A New Argument from Evil

[Koldo]

You fall asleep when you want to do evil (so evil can’t ever happen). Or everybody is invulnerable (forever? to everything?, we wouldn’t have to do anything for survival?).

Sounds like simple beings in a garden of eden again. I’ll choose God’s current universe, I believe He’s a lot smarter than us.

Why? What is the advantage?
However, it must be said that this is not a matter of 'i want x over y'.
The whole argument is that God must necessarily create the world in a given manner over another because of his attributes.

Immortal and invulnerable? Isaac Asimov (a noted atheist by the way) correctly said (in his criticism of the traditional view of heaven) to the effect that he could think of no greater hell than living forever (we don’t grasp infinity very well). In eastern religions there is the concept of no permanent soul (but one that lasts for many, many lifetimes and merges in the One).

What is wrong with living forever? We don't grasp infinity very well, and yet you make this sort of statement.

Bad idea.

Why?

Overall, i replied to a post that made absolutely no arguments, so i would like to see more arguments for a more meaningful debate.

 

[Sir Doom]

My attempt to put the argument into math. Please feel free to shoot me (in the figurative sense, of course) if you are an actual mathematician or something similar:

IF

G = (God)
W = (God's will)
R = (Reality)
X = (Omnipotence)
Y = (Omnipresence)
Z = (Omniscience)
A = (Omni-benevolence)
B = (Omni-moral universe) - using this as a catch-all hopefully.

AND

G = X + Y + Z + A Meaning to say God contains all of these attributes

AND

W = G + R Meaning to say it is God's will that reality exists with God

THEN

R = B

That's if I know anything about how logic works anyway. Someone is bound to disagree, I'm sure.

 

[Willamena]

Simone is bound to disagree, I'm sure.

Not a mathematician or Simone, but... if God exists with reality, I.e. besides it, then God isn't real.

 

[Sir Doom]

Not a mathematician or Simone, but... if God exists with reality, I.e. besides it, then God isn't real.

You know, I was thinking of going with G+W=R as in (God) with (God's Will) results in (reality) in every case. I should have gone with that.

 

[Matthew78]

First the rock. What exactly is 'lifting' from god's perspective, again? Oh, right. It's a primitive concept created by humans to describe an action which is completely inaccurate as the concepts of up, down, left, middle, yonder, and other such whimsical notions are illusions built on a shoddy perception of reality. Can God make a rock it can't lift? Yes. Any celestial body. You can't lift something that isn't on something else to be lifted off of. The paradox is a trick of language and nothing else.

Now for the square circle. Again, it is a trick of language. Both squares and circles are made up concepts of human beings. They don't actually exist in reality. There are things that look sort of like squares and circles and we call them squares and circles. But the square and circle that make this paradox work (the absolutely perfect versions) do not actually exist anywhere but in our mind. Therefore, any assignment of the word 'square' and 'circle' is completely arbitrary and always inaccurate. As this is the case, the fact that no one is likely to agree to the arbitrary assignment of the combined word "square circle" doesn't really matter as long as someone agrees with it.

Also, what do you call a shape that alternates between square and circle at regular intervals?

These may just be semantic tricks but what I was doing was summarizing, in my own words, the objection of many theists that an omnipotent God can do anything. Perhaps you are right about these being tricks of language-I don't claim any expertise in the philosophy of religion, or philosophy more generally, so I really can't say that I agree with you or disagree with you.

Quite right, I recant. If god is supposed to be loving, it necessarily must act loving.

I can agree, hypothetically, if God is necessarily loving. If God is necessarily loving, it necessarily must act loving and if God is necessarily just then God must necessarily act just.

Unless we are assuming a loving one. Anyway the question was to illustrate the subjective nature of 'justice'. You can't demonstrate what I ask for, obviously. You would need the omniscient perspective for that.

An omniscient perspective? I don't quite follow. My argument was only to show that if a divine being is necessarily just, then it must necessarily act just and it is unjust to plan and execute acts of injustice or to negligently fail to respond even if it doesn't plan and execute acts of injustice.

Are you suggesting that the being that creates all of reality doesn't have 'ownership' of it? I'm pretty sure reality would be considered God's intellectual property if someone intended to dispute that...

This assumes that the act of creating reality was intentional and part of the intent was an authoritative relationship over the created order, including humans. Creation need not be. Our cosmic reality could be an accidental byproduct of some other process or it can be an unwanted but inevitable byproduct of some other creative act that the divine being.

Why does being necessarily just or perfectly just entail that he has something to gain by helping humanity? What if helping humanity is just in his nature to do so because being necessarily or even perfectly just is in his nature and helping humanity is just a natural outcome of being just?

It isn't a quality of being just its a quality of being omnipotence. Humanity can't possibly gain anything for a being that can literally create anything and has created everything.

I don't see how this is the case. Why is it a quality of being omnipotent? Don't you also mean to say that humanity can't possible gain anything from a being that can literally create anything and has created everything? If so, I'm afraid you lost me.

This means that whether it acts just or unjust is a product of the being's whim and nothing more. Taken or left as it sees fit. Nothing could prevent this from happening.

I can only see this as being the case if the divine being in question is merely omnipotent and omniscient.

We aren't following a story line. The story is written and done and on the shelf from god's perspective. No time, remember? It really isn't important whether god has allowed us to make choices or not. They are already made. The story is complete. The universe ended the very same moment it began and this is also that very same moment.

Again, this assumes that sovereignty follows deductively from omnipotent. I don't see how. Maybe I am missing something here.

It hinges on that one attribute because its the one that isn't there. It has no duty to anything at all for any reason whatsoever. How could it? What could possibly obligate it to anything?

A divine being that is omnipotent and omniscient and merely having these two attributes, yes. But I still think, further, that your reply is confusing omnipotence with sovereignty. I don't see these as being synonymous concepts nor do I see the latter as deriving deductively from the former.

Subjective does not mean pointless. I thought this had been covered.

It may have been covered before but I disagree with it. If justice is subjective then that ultimately means that we invent it and what laws we construct or whatever institutions that we design to actualize these laws depend on our whims. When I think about this, I can only come to one conclusion: if we invent justice, and therefore justice becomes subjective, we can invent just about any system of justice that we like. There is no reason why any one system or theory of justice is better or superior to any other. Why bother to invent justice at all? Why bother to invent institutions whose purpose is to see justice served? If it's all invented, it's all subjective, and there is no reason why we should or ought to have justice; we just do and it's a selfish desire on our part.

Which is why I ask you to demonstrate that god is being immoral from god's perspective. If this can't be done, then god cannot be demonstrably immoral and therefore the conclusion you are drawing can't be drawn.

I can only demonstrate it based on the right attributes supplied to me by various theists advocating specific theistic concepts. If those concepts have the attributes mentioned in my OP, then I can demonstrate that God is being immoral if immorality has injustice as an ingredient. As for God's perspective, I would have to ask: is this a necessarily or perfectly just God or not?

 

[George-ananda]

Why? What is the advantage?
However, it must be said that this is not a matter of 'i want x over y'.
The whole argument is that God must necessarily create the world in a given manner over another because of his attributes.



What is wrong with living forever? We don't grasp infinity very well, and yet you make this sort of statement.



Why?

Overall, i replied to a post that made absolutely no arguments, so i would like to see more arguments for a more meaningful debate.

Here's my argument:

The problem of evil is really a problem of us with limited perspective judging intelligence with unlimited perspective. Kind of like a young kid thinking he knows more than his parents about life. Staying up late, eating candy, not having to go to school, no chores, etc. would be a young kid's idea of loving parents.

The perceived 'problem of evil' also stems from the illusion that life begins at birth and ends at death. Life did not begin at birth nor does it end at death. There is a long chain of causes (that we can't see) that made the world exactly as it is today.

 

[Sir Doom]

These may just be semantic tricks but what I was doing was summarizing, in my own words, the objection of many theists that an omnipotent God can do anything. Perhaps you are right about these being tricks of language-I don't claim any expertise in the philosophy of religion, or philosophy more generally, so I really can't say that I agree with you or disagree with you.

I know, I am conceding to the logic-only version for the purposes of this thread as it is contained in the premise of your argument that we should assume this. I only dispelled the paradoxes because I am intolerably self-interested and I wanted to show off.

I can agree, hypothetically, if God is necessarily loving. If God is necessarily loving, it necessarily must act loving and if God is necessarily just then God must necessarily act just.

Mmm hmm.

An omniscient perspective? I don't quite follow. My argument was only to show that if a divine being is necessarily just, then it must necessarily act just and it is unjust to plan and execute acts of injustice or to negligently fail to respond even if it doesn't plan and execute acts of injustice.

Right, my argument is that logically, IF God is assumed to be omnibenevolent (which you instruct in the premise) AND you personally (or anyone really) were granted the omniscient perspective of any given action/reaction/cause/effect that ever has, does or will happen, then you would observe horrible things like SIDS, napalm, Hitler, cholera, etc as moral acts just as God does. Because you know exactly why it is that these things happen and what their inevitable results will be, both of which are necessarily moral by the assumption that god must always act morally.

This assumes that the act of creating reality was intentional and part of the intent was an authoritative relationship over the created order, including humans. Creation need not be. Our cosmic reality could be an accidental byproduct of some other process or it can be an unwanted but inevitable byproduct of some other creative act that the divine being.

Omniscience should assume this. There are no accidents if you are aware of every possible outcome of every possible action and exactly how to bring about any one of them and have zero margin of error.

I don't see how this is the case. Why is it a quality of being omnipotent?

I just said. If you already have everything what could you want for that would be provided by humanity? Nothing.

Don't you also mean to say that humanity can't possible gain anything from a being that can literally create anything and has created everything? If so, I'm afraid you lost me.

No. I don't mean to say this at all. We wouldn't be able to gain anything at all otherwise.

I can only see this as being the case if the divine being in question is merely omnipotent and omniscient.

Merely? Run that by me one more time.

Again, this assumes that sovereignty follows deductively from omnipotent. I don't see how. Maybe I am missing something here.

I'm going to need your definition of sovereignty, then. My statement was intended to demonstrate exactly why the being must have sovereignty, but apparently I don't know what that term means.

A divine being that is omnipotent and omniscient and merely having these two attributes, yes. But I still think, further, that your reply is confusing omnipotence with sovereignty. I don't see these as being synonymous concepts nor do I see the latter as deriving deductively from the former.

I don't understand where you think authority would lie if not with the sole creator/controller of reality.

It may have been covered before but I disagree with it. If justice is subjective then that ultimately means that we invent it and what laws we construct or whatever institutions that we design to actualize these laws depend on our whims. When I think about this, I can only come to one conclusion: if we invent justice, and therefore justice becomes subjective, we can invent just about any system of justice that we like. There is no reason why any one system or theory of justice is better or superior to any other.

You seem to have described the various justice systems humans have used throughout the years (including current standards worldwide) to the letter. You are correct BECAUSE justice is subjective all of these things you just said ARE true. I'm surprised this has escaped your notice.

Why bother to invent justice at all?

Because we want to commit horrible acts, but we know they are horrible acts so we must trick ourselves into thinking they are not horrible acts by inventing a catch-all expression 'justice' which will excuse any act we feel like excusing. Like, it is unjustified to shoot someone in the face so you can take their wallet, but it is justified to shoot someone in the face to keep your wallet.

Imagine that. It's okay to shoot someone over a wallet as long as its your wallet. Does this really sound like an objective rule to you? And yet is justice according to the system you are very willing to discard.

Why bother to invent institutions whose purpose is to see justice served?

Because we bothered to invent justice. It makes sense to set up a process to ensure it gets carried out as we envisioned it.

If it's all invented, it's all subjective, and there is no reason why we should or ought to have justice; we just do and it's a selfish desire on our part.

Quite correct. And yet, we did invent it despite how self-serving it is. By the way, we also invented television for selfish reasons. That doesn't negate the television. Justice still matters. Because it matters to us. And we are us.

I can only demonstrate it based on the right attributes supplied to me by various theists advocating specific theistic concepts. If those concepts have the attributes mentioned in my OP, then I can demonstrate that God is being immoral if immorality has injustice as an ingredient.

Please do demonstrate it then at your earliest convenience. It was one of my original questions towards your OP.

As for God's perspective, I would have to ask: is this a necessarily or perfectly just God or not?

Your premise included this, so yes it does for this thread, doesn't it?

 

[Koldo]

Here's my argument:

The problem of evil is really a problem of us with limited perspective judging intelligence with unlimited perspective. Kind of like a young kid thinking he knows more than his parents about life. Staying up late, eating candy, not having to go to school, no chores, etc. would be a young kid's idea of loving parents.

Your examples are really good. Parents have to do many things in the best interest of their children, however that is so because they are not omnipotent. If they were omnipotent, they could make their children not need to sleep, immune to caries, instantly grant knowledge of ( nearly ) everything, and so on.

Omnipotence solves all these problems.

The perceived 'problem of evil' also stems from the illusion that life begins at birth and ends at death. Life did not begin at birth nor does it end at death. There is a long chain of causes (that we can't see) that made the world exactly as it is today.

Actually, the problem of evil still applies in cases of rebirth/reincarnation. God created beings that would suffer either way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It comes back to my previous question that was never addressed. What would the world look like without what you called ‘imperfections’?

Why, exactly? When you talk about compassion and the like, it seems that you're conceding that there are imperfections in the world that need fixing.

Let’s take the example of child starvation. Does God materialize food in front of them? How would HE interfere with the natural course of the world. And what ramifications would continual interference have. Will we have a ‘God will do it’ attitude? So if Penguin was God, what would he do and what are the thought out ramifications of his doing. I think your argument will come back to creating an eternal Garden of Eden which I previously argued was the worst thing possible.

As I mentioned earlier (although not in a reply to you), I reject the idea of perfection except for certain contrived situations (e.g. a perfect score in bowling). While I don't think that the Earth as it is now is "maximally good" by any formulation I've ever heard of, when it comes right down to it, I don't think that maximal goodness - i.e. perfection - exists at all. No matter how good things are, I think we can always make them better.

On a side note, though, I noticed something strange about your terminology the way you distinguished between "natural law" and "interference". If we're assuming an overall sovereign creator-god, then both are just "what God does."

Yes I’m aware of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It’s only common sense. And yes, some incarnations are largely a struggle for survival. Humanity learns compassion to improve the lot of future strugglers. And that one incarnation is not the begin-all or end-all of anything; there are reasons for it and it will effect things after it and in the end that soul will return to Godhead.

So your take on things needs reincarnation to be true?

No, compassion and service is the best things for societal spiritual growth.

But compassion and lack of suffering aren't mutually exclusive. I still care about the well-being of others even when all their needs are met. However, effort expended to see to basic needs of myself or others is effort I can't put toward higher things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's my argument:

The problem of evil is really a problem of us with limited perspective judging intelligence with unlimited perspective. Kind of like a young kid thinking he knows more than his parents about life. Staying up late, eating candy, not having to go to school, no chores, etc. would be a young kid's idea of loving parents.

So... like a vaccination where the child realizes the pain but not the benefit of immunity, the suffering in our lives is actually necessary for a greater purpose. Murder, rape, disease, starvation, and pain are all not just good things, but they're the best things possible, and it's only our lack of perspective that doesn't allow us to see how truly wondrous they are.

All hail the rapist, God's holy agent on Earth. :sarcastic

 

[idav]

So... like a vaccination where the child realizes the pain but not the benefit of immunity, the suffering in our lives is actually necessary for a greater purpose. Murder, rape, disease, starvation, and pain are all not just good things, but they're the best things possible, and it's only our lack of perspective that doesn't allow us to see how truly wondrous they are.

All hail the rapist, God's holy agent on Earth. :sarcastic

It takes a lot of faith to believe this to be the best of all worlds and universes.

God doesn't hate us, he just can't help us, we have to help ourselves. I wouldn't be sitting around watching my child suffer to such extremes as if it is needed for some greater good. Thats why we have cops and doctors trying to prevent crimes and diseases cause nobody else is gonna do it for us.

 

[Koldo]

It takes a lot of faith to believe this to be the best of all worlds and universes.

God doesn't hate us, he just can't help us, we have to help ourselves. I wouldn't be sitting around watching my child suffer to such extremes as if it is needed for some greater good. Thats why we have cops and doctors trying to prevent crimes and diseases cause nobody else is gonna do it for us.

Then he isn't omnipotent.
Case solved.

 

[Willamena]

It takes a lot of faith to believe this to be the best of all worlds and universes.

Not really, not if it's the only one.

 

[Matthew78]

I wanted to thank everyone so far who has contributed to this thread. Even for those whom I disagree, I appreciate your input as it helps me refine my thinking on the subject. So, thanks everyone!

I am far from done with this thread. I will probably be replying to Sir Doom sometime tonight (P.S.T. here in California).

Matthew

 

[George-ananda]

Your examples are really good. Parents have to do many things in the best interest of their children, however that is so because they are not omnipotent. If they were omnipotent, they could make their children not need to sleep, immune to caries, instantly grant knowledge of ( nearly ) everything, and so on.

Omnipotence solves all these problems.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY my sparring partner . But don’t think for a second that means I’m not going to slap down your last reply.

Yet again you’re trying to say that the best world possible is one where no one has free-will. Because free-will implies the ability to choose good or choose a selfish evil path. And in your world there is no evil and no suffering apparently.

We’re back to your world of everybody living forever in a Garden of Eden with no evil, death, suffering, etc.. If you do nothing, God can’t let you suffer. We’d have to be vegetarians too, no creature can suffer. Plus I can explain while living forever while experiencing time as we do would be a torturous hell. I can go on and on with other points why you would make a not so hot God; you don’t ponder all the ramifications of your actions like an infinite God might.

God is the creator of this great drama/play. A drama where there’s no struggling, challenges, triumphs, defeats, suffering, joy, etc. is not going to win any Academy Award for best picture. In God’s drama there will be a happy ending though for all; a return to Godhead. No ‘problem of evil’. It’s a drama that goes from the big bang to the end of the universe; not the short span of one lifetime. Your consciousness has no birth and no death. The suffering we see in the world has a long, long chain of causes that we don’t see.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It takes a lot of faith to believe this to be the best of all worlds and universes.

... and a fair bit of cognitive dissonance as well, if the person holding that belief also thinks that he has some sort of duty to make things better while thinking that things can't get better than the way they are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We’re back to your world of everybody living forever in a Garden of Eden with no evil, death, suffering, etc.. If you do nothing, God can’t let you suffer. We’d have to be vegetarians too, no creature can suffer. Plus I can explain while living forever while experiencing time as we do would be a torturous hell. I can go on and on with other points why you would make a not so hot God; you don’t ponder all the ramifications of your actions like an infinite God might.

Why do you assume that a "perfect" universe would necessarily have people at all?

 

[George-ananda]

Why do you assume that a "perfect" universe would necessarily have people at all?

I don't assume that. We're not capable of that judgement; it's above our pay-grade.

I was just critiquing a poster who wanted to tweak the universe in a way he thought would make it better than it is.

 

[Matthew78]

I know, I am conceding to the logic-only version for the purposes of this thread as it is contained in the premise of your argument that we should assume this. I only dispelled the paradoxes because I am intolerably self-interested and I wanted to show off.

Okay! I don't mind a little self-interest every now and then .

Right, my argument is that logically, IF God is assumed to be omnibenevolent (which you instruct in the premise) AND you personally (or anyone really) were granted the omniscient perspective of any given action/reaction/cause/effect that ever has, does or will happen, then you would observe horrible things like SIDS, napalm, Hitler, cholera, etc as moral acts just as God does. Because you know exactly why it is that these things happen and what their inevitable results will be, both of which are necessarily moral by the assumption that god must always act morally.

But wait. I didn't say that God is omnbenevolent. I am not even sure what that is supposed to entail. Is God perfectly loving? Okay. What does perfectly loving mean? Is God perfectly just? What does perfectly just mean? What does it mean to have any attribute or quality perfectly? Does perfection allow room for choice or is perfection, in this context, a synonym for necessity?

Omniscience should assume this. There are no accidents if you are aware of every possible outcome of every possible action and exactly how to bring about any one of them and have zero margin of error.

But this assumes that omniscience is in full service of a plan in such a way that everything is planned. What if an omniscient divine being knows everything but hasn't planned everything? If I accidently drop a glass cup and it shatters on the floor because I am startled by a mouse in my kitchen, a omniscient being may have known that this would happen but this is still an accident. Why?

Because many theists will argue that there is something called God's permissive will. God permits certain events and knows both the events and the outcomes of such events even though he/it may not like them. He/It may even know some of the events (such as lightening strike) may be entirely incidental and other events (like a misunderstanding between two armies that can lead to armed conflict) are accidental. God may not want this to happen but may permit it for the purpose of acheiving one of his/its ends.

So omniscience doesn't entail that everything is planned and nothing is left to chance, chaos, incidence, or accidents.

Merely? Run that by me one more time.

I think you will agree with me that not every god-concept in existence embodies all of the attributes that I described in my OP. Some theists believe that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing but may be morally neutral or even disinterested in human affairs. This may have been some of the beliefs of deists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of these deists may have believed in a First Cause sort of god who got the ball rolling but hasn't intervened. Some theists may believe that God is a very loving and merciful being but isn't all-powerful and all-knowing.

Different god-concepts have differing sets of attributes. The Abrahamic god-concept tends to list the ones that I described in my OP. Therefore, my argument would apply mostly to that particular god-concept. However, it wouldn't apply to someone who is a process theist or a panentheist. This is the best way I can think of to explain it.

I'm going to need your definition of sovereignty, then. My statement was intended to demonstrate exactly why the being must have sovereignty, but apparently I don't know what that term means.

Well, I don't have a theological dictionary handy nor any kind of encyclopedia of theology or religion so I am going to have to describe it the best way I understand it. Divine sovereignty, as I understand it, is a authoritative control or rule over the created order in which everything that happens is either the result of God's commanding will or his permissive will. God either wants something to happen because it accomplishes a goal of his or allows it to happen, despite not liking it, because it's the best way of accomplishing a goal of his.

I don't understand where you think authority would lie if not with the sole creator/controller of reality.

The authority would lie with the creator of reality but that depends on the relationship of the creator to the created. If the creator creates the universe and is disinterested in the creation and abandons it for whatever reason, then the relationship between the creator and the creation is not an authoritative one at all. If the creator wills for everything to happen and takes a commanding role in both universal and human history, then the relationship between the creator and the creation is an authoritative one and the authority derives from the creator's sovereignty.

You seem to have described the various justice systems humans have used throughout the years (including current standards worldwide) to the letter. You are correct BECAUSE justice is subjective all of these things you just said ARE true. I'm surprised this has escaped your notice.

It really hasn't. I have actually known this for a long time. I have asked people who believe that justice is subjective to explain how for the sake of discussion. But I notice that many people, especially whose worldview is secular, believe that morality and justice are subjective and actually relative. I am not a relativist when it comes to morality and justice (I am also not an absolutist, either).

Because we want to commit horrible acts, but we know they are horrible acts so we must trick ourselves into thinking they are not horrible acts by inventing a catch-all expression 'justice' which will excuse any act we feel like excusing. Like, it is unjustified to shoot someone in the face so you can take their wallet, but it is justified to shoot someone in the face to keep your wallet.

This is my greatest peeve with secularism. Most atheists who I have dialouged with, either on here or elsewhere, talk as though justice is objective. If they hear a story of some shooting, a child being abused, or a woman being hurt, they demand justice. Yet justice is relative as is morality. No moral theory or theory of justice is any better than any other. To me, morality and justice are incapable of justification in any secular worldview, especially Secular Humanism.

Quite correct. And yet, we did invent it despite how self-serving it is. By the way, we also invented television for selfish reasons. That doesn't negate the television. Justice still matters. Because it matters to us. And we are us.

I think this is what it boils down to. Selfishness. There is ultimately no reason why we should or ought to have a justice system or televisions for that matter. It's just selfishness, period.

I find myself amused at the complaints of many atheists with regards to the afterlife beliefs of many theists. Many atheists wil say, "You're desire to be reincarnated, go to heaven, enter nirvana, or whatever it is is just the height of egoism and petty selfishness". When I hear atheists say this or see it written, I think, Well Mr. Pot, I see you have met Ms. Kettle.

Please do demonstrate it then at your earliest convenience. It was one of my original questions towards your OP.

Let me reply in my next post if you don't mind.


Matthew

 

[Koldo]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY my sparring partner .

Thank you.

But don’t think for a second that means I’m not going to slap down your last reply.

Yet again you’re trying to say that the best world possible is one where no one has free-will. Because free-will implies the ability to choose good or choose a selfish evil path. And in your world there is no evil and no suffering apparently.

In a world where God's intervention is constant, you could still choose to do evil. The difference is that evil actions would never come to fruition. You may choose to shoot an arrow towards another person, that is your will, whether it is going to hit the target is another matter entirely.

In our current world, intervention already exists from multiple factors. If intervention destroys free will, then we have a limited free will in the first place.
If i were to shoot someone, and the gun didn't work for some reason, where is my free will?

We’re back to your world of everybody living forever in a Garden of Eden with no evil, death, suffering, etc.. If you do nothing, God can’t let you suffer. We’d have to be vegetarians too, no creature can suffer. Plus I can explain while living forever while experiencing time as we do would be a torturous hell. I can go on and on with other points why you would make a not so hot God; you don’t ponder all the ramifications of your actions like an infinite God might.

(We wouldn't have to eat in the first place.)
Why would living forever while experiencing time as we do would be a torturous hell? You have said it before but you have yet to give a reason as to why this must be the case.

God is the creator of this great drama/play. A drama where there’s no struggling, challenges, triumphs, defeats, suffering, joy, etc. is not going to win any Academy Award for best picture. In God’s drama there will be a happy ending though for all; a return to Godhead. No ‘problem of evil’. It’s a drama that goes from the big bang to the end of the universe; not the short span of one lifetime. Your consciousness has no birth and no death. The suffering we see in the world has a long, long chain of causes that we don’t see.

I want you to realize that the problem of evil is typically presented as representative of the christian god. The point of bringing this up is not to say it can't apply to other gods but rather that the belief in the existence of 'heavens' is pretty common on christianity, and therefore, if it was valid to say that 'the suffering in this world is just temporary' to dismiss the problem of evil then it would have been done long ago already.

The existence of any suffering regardless of whether it is eternal or temporary creates the problem of evil.