Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[dybmh]

I am not sure what you are talking about then, because we would be the immortals... How have I not met them?

If you cannot remember your experience as an immortal, then it doesn't matter if you are one when trying to consider how suffering would be diminished because of it.

Sure. And the harm of giving a walker to a child is caused by delaying development, and accidents that happen because there is no constant watch.

No... that's not why. It's because the child doesn't fall and get up and learn from these little failures and the frustrations. Again, if you don't have children, you really don't get this. The failure comes from simulating a helicopter parent. Didn't I send you a link on this? Do you have the concept in Brazil? Being over-protective?

 

[dybmh]

Hmm...
If we assume that organic life is only possible under very specific circumstances, I dare saying the existence of complex organisms itself would be extremely unlikely in a chaotic universe.

I don't know, it seems like eventually something would happen given the proper environment. Super heated salt-water vents, and such...

As in never intervening? Agreed.

Agreed.

I don't really agree... I mean, it is easy to imagine the existence of consequences without suffering existing.

OK. Then this is where we should focus. What is the deterent if there is no suffering?

I thought your answer was that he is unable to do so. So, I think we are at 5) Why is he unable to interven more?

If I said that, it was a mistake. Like I mentioned in the beginning to another poster. These topics are very complicated. I'm likely to make a mistake at some point and need to correct myself.

In the beginning, no creation could occur without including suffering.

After that, God can and does intervene, at least in theory. But people want it to be more.

 

[GardenLady]

If you, out of love, gave the title of a car to your son/daughter who are of adult age. Do you have the right to take it back when it is in their name? If it is theirs completely, would it be completely theirs if you were always in the side seat forcing them to drive the way you want them to?

Yes, you knew they could do something crazy with it, as you can do with just about any gift, but we give it out of love and for their blessing.

If they wrecked the car because they were fooling around, was it your fault?

There is suffering as the consequence of actions or choices, and it is the responsibility of the person whose actions caused it. But there is much suffering that is not the result of a person's actions. Some people engage in actions that lead to cancer, such as decades of smoking. But many who have cancer did not do anything that would be expected to lead to cancer (or not any causes that we know of). They suffer greatly, but not as a result of them causing it.

 

[Kenny]

There is suffering as the consequence of actions or choices, and it is the responsibility of the person whose actions caused it. But there is much suffering that is not the result of a person's actions. Some people engage in actions that lead to cancer, such as decades of smoking. But many who have cancer did not do anything that would be expected to lead to cancer (or not any causes that we know of). They suffer greatly, but not as a result of them causing it.

I see you get the understanding that it is personal responsibility that is at play here. God gave mankind the world and what man does with the world is mankind's fault and not God's. So we have eliminated much of your position but then there is cancer...

What is the root cause of cancer (other than smoking etc)?

 

[an anarchist]

I see you get the understanding that it is personal responsibility that is at play here. God gave mankind the world and what man does with the world is mankind's fault and not God's.

What is the root cause of cancer (other than smoking etc)

Could had god created Eden without the tree? Of course he could have, and we still could have had free will. Your God supposedly crafted the whole universe out of nothing and Adam out of the dust of the earth. He could have given us any configuration He wanted e.g. freewill without a chance to throw the world in a state of perpetual suffering. He could have given us the world without the possibility of suffering. If you disagree, then you agree your God is not omnipotent. If you agree that your God could have given us a world without a chance of suffering, but chose not to, then He is not omnibenevloent.

 

[Koldo]

A man and a woman are both humans but God is not a human. Therefore human standards do not apply to God. This is basic logic.

I am sorry but this is not going to work. You can't merely state that two things are identical to state the same standard applies to them.

If two things are very different you need to show how, given the pertinent distinction, the same standard is applicable. You can't merely claim they are the same.

Ok. But this is not a human standard. This is a moral agent standard and since God and humans are moral agents, the standards are applicable to them both.

Any other 'possible' material worlds are irrelevant since they do not exist. Therefore, you are pointing out something inconsequential.

Not at all. I am pointing that out to explain that the existence of a material world does not entail the inescapable existence of suffering.

God is entitled to DO anything He wants to DO because He is God. How are you going to stop an omnipotent God from doing something?

You are not entitled to enable my suffering unless I allow you to.
Why would I want to remember you? Remembering you is not beneficial to me but remembering God is beneficial to me.

Imagine for a moment that remembering me is beneficial to you. Entertain the thought for a moment. Would I then be entitled to enable your suffering to make you remember me?

Not unless you want to remember God.

I am not sure I understood this part then and I am going to ask you: How is it beneficial for anyone to remember God? What does that mean?

Again, you are conflating God with humans which is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human.
God needs no moral justification for anything He does. Only humans need moral justification since only humans are subject to morality.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

I disagree that morality only relates to human beings. You will even have a hard time within philosophy finding someone that says only human can be moral agents.

Actually, I think you will have to concede this point because if morality is only concerned with humans then God can't be morally good, and therefore can't be omnibenevolent as well.

Even if a path without suffering was feasible that does not mean it is a better path. An omniscient God has to know the best path to choose of all available options since He knows everything. Humans are not omniscient so we don't know everything so we cannot ever know as much as God.

What would constitute the best path to do anything? Or rather, what does it mean to say that something is the best path? Let's see if we agree.

So, if for example, I say that the best way to paint a wall is to do it a certain way, what do I mean by saying that is the 'best' way?

No, that is not a fact because you cannot prove that an omnibenevolent God would not achieve His purpose for humans through 'some' suffering.
That is only your personal opinion.

No, this is a fact and I am going to explain why. It is because of the definitions I am using. Benevolence revolves around doing good, which means doing that which increases well-being. Enabling and inflicting suffering reduces well-being, meaning it is the exact opposite of benevolence.

How do you know suffering is not minimized? I know lots of people who hardly suffer at all.

Because God is omnipotent. If suffering can't be minimized to the point it doesn't exist then God is not omnipotent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok. But this is not a human standard. This is a moral agent standard and since God and humans are moral agents, the standards are applicable to them both.

God is not a moral agent, only humans are moral agents. Moreover, God does not have to discern right from wrong; since God is omniscient so God already knows what is right or wrong.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.
Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

Not at all. I am pointing that out to explain that the existence of a material world does not entail the inescapable existence of suffering.

Can you demonstrate how that would be possible? I think some others on this thread have explained how that would not be possible.

Imagine for a moment that remembering me is beneficial to you. Entertain the thought for a moment. Would I then be entitled to enable your suffering to make you remember me?

No, but God does not enable suffering. Suffering is just what is involved in being a physical being in a material world.

I am not sure I understood this part then and I am going to ask you: How is it beneficial for anyone to remember God? What does that mean?

Remembering God means believing in God, trusting God, and turning to God in prayer. It is beneficial because if we turn to God we get guidance from God and if we follow God's teachings and laws it makes us moral beings.

I disagree that morality only relates to human beings. You will even have a hard time within philosophy finding someone that says only human can be moral agents.

Actually, I think you will have to concede this point because if morality is only concerned with humans then God can't be morally good, and therefore can't be omnibenevolent as well.

God approves of right actions because they are right and disapproves of wrong actions because they are wrong (moral theological objectivism, or objectivism). So, morality is independent of God's will; however, since God is omniscient He knows the moral laws, and because He's moral, He follows them.

https://www.siue.edu/~evailat/et&relig.html

What would constitute the best path to do anything? Or rather, what does it mean to say that something is the best path? Let's see if we agree.

So, if for example, I say that the best way to paint a wall is to do it a certain way, what do I mean by saying that is the 'best' way?

It would mean it was the best way to choose compared to all the other ways you could have chosen to paint the wall.

No, this is a fact and I am going to explain why. It is because of the definitions I am using. Benevolence revolves around doing good, which means doing that which increases well-being. Enabling and inflicting suffering reduces well-being, meaning it is the exact opposite of benevolence.

You are dead wrong about that. Do you want to know why?
You did not create humans so you do not know what is good for humans. God created humans so God knows what is good for humans.

You do not know that allowing human suffering is not beneficial for humans so it is not a fact. It is only a personal opinion.
If you want to know the facts, all you would have to do is ask people who have suffered if that has been beneficial for them. Then you would have the facts.

God does not inflict suffering on humans. How many times do I have to say this?

Because God is omnipotent. If suffering can't be minimized to the point it doesn't exist then God is not omnipotent.

God could eliminate all suffering such that it does not exist, but so what?
An omnipotent God can also eliminate all life on earth in one split second. Would that be benevolent?

 

[Koldo]

God is not a moral agent, only humans are moral agents. Moreover, God does not have to discern right from wrong; since God is omniscient so God already knows what is right or wrong.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.
Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

That's like using a dictionary to understand philosophy. You will learn the basic but will stop at that.

So, how do you make sense of something like this:

"While at some points the examples of possible extraterrestrial moral agents (‘Martians’) have been invoked (e.g. McMahan, Reference McMahan2002; Neiders, Reference Neiders2015), this has in general been used just as an adornment of thought experiments and not meant literally. Of course, the religious discourse has been pervaded by nominally extraterrestrial moral agents, but this is uninteresting from the point of view of (at least methodological) naturalism" - Source

Talking about extraterrestrial (alien) moral agents wouldn't make sense if moral agents had to be human, right?

Let's look at Wikipedia now:

"Philosophers and biologists who claim that non-human animals are moral agents typically argue that moral agency is dependent on empathy or social relations, and stress the evidence for these in non-human animals."

And there we see there is a debate about whether non-human animals should be considered moral agents. If moral agents need to be human, what debate is there to be had?

Let's see what those that argue against considering animals as moral agents say:

"Thinkers who hold that only humans can be moral agents typically argue that moral agency depends on rationality."

Racionality is the typical argument, nothing to do with being a non-human animal.

Let's now see the definition provided in Wikipedia:

"A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

A being, not a person or human being.

Let's check what the Stanford Encyclopedia says about what is an agent:

"In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity."

And before you look into a dictionary to say that God is not a being, I can tell you that you will find it defined as 'supreme being'.

I hope this clarifies that you should be more careful when using a dictionary, or something like it, in a debate about philosophy.

Can you demonstrate how that would be possible? I think some others on this thread have explained how that would not be possible.

What is possible?
How do you figure what is possible?
Do you understand the concept of possible worlds in modal logic? If so, you will readily understand what I mean by saying that such a world is possible. If you don't then it suffices to say this: I can imagine a material world, much like ours, where people don't experience suffering. Therefore, it is possible because I can imagine it. Or, in other words, It is possible because there is no inherent logical contradiction by saying that it could exist.

No, but God does not enable suffering. Suffering is just what is involved in being a physical being in a material world.

This is incorrect because there is a possible material world where suffering doesn't exist.

Remembering God means believing in God, trusting God, and turning to God in prayer. It is beneficial because if we turn to God we get guidance from God and if we follow God's teachings and laws it makes us moral beings.

Great, so entertain the thought that by following my teaching it will make you a moral being. Would I then be entitled to enable suffering to make you remember me?

God approves of right actions because they are right and disapproves of wrong actions because they are wrong (moral theological objectivism, or objectivism). So, morality is independent of God's will; however, since God is omniscient He knows the moral laws, and because He's moral, He follows them.

If he is moral then he is a moral agent. For only moral agents can be moral or immoral. This is also what allows him to be omnibenevolent.

https://www.siue.edu/~evailat/et&relig.html

It would mean it was the best way to choose compared to all the other ways you could have chosen to paint the wall.

Sure, but in what sense?
Faster? Cost benefit? Looks better? Or something else?

You are dead wrong about that. Do you want to know why?
You did not create humans so you do not know what is good for humans. God created humans so God knows what is good for humans.

You do not know that allowing human suffering is not beneficial for humans so it is not a fact. It is only a personal opinion.
If you want to know the facts, all you would have to do is ask people who have suffered if that has been beneficial for them. Then you would have the facts.

God does not inflict suffering on humans. How many times do I have to say this?

You are contradicting yourself here.
You are saying that I can not say what is good for humans because I haven't created them. And I want to know if you disagree that improving the well-being of humans is good for humans.
But you also say that people that have experienced suffering are able to say if the suffering has been good to them.
So, either people are able to say what is good for humans or they are not. Which one is it?

God could eliminate all suffering such that it does not exist, but so what?

Then God would now be omnibenevolent, depending on how he does it.

An omnipotent God can also eliminate all life on earth in one split second. Would that be benevolent?

No.

 

[Koldo]

If you cannot remember your experience as an immortal, then it doesn't matter if you are one when trying to consider how suffering would be diminished because of it.

Then since we can't remember our experience as immortals, you wouldn't allow a child to touch a hot stove, right?

No... that's not why. It's because the child doesn't fall and get up and learn from these little failures and the frustrations. Again, if you don't have children, you really don't get this. The failure comes from simulating a helicopter parent. Didn't I send you a link on this? Do you have the concept in Brazil? Being over-protective?

Yes, there is. There are multiple ways a child can experience frustation though. If anything, they will experience it much sooner than they will ever think of walking. As far as knowing how to deal with frustration goes, an omnipotent God wouldn't have a problem teaching without making someone undergo it though.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know, it seems like eventually something would happen given the proper environment. Super heated salt-water vents, and such...

Are you aware that many theists see a lot of order in the universe, and use that as their reason to believe in God? Your view of the universe as being chaos completely contradicts their view.

OK. Then this is where we should focus. What is the deterent if there is no suffering?

Why does there have to be a deterent?

If I said that, it was a mistake. Like I mentioned in the beginning to another poster. These topics are very complicated. I'm likely to make a mistake at some point and need to correct myself.

In the beginning, no creation could occur without including suffering.

After that, God can and does intervene, at least in theory. But people want it to be more.

I am trying to understand what exactly you believe in.

 

[dybmh]

Then since we can't remember our experience as immortals, you wouldn't allow a child to touch a hot stove, right?

Right, but God would know.

Yes, there is. There are multiple ways a child can experience frustation though. If anything, they will experience it much sooner than they will ever think of walking. As far as knowing how to deal with frustration goes, an omnipotent God wouldn't have a problem teaching without making someone undergo it though.

It's a big world. Lots of different types of people, some people need to see a loved one suffering, or an innocent suffering in order to wake up and focus on what matters.

 

[Koldo]

Right, but God would know.

Know what?

It's a big world. Lots of different types of people, some people need to see a loved one suffering, or an innocent suffering in order to wake up and focus on what matters.

Need? Do you mean there is no other way?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's like using a dictionary to understand philosophy. You will learn the basic but will stop at that.

So, how do you make sense of something like this:

"While at some points the examples of possible extraterrestrial moral agents (‘Martians’) have been invoked (e.g. McMahan, Reference McMahan2002; Neiders, Reference Neiders2015), this has in general been used just as an adornment of thought experiments and not meant literally. Of course, the religious discourse has been pervaded by nominally extraterrestrial moral agents, but this is uninteresting from the point of view of (at least methodological) naturalism" - Source

Talking about extraterrestrial (alien) moral agents wouldn't make sense if moral agents had to be human, right?

Let's look at Wikipedia now:

"Philosophers and biologists who claim that non-human animals are moral agents typically argue that moral agency is dependent on empathy or social relations, and stress the evidence for these in non-human animals."

And there we see there is a debate about whether non-human animals should be considered moral agents. If moral agents need to be human, what debate is there to be had?

Let's see what those that argue against considering animals as moral agents say:

"Thinkers who hold that only humans can be moral agents typically argue that moral agency depends on rationality."

Racionality is the typical argument, nothing to do with being a non-human animal.

Let's now see the definition provided in Wikipedia:

"A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

A being, not a person or human being.

Let's check what the Stanford Encyclopedia says about what is an agent:

"In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity."

And before you look into a dictionary to say that God is not a being, I can tell you that you will find it defined as 'supreme being'.

I hope this clarifies that you should be more careful when using a dictionary, or something like it, in a debate about philosophy.

God could be considered a moral agent in the sense of having the capacity to exercise moral agency, capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

A moral agent is any person or collective entity with the capacity to exercise moral agency. It is suggested that rational thought and deliberation are prerequisite skills for any agent. In this way, moral agents can discern between right and wrong and be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Moral Agency - Physiopedia​

A moral agent can be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but God is not accountable to anyone for His actions. God is the master of everything, knows and understands everything, so why would God be accountable to anyone? If you dislike something that God does or does not do, that doesn't mean you are right. You are wrong based upon your comprehension which is far limited compared to God. This is basic logic.

What is possible?
How do you figure what is possible?
Do you understand the concept of possible worlds in modal logic? If so, you will readily understand what I mean by saying that such a world is possible. If you don't then it suffices to say this: I can imagine a material world, much like ours, where people don't experience suffering. Therefore, it is possible because I can imagine it. Or, in other words, It is possible because there is no inherent logical contradiction by saying that it could exist.

So what if it is possible? It is possible that a man who messaged me on Facebook claiming to be a movie star is really a movie star and he is going to marry me like he said. What good does that do me to imagine that is true when I know it is a scam? It is more possible that he really is a movie star who will marry me than that God is going to say oops, I made a mistake and then create another world where there is no suffering.

This is incorrect because there is a possible material world where suffering doesn't exist.

You are still not getting it. It doesn't MATTER if it is possible because it is not going to happen.
It is more possible that I will win the 2 billion dollar lottery if I bought a ticket because at least there is a change of that happening.

Great, so entertain the thought that by following my teaching it will make you a moral being. Would I then be entitled to enable suffering to make you remember me?

You are not God so I would not follow your teaching, nor do I want to remember you any more than any other human being.

God does not enable suffering to make humans remember Him. Humans endure suffering because that is what is entailed in living in this material world, and this causes some people to turn to God and remember Him. Other people just complain becaue they are not geting their baby way and say "God should have done it differently" as if they could ever know more than an omniscient God, which is logically impossible.

Maybe you should be a Christian since you could believe that humanity is going back to Eden to live in an earthly paradise in the Garden of Eden like Adam and Eve. You can face reality or choose to live in a fantasy.

If he is moral then he is a moral agent. For only moral agents can be moral or immoral. This is also what allows him to be omnibenevolent.

That's true.

Sure, but in what sense?
Faster? Cost benefit? Looks better? Or something else?

All of the above.

You are contradicting yourself here.
You are saying that I can not say what is good for humans because I haven't created them. And I want to know if you disagree that improving the well-being of humans is good for humans.

You can know some things that are good for humans but you cannot know what is for the ultimate good for humans since you did not create humans.
Improving the well-being of humans is generally good for humans but you are not an authority on what improves the well-being of humans.

But you also say that people that have experienced suffering are able to say if the suffering has been good to them.
So, either people are able to say what is good for humans or they are not. Which one is it?

People are only able to say what has been good for them as individuals. They cannot say what is good for all other humans.

Then God would now be omnibenevolent, depending on how he does it.

No, that would not make God omnibenevolent. It would make God uncaring and unconcerned about the welfare of humans since some suffering is beneficial for human character development. The more people suffer the more developed is their character, the stronger and more resilient they are. People who hardly suffer at all are really shallow.

 

[an anarchist]

You can face reality or choose to live in a fantasy.

That's funny coming from someone who believes in a logically impossible Omnimax God ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The more people suffer the more developed is their character, the stronger and more resilient they are. People who hardly suffer at all are really shallow.

That's a really unfair and broad characterization of privileged people. I disagree with your assertion and premise. We should be aspiring to seek growth without suffering. To say that more suffering is good... that's just making excuses for your God.

 

[Koldo]

God could be considered a moral agent in the sense of having the capacity to exercise moral agency, capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

Exactly.

A moral agent is any person or collective entity with the capacity to exercise moral agency. It is suggested that rational thought and deliberation are prerequisite skills for any agent. In this way, moral agents can discern between right and wrong and be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.​

Moral Agency - Physiopedia​

A moral agent can be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but God is not accountable to anyone for His actions. God is the master of everything, knows and understands everything, so why would God be accountable to anyone? If you dislike something that God does or does not do, that doesn't mean you are right. You are wrong based upon your comprehension which is far limited compared to God. This is basic logic.

How are you interpreting 'be held accountable'?
It means having moral responsibility.

So what if it is possible? It is possible that a man who messaged me on Facebook claiming to be a movie star is really a movie star and he is going to marry me like he said. What good does that do me to imagine that is true when I know it is a scam? It is more possible that he really is a movie star who will marry me than that God is going to say oops, I made a mistake and then create another world where there is no suffering.

You are still not getting it. It doesn't MATTER if it is possible because it is not going to happen.
It is more possible that I will win the 2 billion dollar lottery if I bought a ticket because at least there is a change of that happening.

You asked me to demonstrate how a material world without suffering is possible. Now you are saying that it doesn't matter if it is possible. Can you please only ask me to substantiate things that actually matter to you? This post is already quite huge.

You are not God so I would not follow your teaching, nor do I want to remember you any more than any other human being.

Special pleading.

God does not enable suffering to make humans remember Him. Humans endure suffering because that is what is entailed in living in this material world, and this causes some people to turn to God and remember Him. Other people just complain becaue they are not geting their baby way and say "God should have done it differently" as if they could ever know more than an omniscient God, which is logically impossible.

Maybe you should be a Christian since you could believe that humanity is going back to Eden to live in an earthly paradise in the Garden of Eden like Adam and Eve. You can face reality or choose to live in a fantasy.

If living on this world entails enduring suffering, and if God could have create this world differently, then God chose to create a world where suffering exists and therefore enabled suffering. It is great that you agree that the point of suffering is not to remember God. That only leaves one reason so far then: to attain perfection.

All of the above.

But they are not all true at the same time necessarily. What is faster might not be the most cost effective, nor look good. So how do you figure which one is applicable when I am calling some path to be the best path to paint?

You can know some things that are good for humans but you cannot know what is for the ultimate good for humans since you did not create humans.
Improving the well-being of humans is generally good for humans but you are not an authority on what improves the well-being of humans.

Let me first say that creating something doesn't entail having perfect knowledge over it. But God could have perfect knowledge over humans even if he didn't create them. So your overall point remains. Let's continue from there.

When is decreasing the well-being of a human being good for them? Give me one example.

People are only able to say what has been good for them as individuals. They cannot say what is good for all other humans.

Wait. So I can say what is good for me? Are you sure you meant to say this?

No, that would not make God omnibenevolent. It would make God uncaring and unconcerned about the welfare of humans since some suffering is beneficial for human character development. The more people suffer the more developed is their character, the stronger and more resilient they are. People who hardly suffer at all are really shallow.

That's presuming God could not make people stronger in some other way, other than by making use of suffering. The God you are talking about is not omnipotent then.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's funny coming from someone who believes in a logically impossible Omnimax God ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Omnimax God is not logically impossible, it is perfectly logical and understandable if one uses reason to understand God rather than emotion.

That's a really unfair and broad characterization of privileged people. I disagree with your assertion and premise. We should be aspiring to seek growth without suffering. To say that more suffering is good... that's just making excuses for your God.

What I said is a generalization so it doesn't apply to everyone. There are people who have good character who haven't suffered a lot and there are people who have suffered a lot who don't have good character. All I was trying to say is that suffering can give people the 'opportunity' to overcome adversity and thus improve their character. That does not mean there are not other ways to improve our character, just in everyday living and the challenges all people face.

I am also not saying we should seek out suffering just so we can grow or that more suffering is good. In fact, too much suffering can be deliterious to growth because it can end in depression and despondency and thus it takes away other opportunities for growth. Take it from one who knows.

Making excuses for a God that is Infallible, that is completely illogical. A God that cannot make any mistakes cannot ever need any excuses.

 

[dybmh]

Are you aware that many theists see a lot of order in the universe, and use that as their reason to believe in God? Your view of the universe as being chaos completely contradicts their view.

Ah! No problem. Chaos did not replace order. It coexists.

Why does there have to be a deterrent?

That gets complicated. There's multiple reasons why people are tempted to do harm. I'll skip the details for how and why, but it is included in this "otherness" which is required for the material to exist.

Now, God could wave its magic wand and eliminate that temptation. But that is less favorable, because, then the evil is never converted into something good. And, as we agreed, it could be that there is some God-magic ( aka miracles ) happening that are correcting some of this temptation in the here and now. But in order for God to be omnibenevolent, this "otherness" needs to be directed into something good. In order for that to happen, some of this temptation needs to remain. Some of the harmful acts need to occur, at least temporarily, so that the these actions can result in something good.

That's the idea.

I am trying to understand what exactly you believe in.

OK. I'm trying to share that and be as forthcoming as I can without writing a manifesto.

 

[dybmh]

Know what?

Know that the suffering that is permitted in the here and now is diminshed on account of the scale of being immortal compared to being mortal. The analogy is God is the parent permitting their child touching a hot stove. If God is the parent and knows the child is immortal, then God knows that the suffering encountered in the here and now is, forgive me, like scrapes and bumps for an immortal being.

Need? Do you mean there is no other way?

There is no other way for the suffering to be converted into something good. Preventing it in real-time with God-magic ( miracles ) is not the same as evil being directed into good. And that's a better outcome. Then all of creation is good, not a mix of good and bad.

 

[Stevicus]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

I'm not sure that the problem of evil would necessarily prove or disprove anything. It might call into question certain beliefs which suggest that "God is love" or that God has some sort of grand plan that causes Him to move in mysterious ways. If there is a God, it's conceivable that He could be omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent.

I've seen quite a few discussions here about the Problem of Evil, and it is an interesting question to explore. A lot of it involves speculating about God's possible intentions, feelings, or desires, since the general assumption is that God loves us and has a great plan for us. Some might even see that there's a higher purpose in suffering, as if it all happens for some reason.

But it's all just guessing and speculation, at least in terms of whether God exists and what God may or may not want.

If one takes God out of the equation, then the Problem of Evil is a different kettle of fish. "Evil" is just nature taking its course. Humans are an animal species. While we may have a certain degree of sentience and intelligence - in addition to being at the top of the food chain - we're still very much guided by instincts. Whatever "good" arises has come from our ability to rise above and restrain our base instincts. Because of this, it is assumed that humans who engage in behavior which might be deemed animalistic should know better, but if they fail to restrain themselves and curb their repulsive behavior, then that is seen as a conscious choice, and therefore "evil," by the traditional understanding of the word. In practical terms, we have to deal with evil mischief-makers time and again - although sometimes it's just a matter of survival. Nature is harsh and indifferent

 

[Trailblazer]

How are you interpreting 'be held accountable'?
It means having moral responsibility.

Humans are held accountable for the consequences of their actions because they have moral responsibilities, but God is not accountable to anyone for the consequences of His actions because God has no moral responsibilities. Have you ever see God go on trial in a court of law?

If living on this world entails enduring suffering, and if God could have create this world differently, then God chose to create a world where suffering exists and therefore enabled suffering. It is great that you agree that the point of suffering is not to remember God. That only leaves one reason so far then: to attain perfection.

I did not say that the point of suffering is not to remember God. I said that God does not enable suffering to make humans remember Him.
One reason for suffering is so that we will remember God and turn to God.
Another reason for suffering is to attain spiritual growth.

But they are not all true at the same time necessarily. What is faster might not be the most cost effective, nor look good. So how do you figure which one is applicable when I am calling some path to be the best path to paint?

That would depend upon which of these is most important to you - speed, cost, or looks.

Let me first say that creating something doesn't entail having perfect knowledge over it. But God could have perfect knowledge over humans even if he didn't create them. So your overall point remains. Let's continue from there.

When is decreasing the well-being of a human being good for them? Give me one example.

I never said that decreasing the well-being of humans is good for them.

What is well-being?

Well-being has been defined as the combination of feeling good and functioning well; the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and contentment as well as the development of one’s potential, having some control over one’s life, having a sense of purpose, and experiencing positive relationships [23]. It is a sustainable condition that allows the individual or population to develop and thrive. The term subjective well-being is synonymous with positive mental health. The World Health Organization [45] defines positive mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community”. This conceptualization of well-being goes beyond the absence of mental ill health, encompassing the perception that life is going well.
Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Well-being is the experience of health, happiness, and prosperity. It includes having good mental health, high life satisfaction, a sense of meaning or purpose, and the ability to manage stress. More generally, well-being is just feeling well (Take this quiz to discover your level of well-being.)

Well-being is something sought by just about everyone because it includes so many positive things — feeling happy, healthy, socially connected, and purposeful. Unfortunately, well-being appears to be in decline, at least in the U.S. And increasing your well-being can be tough without knowing what to do and how to do it.
What Is Well-Being? Definition, Types, and Well-Being Skills

Wait. So I can say what is good for me? Are you sure you meant to say this?

You can say what you 'believe' is good for you, but it may or may not actually be good for you.
Case in point: An alcoholic might believe that drinking is good for him, but it isn't good by any health standard.

That's presuming God could not make people stronger in some other way, other than by making use of suffering. The God you are talking about is not omnipotent then.

I thought we were finished with what God could have done differently, and since God did not do it in some other way God is not omnipotent?
That is completely illogical.

You really don't understand, do you? It is BECAUSE God is omnipotent that God did not choose another way.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not some other way that He did not choose.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209​

What we see is what we get. We do not question how God should have done it differently since God is sovereign.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284​

​