The naturalist problem of suffering.

[Koldo]

I understand and grant that you are presenting a good argument that I can’t dispute with nothing but unsupported speculation.....I also grant that theist tend to minimize this problem…… it obviously seems unlikely that a loving God would create a world with this amount of suffering

But it is logically possible that suffering is the only way to achieve that particular good………….. maybe you wouldn’t decide to quit your job and move to another city, if it wasn’t for the tornado

Now, my point is that naturalism has similar problems, for example you can´t explain the origin of consciousness ether all you can do is speculate and hope that the answer is somewhere (you just can´t see it now)

So if speculations are valid excuses, then the theist has a valid excuse, if speculations are not valid then both naturalist and theist have the same problem

What I am saying is that omnipotence precludes any logically possible scenario where our utmost well-being depends on suffering to be actualized.

If you are omnipotent, it is logically impossible that you need to use any means to reach an end. You don't need to bake a cake to create a cake. You can create it ex nihilo instantly. You don't need to fly to get to the moon. You will be there instantly if you want to. You don't need any means in specific to get to an end you want. Therefore, you don't need to use suffering to reach our utmost well-being.

 

[Soandso]

Interesting, butt that doesn't refute the claim that simple stuff is more likely to evolve than complex stuff.

If system 1 requires one baby step .... and system 2 requires 100 baby steps... then system 1 is more likely to evolve

True, but those baby steps don't stop with just one; especially if there is an unfathomable amount of time for mutations to gradually change things. When you look at where those early baby steps started...

...life looks a lot more primitive and even alien. Over time, and layer after layer, the fossils become more complex. Evolution doesn't have an end goal, and it never stops. It just keeps rolling along

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I am accusing you for misunderstanding the argument and making straw man arguments, you should be motivated to prove me wrong ……… again that is what I would do

If everyone is misunderstanding your argument, that means you need to explain it better.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I already addressed that multiple times, you may or may not agree with my reply, but why don’t you interact with my refutation rather that repeating the same argument over and over again?

I did already. The last time we went round and round in this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If system 1 requires one baby step .... and system 2 requires 100 baby steps... then system 1 is more likely to evolve

(Assuming that both systems have the same selective value)

(Assuming that baby steps are random)

This assumes that any system at all is an end goal.
There is no reason for 1 to be more likely then 2 (or potential 3 or 4 or 5 or....) other then your say-so.

 

[leroy]

Now, my point is that naturalism has similar problems

It doesn't and I have explained multiple times now why it doesn't.
Once more: a god has options. A god makes design decisions. A designer will weigh pros against cons and consider the implications and consequences of design decisions in the long run.

Evolution does not.
Evolution only moves forward with whatever works well enough in the moment.
Pain is a method that works well enough for the purpose of survival and actively avoiding injury and alike.
It needs no more explanation then that.

I affirm that you are making a straw man fallacy because what I meant is that naturalism also has obstacles that can´t currently be explained…….. This is what I mean with my original comment (above)

Specifically naturalism cant´ explain the origin of consciousness (yet) at least not in a conclusive way.

See how easy it is to quote your words and explain why I think you are wrong?

Just to be clear

When I say that theism and naturalism have a similar problem, what I mean is that both have to speculate on the origin of conscious suffering , none has a conclusive answer for such a phenomena………….. none of my comments have anything to do with God having options and evolution doesn’t.

 

[leroy]

This assumes that any system at all is an end goal.
There is no reason for 1 to be more likely then 2 (or potential 3 or 4 or 5 or....) other then your say-so.

You are worng, nobody is making that alleged assumtion and system 2 is less likely because it requires more random mutations.............again, see how easy it is to quote your words and explain directly and unabigously why are you wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I affirm that you are making a straw man fallacy because what I meant is that naturalism also has obstacles that can´t currently be explained…….. This is what I mean with my original comment (above)

Specifically naturalism cant´ explain the origin of consciousness (yet) at least not in a conclusive way.

See how easy it is to quote your words and explain why I think you are wrong?

So you are appealing to ignorance.
This is not an "obstacle" that is relevant to your OP, furthermore.

Your OP is about suffering/pain, not about consciousness.
Is your argument that if there would be no pain / suffering then there also wouldn't be consciousness?
If that is not what you are saying, then why is it relevant?
If that is what you are saying, then you are demonstrably wrong since we have examples today, which have been brought up here, of people who can't feel pain, yet are still very conscious.

When I say that theism and naturalism have a similar problem, what I mean is that both have to speculate on the origin of conscious suffering , none has a conclusive answer for such a phenomena…………..

And I already disagreed with that. Evolution does have a perfectly acceptable answer for suffering: it works very well as system to motivate individuals to actively avoid injury and danger.

And as I explained multiple times now, there is no need for any explanation beyond that.

Furthermore I reject your claim that an explanation of why pain exists is somehow dependend on being able to explain why consciousness exists, as if they are one and the same thing.

none of my comments have anything to do with God having options and evolution doesn’t.

I know, which is why I'm mentioning it, because the way I see it, that's the part you are missing.
You ask why there is pain and how "naturalism" deals with that as opposed to the "problem of suffering" in a theistic worldview, as if there is also a "problem of suffering" in an evolutionary worldview.

I'm denying this to be the case. There is no such problem in evolution.

The only reason for the "problem of suffering" in a theistic worldview is precisely because a god has options.
Evolution does not. Why "pain" and "suffering" exists needs no more "extra" explanation then why our eye has a blind spot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are worng, nobody is making that alleged assumtion and system 2 is less likely because it requires more random mutations

You are wrong about that and you misunderstand my point.
You are comparing end goals, while you should be comparing paths.

You are comparing 100 mutations (making up for the end product), which would necessarily have to happen gradually over long timespans since each of them would have to achive fixation, with just one mutation. Aside from the mega-arbitrary choice of numbers, this is a false comparison.

The correct comparison would be to compare the likelihood of just the first mutation, because that is the one that sets one on a specific path.
This is why I brought up the human eye with the blind spot.

The "end product" is far more complex then the eye without a blind spot, because it require a lot of additional mutations to accomodate for the neural changes that "rectify" the image to "fill in the blanks". But that doesn't make a blind spot eye "less likely".

We have a blind spot because at the beginning of the eye development the wiring ended up in front of the light sensitive cells. That is what set it on a path towards an eye with a blind spot. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board and "start over". It just goes forward with what it has. And that initial step, which set it on that path, is simply how it happened to unfold. It worked well enough. And now we can circle back to my previous comment: evolution doesn't have options. It makes no design decisions with an eye on the future.

Evolution can't say "we're going to go with this change, because that sets us on a simpler path towards end-goal X".

Do you understand the point now?

EDIT:

To make my point extra clear, I made a little drawing:

The black circle is the "starting position". The two red circles are the "end product", both equivalent in "getting the job done".
The path to the right obviously is a lot more complex then the path on the left.
Let's say the path on the left requires 3 mutations and the one on the right requires 50.
You are comparing the 3 with the 50. The WHOLE road.
But you should be comparing only the first one, which sets you on the path.
Once you go left or right, you can't go back. You can only move forward on the path you find yourself on.

So when you ask "which is more likely?", you are to question the likelihood of going left or right at that starting point.
Not the likelihood of the ENTIRE left path vs the ENTIRE right path.
Once you go right, left is excluded and no longer relevant.

.............again, see how easy it is to quote your words and explain directly and unabigously why are you wrong?

You tried, but failed.
You misunderstood the point. Hopefully now you can see your error.

 

[leroy]

Your OP is about suffering/pain, not about consciousness.
Is your argument that if there would be no pain / suffering then there also wouldn't be consciousness?

Nope, the argument is about consciousness and the point is that naturalism can't explain it in a conclusive way (all you have are speculations, )

I simply narrow it down the specific aspect of consciousness that we call "conscious suffering" but I could have used some other aspect of consciousness and make the same point.......

My end point is
Yes somethings are hard to explain under theism (like cancer or earthquakes that causes so much suffering that seems to be gratitous)

But .. naturalism also has has stuff that is hard to explain (like consciousness or conscious suffering)

Do you see now, how badly you misunderstood my argument? Do you understand why I kept accusing you for strawman fallacies?

If that is what you are saying, then you are demonstrably wrong since we have examples today, which have been brought up here, of people who can't feel pain, yet are still very conscious.

Luckily I never made such a statement, nor denied the fact that some people are conscious and can't feel pain.... You won't find a quote of me saying the opposite

And I already disagreed with that. Evolution does have a perfectly acceptable answer for suffering: it works very well as system to motivate individuals to actively avoid injury and danger.

My response to that is that organisms that have no consciousness and can't experience conscious suffering like invertebrates, plants, microbes etc .. already avoid danger and injury.... One doesn't need to experience "conscious suffering" in order to avoid danger and injury.

Adding conscious suffering, when the organism already avoided danger in an instinctive way, seems a useless addition and therefore not expected to evolve.

And as I explained multiple times now, there is no need for any explanation beyond that.

Furthermore I reject your claim that an explanation of why pain exists is somehow dependend on being able to explain why consciousness exists, as if they are one and the same thing.

Only if we are talking about conscious pain or conscious suffering.... in that case you have to be able to explain why consciousness excists

I know, which is why I'm mentioning it, because the way I see it, that's the part you are missing.
You ask why there is pain and how "naturalism" deals with that as opposed to the "problem of suffering" in a theistic worldview, as if there is also a "problem of suffering" in an evolutionary worldview.

I'm denying this to be the case. There is no such problem in evolution.

Ok , but would you agree that there is a problem of "consciousness" ( naturalism can't explain the origin of consciousness *yet")

If you agree then by extension, naturalism has a problem of " conscious suffering"

If you can't explain consciousness, you can explain conscious suffering ether.

The only reason for the "problem of suffering" in a theistic worldview is precisely because a god has options.
Evolution does not. Why "pain" and "suffering" exists needs no more "extra" explanation then why our eye has a blind spot.

Wrong, you do need an explanation......Evolution has outcomes that are more likely than others.

Specifically
Complex and useless stuff is less likely to evolve than simple and beneficial stuff.


My claim is that consciousness (including conscious suffering) is complex + selectively useless .... So why did it evolve..?

You do need an explanation for that.

 

[leroy]

You are wrong about that and you misunderstand my point.
You are comparing end goals, while you should be comparing paths.

You are comparing 100 mutations (making up for the end product), which would necessarily have to happen gradually over long timespans since each of them would have to achive fixation, with just one mutation. Aside from the mega-arbitrary choice of numbers, this is a false comparison.

The correct comparison would be to compare the likelihood of just the first mutation, because that is the one that sets one on a specific path.
This is why I brought up the human eye with the blind spot.

The "end product" is far more complex then the eye without a blind spot, because it require a lot of additional mutations to accomodate for the neural changes that "rectify" the image to "fill in the blanks". But that doesn't make a blind spot eye "less likely".

We have a blind spot because at the beginning of the eye development the wiring ended up in front of the light sensitive cells. That is what set it on a path towards an eye with a blind spot. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board and "start over". It just goes forward with what it has. And that initial step, which set it on that path, is simply how it happened to unfold. It worked well enough. And now we can circle back to my previous comment: evolution doesn't have options. It makes no design decisions with an eye on the future.

Evolution can't say "we're going to go with this change, because that sets us on a simpler path towards end-goal X".

Do you understand the point now?

EDIT:

To make my point extra clear, I made a little drawing:

View attachment 85447

The black circle is the "starting position". The two red circles are the "end product", both equivalent in "getting the job done".
The path to the right obviously is a lot more complex then the path on the left.
Let's say the path on the left requires 3 mutations and the one on the right requires 50.
You are comparing the 3 with the 50. The WHOLE road.
But you should be comparing only the first one, which sets you on the path.
Once you go left or right, you can't go back. You can only move forward on the path you find yourself on.

So when you ask "which is more likely?", you are to question the likelihood of going left or right at that starting point.
Not the likelihood of the ENTIRE left path vs the ENTIRE right path.
Once you go right, left is excluded and no longer relevant.




You tried, but failed.
You misunderstood the point. Hopefully now you can see your error.

I understand and grant your point..... But I don't see the relevance of that point

 

[Koldo]

Nope, the argument is about consciousness and the point is that naturalism can't explain it in a conclusive way (all you have are speculations, )

I simply narrow it down the specific aspect of consciousness that we call "conscious suffering" but I could have used some other aspect of consciousness and make the same point.......

My end point is
Yes somethings are hard to explain under theism (like cancer or earthquakes that causes so much suffering that seems to be gratitous)

But .. naturalism also has has stuff that is hard to explain (like consciousness or conscious suffering)

Do you see now, how badly you misunderstood my argument? Do you understand why I kept accusing you for strawman fallacies?


Luckily I never made such a statement, nor denied the fact that some people are conscious and can't feel pain.... You won't find a quote of me saying the opposite


My response to that is that organisms that have no consciousness and can't experience conscious suffering like invertebrates, plants, microbes etc .. already avoid danger and injury.... One doesn't need to experience "conscious suffering" in order to avoid danger and injury.

Adding conscious suffering, when the organism already avoided danger in an instinctive way, seems a useless addition and therefore not expected to evolve.


Only if we are talking about conscious pain or conscious suffering.... in that case you have to be able to explain why consciousness excists


Ok , but would you agree that there is a problem of "consciousness" ( naturalism can't explain the origin of consciousness *yet")

If you agree then by extension, naturalism has a problem of " conscious suffering"

If you can't explain consciousness, you can explain conscious suffering ether.



Wrong, you do need an explanation......Evolution has outcomes that are more likely than others.

Specifically
Complex and useless stuff is less likely to evolve than simple and beneficial stuff.


My claim is that consciousness (including conscious suffering) is complex + selectively useless .... So why did it evolve..?

You do need an explanation for that.

Would you go so far as saying that evolution can not bring about consciousness? I take it that is not the claim you are making, right? You just find it highly unlikely, but accept there is a possibility, even if slim, correct?

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the problem of evil is equivalent to the one you are presenting because both the odds of evolution generating consciousness and the odds of God allowing suffering for a greater good are very small.

But the problem of evil is not equivalent to the one you are presenting, because it outright rejects any possibility that God might be compatible with the existence of evil. It is a much stronger claim. It would therefore be equivalent to you stating it is impossible for evolution to bring about consciousness.

 

[leroy]

Would you go so far as saying that evolution can not bring about consciousness? I take it that is not the claim you are making, right? You just find it highly unlikely, but accept there is a possibility, even if slim, correct?

Correct


JUst to summarize your view
1 you afirm that it is impossible that a good, and omni God, would allow suffering

2 you grant that good things can emerge from previos events that cause suffering

3 your issue is that , Necesairly such good could have been obtained without that suffering (implying that such suffering was not necessary for obtaining that good)

Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your view.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the problem of evil is equivalent to the one you are presenting because both the odds of evolution generating consciousness and the odds of God allowing suffering for a greater good are very small.

Thanks for the effort in trying to understand the argument, yes I think you are describing the argument correctly.

But I disagree in that the assumtion is mistaken .....( see @TagliatelliMonster how Easy it is to quote the points of disagreement)
I don't think it is impossible for an omnipotent Loving God to allow for suffering . (just unlikely, but not impossible)........unless I misunderstand your view (please correct me) ....the main issue is that you are bering a very heavy burden proof, you have to show that there is no possible world where "X" event, while seemingly bad endep up being a good thing (and the best possible thing)

...

Take for example parents that wont allow their 15yo daughter to go to a party orgaized by college students, where he parents know, that there would be drogs and alcohol in tht party.

Now imagine that the parents are omnipotent

It seems to me that not allowing their daughter to go to the party would still be the "better good" even if she has to suffer .... she might think that her parents are evil... but anyone that is a little bit more mature would understand that the parents are allowing suffering for a better good.

My point is that: For any example of suffering that you can think off I can present a possible scenario where :

1 a greater good emerged from that suffering

2 that amount of suffering was necesary for obtaining that good.

This doesn't show that I am very smart, it simply shows that you are giving me a very eassy task, if you give me the freedom to speculate with any logical possibility, it is always likely that I would find a possible scenario where the suffering was good and necesary

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand and grant your point..... But I don't see the relevance of that point

You don't?

Is that because it completely demolishes your premise of your entire argument?

The base point of your argument is that "conscious suffering" is the "more complex" system to evolve and "therefor less likely".

But I just explained to you how this is a false comparison because it requires comparing the ENTIRE path of development, while you should only be looking at the likelihood of setting you on that path. You then grant this point and then say it's not relevant to your argument?



Well, if demolishing your entire premise isn't "relevant" to your argument, then it seems nothing can be relevant to your argument and we are done here.

Just another instance of you showing how you are unable to have an intellectually honest discussion imo.

 

[Koldo]

Correct


JUst to summarize your view
1 you afirm that it is impossible that a good, and omni God, would allow suffering

2 you grant that good things can emerge from previos events that cause suffering

3 your issue is that , Necesairly such good could have been obtained without that suffering (implying that such suffering was not necessary for obtaining that good)

Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your view.

It is pretty close. It is not necessarily the case that such good in specific could have been obtained in some other way, but rather that our utmost well-being (which is what goodness is all about) could have been obtained in some other way.

Let me exemplify: Imagine someone proceeded to chop off Joe's left leg just for fun. Just after, the same person provides pain relief to Joe. This latter action (the pain relief) is good, because it improved Joe's well-being and it is necessarily the case that such good could not have taken place if Joe wasn't suffering from having his left leg chopped off in the first place. But this happening, this good in specific, is a circumstancial good. It is a good that can only take place under specific circumstances and, even more importantly, we are not justified in seeking to make those circumstances take place just to enact this good.

Thanks for the effort in trying to understand the argument, yes I think you are describing the argument correctly.

But I disagree in that the assumtion is mistaken .....( see @TagliatelliMonster how Easy it is to quote the points of disagreement)

I am going to quote this part in specific because what follows is your argument that it is not impossible for a good god to allow suffering. What I was calling a mistaken assumption is not your attempt to show there is no such impossibility, but rather the comparison you are drawing between the problem of evil and the problem you are presenting on this topic.

The problem of evil does entail the proponent is going to shoulder the burden of saying it is impossible for a good god to allow suffering, whereas your argument doesn't. This is what I was calling a mistaken assumption: your comparison between the different problems.

I don't think it is impossible for an omnipotent Loving God to allow for suffering . (just unlikely, but not impossible)........unless I misunderstand your view (please correct me) ....the main issue is that you are bering a very heavy burden proof, you have to show that there is no possible world where "X" event, while seemingly bad endep up being a good thing (and the best possible thing)

...

Take for example parents that wont allow their 15yo daughter to go to a party orgaized by college students, where he parents know, that there would be drogs and alcohol in tht party.

Now imagine that the parents are omnipotent

It seems to me that not allowing their daughter to go to the party would still be the "better good" even if she has to suffer .... she might think that her parents are evil... but anyone that is a little bit more mature would understand that the parents are allowing suffering for a better good.

My point is that: For any example of suffering that you can think off I can present a possible scenario where :

1 a greater good emerged from that suffering

2 that amount of suffering was necesary for obtaining that good.

This doesn't show that I am very smart, it simply shows that you are giving me a very eassy task, if you give me the freedom to speculate with any logical possibility, it is always likely that I would find a possible scenario where the suffering was good and necesary

Let's talk about your example: What's the benefit of not allowing this daughter to go to this party?

An omnipotent god could make it so whenever anyone tried to make use of drugs and alcohol, those things would vanish in thin air. Or he could make it so drugs and alcohol don't even exist. Or he could make it so those substances have no negative effects in our bodies. So, what would justify not letting this girl go to a party?

It is also worth of note that we generally don't think of being upset as a relevant aspect of suffering and evil in the problem of evil. There is an argument to be made about whether being upset should be discussed on this argument.

 

[leroy]

If everyone is misunderstanding your argument, that means you need to explain it better.

And I am happy to do it, I even offered you the option to explain the argument with your own words, so that I can spot your mistakes and correct you……… honestly what else do you expect from me?

The argument is that you can’t explain the origin of consciousness (including conscious suffering) in a conclusive way, all you have is speculations and possible explanations, but nothing conclusive…………… I am just drawing a parallel where theist can´t explain some stuff (including evil and suffering) in a conclusive way ether……….. all we have are speculations and possible explanations, but nothing conclusive.

This is honestly my best effort………. I don’t know what else to do, to get you to understand my argument.

 

[leroy]

You don't?

Is that because it completely demolishes your premise of your entire argument?

The base point of your argument is that "conscious suffering" is the "more complex" system to evolve and "therefor less likely".

But I just explained to you how this is a false comparison because it requires comparing the ENTIRE path of development, while you should only be looking at the likelihood of setting you on that path. You then grant this point and then say it's not relevant to your argument?



Well, if demolishing your entire premise isn't "relevant" to your argument, then it seems nothing can be relevant to your argument and we are done here.

Just another instance of you showing how you are unable to have an intellectually honest discussion imo.

Just to be clear……. (please answer with a simple yes or a simple no)

Are you denying that “simple solutions” are more likely to evolve than “complex solutions?”

For example a solution that requires one mutation, is more likely to evolve than a solution that requires 100 mutations………… do you deny this?

But I just explained to you how this is a false comparison because it requires comparing the ENTIRE path of development, while you should only be looking at the likelihood of setting you on that path. You then grant this point and then say it's not relevant to your argument?

ok ini that case, the organge text is not granted...........I apologize if I missunderstood you earlier.




Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that once you are in the “path” the end result is unavoidable……..

 

[leroy]

It is pretty close. It is not necessarily the case that such good in specific could have been obtained in some other way, but rather that our utmost well-being (which is what goodness is all about) could have been obtained in some other way.

Let me exemplify: Imagine someone proceeded to chop off Joe's left leg just for fun. Just after, the same person provides pain relief to Joe. This latter action (the pain relief) is good, because it improved Joe's well-being and it is necessarily the case that such good could not have taken place if Joe wasn't suffering from having his left leg chopped off in the first place. But this happening, this good in specific, is a circumstancial good. It is a good that can only take place under specific circumstances and, even more importantly, we are not justified in seeking to make those circumstances take place just to enact this good.

ok and I woudl argue that it is logically possible the utmost well being includes some suffering......... woudl you dispute this?

I am going to quote this part in specific because what follows is your argument that it is not impossible for a good god to allow suffering. What I was calling a mistaken assumption is not your attempt to show there is no such impossibility, but rather the comparison you are drawing between the problem of evil and the problem you are presenting on this topic.

ok granted,
When comparing the logical version of the problem of evil, vs. my argument the comparison fails……… but the analogy stands with the probabilistic version of the problem of evil ………..agree?

The comparison is

“it is unlikely (but not impossible) that something complex that lacks selective pressure to favor it, would evolve (like consciousness and conscious suffering)………… just like it is unlikely (but not impossible) that God would allow so much evil and suffering in the world”



This article explains the difference between the logical and the probabilistic versions of the argument

Problem of evil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I havent identified any other point if disagreement, do you have anything in mind?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Threads like this, while I see what they are trying to accomplish, generally ignore the most basic -- and yet probably the most important -- observations. Observations about "how things are" here in our world. There are, of course, contributors who are trying to explain how bad things can happen that seem contrary to what might be expected if their religious understanding of God is correct. And there are the obvious philosophers, ignoring the "God" arguments altogether, and trying to understand why suffering happens at all.

Both sides, in my view, are ignoring the bigger picture -- that:

1. things happen
2. they can be good or bad
3. they can happen to the deserving or the undeserving
   1. good things can happen to the deserving and undeserving
   2. bad things can happen to the deserving and undeserving
4. there seems to be no way to determine how and why

So, what does one expect in a "directed universe" (one that is under the control of a conscious, deliberative entity), and does what we observe accord with that? And conversely, what might we expect in a totally "undirected universe" (the one posited by atheists and possibly deists)? And do our observations better accord with those expectations?

It is my contention that our world, as we encounter it, best accords with an undirected universe. Good things happen, and they happen to those who deserve them and those that don't deserve them with no statistical data that can help us decide why. In the same way, bad things happen to those who seem to deserve some comeuppance, but also to those who don't, and again no statistical data to help us understand why.

What I am saying is that, having examined so many theodicies over the years, my observations strongly suggest to me that there is no God of any description managing our universe. This won't be easily accepted by theists. Atheists will certainly agree with me, and deists may give it tacit approval.

 

[Koldo]

ok and I woudl argue that it is logically possible the utmost well being includes some suffering......... woudl you dispute this?

Yes. Do you mean that suffering is necessary to achieve the utmost well-being or that it is possibly part of the utmost well-being? If the former, omnipotence makes that impossible as I have explained. If the latter, that's logically impossible, since suffering is the opposite of well-being and therefore our utmost well-being can not include that which is contrary to our well-being.

ok granted,
When comparing the logical version of the problem of evil, vs. my argument the comparison fails……… but the analogy stands with the probabilistic version of the problem of evil ………..agree?

The comparison is

“it is unlikely (but not impossible) that something complex that lacks selective pressure to favor it, would evolve (like consciousness and conscious suffering)………… just like it is unlikely (but not impossible) that God would allow so much evil and suffering in the world”



This article explains the difference between the logical and the probabilistic versions of the argument

Problem of evil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ok then.

I havent identified any other point if disagreement, do you have anything in mind?

Nope.