reject the notion of a morally chaotic lawless universe.

i have a problem with is the proposition that a benevolent God set up a system where he determined the consequences for certain actions and those consequences were suffering and misery.

That indeed is the sad price to pay for the original rebellion. As I said, it would be impossible for humans to be happy without law and impossible for them to be happy breaking divine law. Thus the only reasonable choice SHOULD have been to respect the law, especially as breaking it would humans from the source of health and spiritual balance.

The principle is repeated today over and over. Man needs the trees, man needs clean water. Natural law is there? Why? because its how the planet was designed. Why? because is the best way for us to enjoy life, love and beauty a marvelously efficient ecosystem. What SHOULD we do? Respect the planet. What happens when we don't? What happens when we chuck poisons in the oceans and start cuting down all the tree? We start to die and threaten our very existence. Who are you going to blame? The trees?

We were made in a perfect balance with our creator, physically and spiritually without disease. What did we need to do? Respect the source of that health. What did we (as in our first parents) do? They cut of their noses to spite their faces and then complained they couldn't smell. Who caused the suffering? Who caused the disease? Who caused the death?

What made God decide that pain and suffering should be the result of rejecting God?

This is like asking Newton "why should pain and suffering be the result of jumping off a high building?" I a universe created according to certain laws (which are good and reasonable laws in line with the original design) that ensure our happiness, breaking them will automatically result in pain and suffering.

Gravity is good, it stops us floating all over the place, but in line with its existence, potential pain is built into the system, good sense should be our protection; railing against the natural balance displays the very intellectual shortsightedness that got us in this mess in the first place. Instead of directing anger at the individual that pushed us off a windowledge, it gets directed at the law of gravity.

Also, "Because that is the only way intelligent beings can exis happily." Due to your terribly unfortunate condition of 'not being omniscient', how do you know this? Why do you think this is true?

My ability to reason logically. (see previous posts)

CONCLUSION So the answer to why are there moral and spiritual laws that result in pain when broken is comparable to why are their physical laws. Because the universe was designed that way. Any injustice is not from the existence of the laws but from the initiative to break them.

[dianaiad]

Allow me to propose here how an omnipotent/omniscient being could actualize a world which contains beings with free will without suffering.

An omnipotent being -- where omnipotence is defined as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs -- can do exactly that. If it's logically possible, then God can actualize it.

An omniscient being absolutely knows all possible states of affairs (and their ramifications) to actualize.

We mere humans are already capable of simulating a world without suffering: this already happens on a daily basis in principle in the living rooms of many people when they turn on "god mode" in video games. Anything which can be simulated must by definition be logically possible, and therefore an omnipotent being could actualize it.

For instance, consider if I had a baseball bat and I wanted to swat the living daylights out of my neighbor. Suppose that when I took the swing that instead of imparting harmful force on their face, reality had an "if-then" conditional programmed into it that read something like "if baseball bat hits sentient being, then set force to zero. else impart impulse of force." There's nothing about that which violates logic -- it's capable of being simulated, for instance, which means it's within an omnipotent being's capacity to actualize.

"But that removes your free will to be able to hit someone with a bat if you want!" some might object. But that's already the case with the current world: as much as I might desire to walk on the ceiling the simple physics of this world prevents me from doing so un-aided. Does that infringe my free will? Of course not!

I submit that it's possible for an omnipotent being to actualize a world in which we have free will but in which physical suffering of any sort is as incapable of existing as it is impossible for us to walk on the ceiling unaided. So why does the capacity for physical suffering exist?

Oh, you're fun! You have some original and interesting points here.

However.....

Let us look at what happens when people are allowed the 'god mode'...simulated actions that have no real world consequences.

Studies show that children who play violent video games (the sort that allows one to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat, or shoot someone--or blow people up) become more aggressive and violent in the 'real' world.

For instance, here:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... e1067.full and here: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/facul ... 4/01ab.pdf

The point is, when children are allowed unrestricted access to such games, where they are allowed to be as violent as they want without actually inflicting harm, they tend to become more violent and aggressive outside the virtual world--and then they inflict some very real harm; that they might not have inflicted had they not been game players.


How does that relate to your point?

Just suppose that our purpose here on earth is as a 'training ground,' of sorts, and that what we learn here will have far wider consequences than anything we can presently imagine (well, if there is an all knowing God, and we aren't, then of course we can't imagine all that He can...).

Suppose that we might be in a position, in some after-life state, to affect things in a far more permanent and comprehensive a way than any earthly despot could possibly accomplish.

What would happen, do you think, if we, here, were allowed to play the 'god mode' and swing bats as we wished without causing any harm to the person we were bashing?

Perhaps...just perhaps, like the studies of video games suggests, we would be more likely to inflict great harm. Perhaps, like children who do NOT play video games and thus understand that enacting their violent impulses causes real harm to others, we will learn that it's not a good idea to do so. We learn compassion, and gain empathy. If we understand suffering, we are less likely to inflict it.

Hopefully.

Of course, there is also the idea about most views of Deity that there IS an afterlife...that lasts a whole lot longer than the time we have here. That is, in fact, one of the points of believing in deity. Even those belief systems that state that 'dead is dead' (and there are a few) hold out the hope of some continuance...a resurrection, an absorption...something.

Given that, then one must admit that THIS life is temporary; that suffering is also temporary; when compared to eternity, it's...like the virtual training of a shuttle pilot, where he can feel all the things that the shuttle will do as if he were actually flying the thing...and it can feel very, very real at the time, but in the end, isn't--because if you crash the virtual shuttle and 'die,' you simply walk out of the simulator, get the lousy grade, and go home to dinner.

the question is, though...if the virtual shuttle did NOT give the pilot the same feedback...if he could, for instance, make it pull G'forces that would make the pilot black out, without blacking out, how does that prepare him for flying the real thing?

If, then, we really DO have free will, then that alone means that it is possible to make the wrong choices...and that (probably) every wrong choice possible will be made by someone or other. If we don't see real consequences NOW from making them, will we then be like the video-game addicted teenagers, who actually become more violent and aggressive?

Just musing here...but...could the 'problem of evil,' actually be God making certain that we don't all become a bunch of sociopaths?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm merely stating that capacity is what matters in this case. Whether God takes a peek or not has no bearing on whether he can. That he can has implication for the universe.

This is true. The implication being things would be one way if he did and another if he did not. That I can play the piano indeed has an 'implication' to how musical the house may be. In real terms though, nothing can be remotely relevant in real terms to the actual music heard unless I chose to.

Any reference to "implication" devoid of application is purely academic.

Given that he created the universe, free agency is an inane concept as all actions will have him as the ultimate perpetrator.

While it's true no action could happen unless he had created the universe, there is a difference between making something possible and doing it.

#QUESTION Since God 'started the ball rolling' in creating humans (albeit with free will) can we not say he is responsible for every subsequent action?


Do we jail parents because they had a baby, knowing that one day that child could grow up and kill someone? Do we view producers of medical equipment and scaples as guilty because their product could be stolen and used contrary to the purpose of the designer? No, because we recognise that creating potential for bad is not synonymous with its causation.

Of course God could have created a univers without intelligent free moral agents and their potential for both good and bad - thus ensuring NO bad choices could be made, but that would also have prevented a very unique expression of good. It is for this reason people still have children when there exist perfectly good programmable plastic dolls, because in allowing a unique free thinking being to come into existence you have created something beautiful with the potential to love freely from the heart.

God gave humans the best possible start in life, nothing that has subsequently happened won't be repaired, but in the meantime, each individual is entirely responsible his choices.

If it's possible for God to know the future, it follows that nobody will do anything other than what they're going to do(By definition).

We have already established that being able to do something is not synonamous with DOING that thing. That it is possible for God to know the future does not mean that he DOES (has chosen) to know the future.

Does God foreknown and foreordain everything?

Not everything no. Clearly God does have the ABILITY to foreknow (and indeed if he chose to foreordain) things as shown by Isaisah 46: 9-10. However, God can do anything INCLUDING be selective in the use of his use of powers.

• To illustrate: God has infinite power, he CAN destroy everyone and everything. Has he chosen to do so? No, he has clearly chosen to not use his powers in this way. He has, in short been selective in how he uses this power.

In the same way, God can control or limit his use of any of his capacities including that of foreknowledge. He is not subject to his powers, his powers are subject to him. Thus if Almighty God chooses to not know about certain things he is free and perfectly capable of doing so. In the same way if God choses to fortell certain details concerning the future, for example as in Isaiah 11: 1-3 where he foretold the promised Messiah being a descendent of Jesse, he can of course do so.

If God created everything, it follows that God causes each and every 'choice' a human makes..

FOREKNOWLEDGE IS NOT CAUSATION

God's restraint in this matter means the "buck" of responsiblity remains with those he had given free will to make (and face the consequences) of their own moral decisons. Since, in most cases, God choses not to know what individual decisions they would make, he is not responsible for any ills their decision cause.

Note: Foreknowledge is not synonymous with causation. Most people are 100% certain that they are going to die one day. Is that knowledge causing them to die? If a person saw the fedex man walking up to the door with a package and knew with *100%* certainty that when he rings the doorbell their dogs will start barking. Who caused the dogs to bark, the owner or the Fedex man?

If God created everything, it follows that God causes each and every 'choice' a human makes.

No it doesn't, the creation of self generating self perpetuating free moral agents means there would exist other intelligent life in the universe capable of acting independent of him.

CAN FREE WILL AN OMNISCIENCE CO EXIST?

What about 'free will' and omniscience? How can a god know everything and not encroach on the free will of his creation?

Free will, like all freedoms is relative. Only an omnipotent creator can be thought of as free in the absolute sense. By free will we are referring to humans right to self determination, to make a decision about his future and be held responsible for that decision.

So can a human make a decision if a second person knows before hand what that decision will be? Yes, of course, knowledge is not causation. To illustrate: A man stands before two doors. A green one and a red one. A second observer knows which door the man will chose to take. Is the man still making a decision? Yes, as long as the second individual

a) doesn't influence the decision (tell him which door he will choose)
b) remove his options at that moment in time (lock the green door).

Of course a human cannot make a decision to do something he is not capable or designed not to do, thus no human can decide to be able to fly or to be a turtle. So the limits, constaints and responsibilities connected to our freedom or free will is indeed determined by God; but within these limites we indeed enjoy a measure of free will.

Man is not affected by the choices he makes because he can't be said to make anything of a 'choice'. God created the universe in such a way that the man will perform a particular action, and the train of responsibility can be traced back to said God.

No he did not. No matter how many times you repeat the same point is doesn't make it logically viable. Humans are capable of self generation of thought and action and whether God is "responsible" would depend on his foreknowledge of the individual action and any influence he chose to exert. (see above)

My point is that when God has created us in a universe where he could know what we will do, we cannot but do that which God made us do.

That would be in the paralle universe of robotic beings one can only presume exists in your imagination. Clearly humans are not doing what God desires since he would hardly desire rebellion to his express commands. Logically an omnipotent God that is controlling every action in the universe would have a universe completely in harmonious subjection to him - one can only presume therefore if that is not the case that he is permiting actions contrary to his will and purpose. If he doesn't generate these actions we can reasonably conclude someone else does.

While (again) the situation obviously exists because he allows it one can no more equate permission with causation than accuse a doctor that permitted his patients to smoke of giving them cancer.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE PURPOSE OF LIFE

[LiamOS]

I apologise for neglecting much of your post, but I believe that the essence of our debate is largely encompassed by what I've responded to.

#QUESTION Since God 'started the ball rolling' in creating humans (albeit with free will) can we not say he is responsible for every subsequent action?

Define what you mean by free will.
Secondly, since God is capable of knowing the future, it follows that the future is determined. If the future is entirely determined, it follows that humans can only perform a specific action in a specific circumstance. From this, it follows that humans have the same amount of choice in something as a watch.

FOREKNOWLEDGE IS NOT CAUSATION

Of course, but causation sure is causation.
- God created the universe.
- If God is capable of foreknowledge, then the universe is deterministic.
- The universe is deterministic. In this deterministic universe, we can consider the sequence of events leading to event E_n, namely E₀, E₁, ... , E_n-1. In this sequence, we can say state that there exists an event E_n only if there exists an event E_n-1 which causes E_n, with the exception of E₀(God's creation of the universe in our case).
∴ All events can be causally traced to God.

For this not to hold, there must be disconnects in the causal chain of events. Obviously if this is the case, God would not be capable of foreknowledge.

Applying this logic to humans also renders our decision making abilities and responsibility for our actions akin to those of a watch.




Finally, there's another strain of our debate which I will attempt to compress:

Humans are capable of self generation of thought and action

Please provide some evidence that this statement is true.
Further, please clarify how non-contingent self-causation does not destroy the premise of possible divine foreknowledge and universal cause and effect.

[Meow Mix]

Oh, you're fun! You have some original and interesting points here.

However.....

Let us look at what happens when people are allowed the 'god mode'...simulated actions that have no real world consequences.

Studies show that children who play violent video games (the sort that allows one to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat, or shoot someone--or blow people up) become more aggressive and violent in the 'real' world.

For instance, here:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... e1067.full and here: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/facul ... 4/01ab.pdf

The point is, when children are allowed unrestricted access to such games, where they are allowed to be as violent as they want without actually inflicting harm, they tend to become more violent and aggressive outside the virtual world--and then they inflict some very real harm; that they might not have inflicted had they not been game players.


How does that relate to your point?

Just suppose that our purpose here on earth is as a 'training ground,' of sorts, and that what we learn here will have far wider consequences than anything we can presently imagine (well, if there is an all knowing God, and we aren't, then of course we can't imagine all that He can...).

Suppose that we might be in a position, in some after-life state, to affect things in a far more permanent and comprehensive a way than any earthly despot could possibly accomplish.

What would happen, do you think, if we, here, were allowed to play the 'god mode' and swing bats as we wished without causing any harm to the person we were bashing?

Perhaps...just perhaps, like the studies of video games suggests, we would be more likely to inflict great harm. Perhaps, like children who do NOT play video games and thus understand that enacting their violent impulses causes real harm to others, we will learn that it's not a good idea to do so. We learn compassion, and gain empathy. If we understand suffering, we are less likely to inflict it.

Hopefully.

I understand your point, but it didn't escape my initial calculations and argument. Your argument -- if I understand you -- amounts to something like, "If responsibility for our actions is removed then our actions can become deeply irresponsible and cause some greater future harm." The problem with this is that an omnipotent being could create the world in such a way that "future harm" is just as impossible.

Let's say that someone finds that people suffer no harm if they swing a baseball at them, so they run around swatting at everyone they see with impunity. This could be a real problem should they ever come across someone who's vulnerable to baseball bats, but what is there to worry about if their actions can never harm others -- ever?

You allude to a future where "what we learn here will have far wider consequences than anything we can presently imagine." This is a fallacious argument though: this is basically saying that the reason there is suffering is because there is some unknown purpose for it that we can't understand. This is the fallacy of special pleading -- and fallacies shouldn't be admissable as responses to arguments in any situation. "God works in mysterious ways" or "God has mysterious plans for us" is a fallacious non-response, and I don't say that in a rude way.

Besides, even if I were to concede and tone down my argument a little (I don't, and I'm not going to except to make this point) the question would still remain of why there exist innocent victims. People can suffer consequences for actions -- and thus learn not to do them -- without allowing for the capacity to hurt other people. Suppose I swing a bat at a person: why should they suffer because of my poor choice? An omnipotent being could simply make it so that I suffer if I make a poor choice -- there is no reason to allow innocent victims to exist; unless of course the creator has a malevolent streak. Don't focus too much on this part though as it's just an aside -- my main point still hasn't been countered and this weakened version is just being relayed here for fun.

Either way, there is no reason why "innocent victims" should exist that's forthcoming.

Of course, there is also the idea about most views of Deity that there IS an afterlife...that lasts a whole lot longer than the time we have here. That is, in fact, one of the points of believing in deity. Even those belief systems that state that 'dead is dead' (and there are a few) hold out the hope of some continuance...a resurrection, an absorption...something.

Given that, then one must admit that THIS life is temporary; that suffering is also temporary; when compared to eternity, it's...like the virtual training of a shuttle pilot, where he can feel all the things that the shuttle will do as if he were actually flying the thing...and it can feel very, very real at the time, but in the end, isn't--because if you crash the virtual shuttle and 'die,' you simply walk out of the simulator, get the lousy grade, and go home to dinner.

Suppose I see a baby and I decide to punch it in the face, then give it a lifetime of candy and pay for its entire education and living expenses for the rest of its life. Am I benevolent? Sure, I'm doing a lot for it -- but I'm not omnibenevolent because that first punch was totally unnecessary and quite malevolent.

the question is, though...if the virtual shuttle did NOT give the pilot the same feedback...if he could, for instance, make it pull G'forces that would make the pilot black out, without blacking out, how does that prepare him for flying the real thing?

This analogy would work if the pilot were capable of blacking out. Remember, we're talking about a world God could actualize in which suffering is physically impossible. There are no ramifications for missing a "lesson on suffering" because there will never be any suffering to prepare for. That's the point.

Otherwise this is like arguing that in a world without malaria (and where it will never exist) we should object that doctors aren't getting training on treating malaria. My response is, so what? Of course they're not getting trained to treat malaria because it doesn't exist and never will exist in such a hypothetical world.

If, then, we really DO have free will, then that alone means that it is possible to make the wrong choices...and that (probably) every wrong choice possible will be made by someone or other. If we don't see real consequences NOW from making them, will we then be like the video-game addicted teenagers, who actually become more violent and aggressive?

Just musing here...but...could the 'problem of evil,' actually be God making certain that we don't all become a bunch of sociopaths?

The problem is that in the world I describe, nobody could actually harm anyone at any time even if they desired to -- not physically. The point is that if a world could exist which has less suffering than this one then God is culpable for any suffering which exists beyond what He can't control allowing -- I'm making the case that there is a great deal of suffering in this world within God's control that He seems content to allow, which is malevolent since there is an alternative.

Now, I very much doubt that there could be a world with free agents completely devoid of suffering. Some suffering God may have no choice but to allow for the sake of having free beings: for instance, consider unrequited love. God can't control who people fall in love with if He grants them free will, so the blame for suffering brought by unrequited love can't be placed on God's shoulders at all. However, the existence of all physical suffering can, assuming that God exists, that God has sovereignty over the laws of the universe, that God is omnipotent, and that God is omniscient. Such a being is incompatible with being both omnibenevolent and with the existence of suffering in this world.

[dianaiad]

Oh, you're fun! You have some original and interesting points here.

However.....

Let us look at what happens when people are allowed the 'god mode'...simulated actions that have no real world consequences.

Studies show that children who play violent video games (the sort that allows one to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat, or shoot someone--or blow people up) become more aggressive and violent in the 'real' world.

For instance, here:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... e1067.full and here: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/facul ... 4/01ab.pdf

The point is, when children are allowed unrestricted access to such games, where they are allowed to be as violent as they want without actually inflicting harm, they tend to become more violent and aggressive outside the virtual world--and then they inflict some very real harm; that they might not have inflicted had they not been game players.


How does that relate to your point?

Just suppose that our purpose here on earth is as a 'training ground,' of sorts, and that what we learn here will have far wider consequences than anything we can presently imagine (well, if there is an all knowing God, and we aren't, then of course we can't imagine all that He can...).

Suppose that we might be in a position, in some after-life state, to affect things in a far more permanent and comprehensive a way than any earthly despot could possibly accomplish.

What would happen, do you think, if we, here, were allowed to play the 'god mode' and swing bats as we wished without causing any harm to the person we were bashing?

Perhaps...just perhaps, like the studies of video games suggests, we would be more likely to inflict great harm. Perhaps, like children who do NOT play video games and thus understand that enacting their violent impulses causes real harm to others, we will learn that it's not a good idea to do so. We learn compassion, and gain empathy. If we understand suffering, we are less likely to inflict it.

Hopefully.

I understand your point, but it didn't escape my initial calculations and argument. Your argument -- if I understand you -- amounts to something like, "If responsibility for our actions is removed then our actions can become deeply irresponsible and cause some greater future harm." The problem with this is that an omnipotent being could create the world in such a way that "future harm" is just as impossible.

That is fine..but also an abrogation of our free will, I think.

Here's a question, though....what if the purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

[Meow Mix]

That is fine..but also an abrogation of our free will, I think.

Here's a question, though....what if the purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

How does it conflict with our free will? Do you agree that my inability to hop through my computer screen into your living room because I'm physically unable to doesn't harm my free will? If so, then why do you suppose my inability to hit someone with a baseball bat would?

As for the latter question, there is no reason why God couldn't impart knowledge on how to create said universes without malevolently introducing suffering in its inhabitants. If God fails to do so, then again God wouldn't be omnibenevolent by way of negligence.

[dianaiad]

That is fine..but also an abrogation of our free will, I think.

Here's a question, though....what if the purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

How does it conflict with our free will? Do you agree that my inability to hop through my computer screen into your living room because I'm physically unable to doesn't harm my free will? If so, then why do you suppose my inability to hit someone with a baseball bat would?

It is possible (science fictionally speaking, at least) that someday you might actually be able to do that. Even now, there's nothing stopping you from TRYING. It is the consequences of that trial that tell you that perhaps that's not a viable choice.

I have a sort of deck outside my bedroom window. Now, I'm no bird; I"m not equipped to fly. However, there is nothing stopping me from stepping to the edge, flapping my arms really hard, and TRYING to. The consequences of my choice won't be comfortable and would probably involve broken bones (I'm not up that high)..but I can certainly make the choice to try.

What you are proposing is a bit different; that one cannot even attempt to swing the bat at a head; in order to do that, the very ability to think about doing so must be removed. If we can conceive of a possibility, we can try to do it. It is the consequences of the trial that teach us possibilities, not the impossibility of the thought.

Removing the negative consequences of a thing in order to keep suffering at bay...what does THAT teach us? Again, we are back to the video game players.

As for the latter question, there is no reason why God couldn't impart knowledge on how to create said universes without malevolently introducing suffering in its inhabitants. If God fails to do so, then again God wouldn't be omnibenevolent by way of negligence.

Ah....

But if He IS training up universe creators, He is also training up people who would, by the very nature of creating universes, able to decide whether those universes are good places, or bad ones...whether they are places of eternal possibilities, or eternal suffering.

Wouldn't He want to train universe creators who would prefer NOT to make their creations places of horrific misery? What better way to so that than allow them experience some of that, to develop empathy, and to understand on a very visceral level what suffering is?

Remember, according to my belief, He didn't even exempt
His Own Son from that experience.

Indeed, you are probably right; He may well be able to fix it so that we didn't have to suffer...but then how is that testing, or teaching, US? If we have free will, then that comes with taking very real consequences of the choices we make.....and we always have choices, no matter how physically constrained we may be. Even the blindfolded, bound and gagged guy in front of a firing squad has a choice...in what he chooses to think about in the last seconds of his life, if nothing else. If God takes all the negative consequences of our choices away--He's taking the choices themselves away, I believe.

[Zzyzx]

.

Here's a question, though....what if the purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

"What if . . . " isn't much of an "argument" -- it is purely speculative and hypothetical.

Can you show evidence that "the purpose is to train up . . . " (and make it a valid question for debate)?