Toy Worlds and the Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

It is possible to build a world in which there is no physical suffering, yet in which there is still free will (or the illusion thereof, depending on where you sit with that particular debate -- key takeaway, with the same amount of free agency we employ now, however much that is. I will henceforth just be using the term "free" and "free agency," but understand this still applies to objectors to causa sui or libertarian free agency).

To convince you of this, I'd like to draw an analogy. There are multiple video games where it's possible to (by various means: cheat codes, console commands, unlockables, whatever) shrug off any damage dealt to the player. It doesn't take a big stretch of imagination to imagine a more complex situation until you end up with something like the world of The Matrix, where a world is simulated so accurately that its (conscious, sapient) occupants don't even realize that they're in a simulation.

It's easy to imagine how The Matrix could be programmed such that an occupant is literally unable to be physically harmed. Any situation you can imagine where they would be bodily harmed, there is an easily accessible solution that a programmer could come up with to prevent it.

Perhaps this could work with conditional physics: for instance, if you're wanting to cut up a potato, your knife is happy to oblige. If you try to sink your knife into your neighbor, the programmed physics of the world automatically drain all inertia from the knife, stopping it harmlessly against living skin. (And so on. This works for natural suffering, suffering from other people, anything involving bodily harm or violation).

Now, anything that can be simulated is necessarily logically possible. So we should agree that it's logically possible for a world to exist where physical suffering is made impossible by that world's physics. You can imagine where I'm going next.

An omnipotent being is capable of actualizing any logically possible state of affairs. So, it stands to reason that the same God from the Problem of Evil premises (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) should be able to create such a world.

One might object, "But Erin, then people wouldn't be free! I could no longer stab my neighbor if I wanted to!"

I would find this objection odd (why would this "freedom" existing be a good thing?), and have several responses:

1. We already "aren't free" to perform a multitude of physical actions, yet we consider ourselves to be free agents. I can't bring the remote control to my hand with the power of my mind, or walk on the bottoms of clouds, or teleport myself to Andromeda. The mere state of being unable to do some things does not make one "not free." Conversely, we are also "not free" already from doing terrible things: I can't turn you inside out with my mind, or pretty much any of the things Freddy Krueger or Pinhead have done in fiction. (Are they "more free" than me? Is that good?)
2. In such a world, you would still be free to decide what to eat for lunch, which movie you want to see tonight, with which friends. Literally all free actions would still be available to you; even writing fiction in which there are conflicts and bodily harm for entertainment purposes. It does not make sense to argue that you would "not be free."
3. If it's argued that we need terrible things in order to have some good things, then I agree: with the strong caveat that we'd be better without either. For instance, if there are no houses burning down, then we wouldn't have the undeniably good thing of the existence of firefighters. If there were no smallpox, the undeniably good thing of a smallpox vaccine wouldn't exist. But is it really better to have smallpox just so that we might have a vaccine? Wouldn't it be better to have no smallpox and no need for a vaccine?

To close out my argument, the theist that believes in a deity that fulfills the premises of the Problem of Evil must be able to account for why physical suffering exists, if we agree that it's possible for said God to create a world in which it's impossible.

(Addendum: I do not argue that ALL suffering is preventable while maintaining free will, just physical suffering. For instance, I do not see how it would be possible to maintain free will while preventing the possibility of things like broken friendships, unrequited love, and things of that nature.

Still, those things are telling: they are not things God would be culpable for, whereas God is culpable for the physics of the world beings inhabit.)

 

[danieldemol]

Great logic @Meow Mix

 

[sayak83]

It is possible to build a world in which there is no physical suffering, yet in which there is still free will (or the illusion thereof, depending on where you sit with that particular debate -- key takeaway, with the same amount of free agency we employ now, however much that is. I will henceforth just be using the term "free" and "free agency," but understand this still applies to objectors to causa sui or libertarian free agency).

To convince you of this, I'd like to draw an analogy. There are multiple video games where it's possible to (by various means: cheat codes, console commands, unlockables, whatever) shrug off any damage dealt to the player. It doesn't take a big stretch of imagination to imagine a more complex situation until you end up with something like the world of The Matrix, where a world is simulated so accurately that its (conscious, sapient) occupants don't even realize that they're in a simulation.

It's easy to imagine how The Matrix could be programmed such that an occupant is literally unable to be physically harmed. Any situation you can imagine where they would be bodily harmed, there is an easily accessible solution that a programmer could come up with to prevent it.

Perhaps this could work with conditional physics: for instance, if you're wanting to cut up a potato, your knife is happy to oblige. If you try to sink your knife into your neighbor, the programmed physics of the world automatically drain all inertia from the knife, stopping it harmlessly against living skin. (And so on. This works for natural suffering, suffering from other people, anything involving bodily harm or violation).

Now, anything that can be simulated is necessarily logically possible. So we should agree that it's logically possible for a world to exist where physical suffering is made impossible by that world's physics. You can imagine where I'm going next.

An omnipotent being is capable of actualizing any logically possible state of affairs. So, it stands to reason that the same God from the Problem of Evil premises (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) should be able to create such a world.

One might object, "But Erin, then people wouldn't be free! I could no longer stab my neighbor if I wanted to!"

I would find this objection odd (why would this "freedom" existing be a good thing?), and have several responses:

1. We already "aren't free" to perform a multitude of physical actions, yet we consider ourselves to be free agents. I can't bring the remote control to my hand with the power of my mind, or walk on the bottoms of clouds, or teleport myself to Andromeda. The mere state of being unable to do some things does not make one "not free." Conversely, we are also "not free" already from doing terrible things: I can't turn you inside out with my mind, or pretty much any of the things Freddy Krueger or Pinhead have done in fiction. (Are they "more free" than me? Is that good?)
2. In such a world, you would still be free to decide what to eat for lunch, which movie you want to see tonight, with which friends. Literally all free actions would still be available to you; even writing fiction in which there are conflicts and bodily harm for entertainment purposes. It does not make sense to argue that you would "not be free."
3. If it's argued that we need terrible things in order to have some good things, then I agree: with the strong caveat that we'd be better without either. For instance, if there are no houses burning down, then we wouldn't have the undeniably good thing of the existence of firefighters. If there were no smallpox, the undeniably good thing of a smallpox vaccine wouldn't exist. But is it really better to have smallpox just so that we might have a vaccine? Wouldn't it be better to have no smallpox and no need for a vaccine?

To close out my argument, the theist that believes in a deity that fulfills the premises of the Problem of Evil must be able to account for why physical suffering exists, if we agree that it's possible for said God to create a world in which it's impossible.

(Addendum: I do not argue that ALL suffering is preventable while maintaining free will, just physical suffering. For instance, I do not see how it would be possible to maintain free will while preventing the possibility of things like broken friendships, unrequited love, and things of that nature.

Still, those things are telling: they are not things God would be culpable for, whereas God is culpable for the physics of the world beings inhabit.)

But the characters you see in video games are visual illusions created in screens through pixel patterns. The programs in video games are not creating characters, but rather creating pixel patterns on screens that sustain this illusions. All kinds of logically impossible things can hence be created by such illusions... bit like a magic show. So I do not see it follows that what you see in a video game is by default logically possible.

 

[Meow Mix]

But the characters you see in video games are visual illusions created in screens through pixel patterns. The programs in video games are not creating characters, but rather creating pixel patterns on screens that sustain this illusions. All kinds of logically impossible things can hence be created by such illusions... bit like a magic show. So I do not see it follows that what you see in a video game is by default logically possible.

Logical possibility is a different beast from improbability; it just means to contain no self-defeating contradiction.

For instance, it's logically possible for gravity to begin repelling instead of attracting 5 minutes from now because nothing about that is self-contradictory. An omnipotent being could do that, and that could be simulated.

However, it's not logically possible to make a Euclidean square that is a Euclidean circle at the same time and in the same respect. That can't be simulated, and neither could even an omnipotent being actualize that.

 

[VoidCat]

@Meow Mix. I accidently started ignoring you. Don't worry it's fixed now. I don't even know you I don't remember ignoring you. In regards to this that reminds me of this wellknown quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-
Epicurus


Edit: on further inspection you seem interesting so I gave you a follow. Hope you dont mind

 

[Erebus]

I agree with much of what you wrote here. If a human is able to think of improvements to the world that would reduce suffering without affecting free will, an omnipotent, omniscient being should have no trouble with it whatsoever. To give a bit of a silly example, eliminating accidental paper cuts would reduce suffering without impacting free will. That's something I thought up on the spot and I'm not omniscient (at least, I don't think I am?)

I did want to pick on this bit though:

(Addendum: I do not argue that ALL suffering is preventable while maintaining free will, just physical suffering. For instance, I do not see how it would be possible to maintain free will while preventing the possibility of things like broken friendships, unrequited love, and things of that nature.

Still, those things are telling: they are not things God would be culpable for, whereas God is culpable for the physics of the world beings inhabit.)

That might be true, though it depends on your understanding of omnipotence. One interpretation is that omnipotence means the ability to perform anything that's possible. By that interpretation, God may genuinely be unable to prevent all suffering while also maintaining free will.

Another interpretation though is that omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible. Creating a square circle, making a weight too heavy to lift and then lifting it, etc. If we go by that interpretation then there's no reason why suffering can't be eliminated entirely while still maintaining free will. You could for example be unable to break a friendship while still having the ability to break that friendship simply because God declares that to be possible. Any paradox of that nature would be inconsequential to such a deity.

 

[Meow Mix]

@Meow Mix. I accidently started ignoring you. Don't worry it's fixed now. I don't even know you I don't remember ignoring you. In regards to this that reminds me of this wellknown quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-
Epicurus


Edit: on further inspection you seem interesting so I gave you a follow. Hope you dont mind

No worries, I'm also figuring out the user interface after nearly a decade away from the site!

Good call on the Epicurus quote, it's a good one.

And I certainly don't mind at all. I'll see you around the forum ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree with much of what you wrote here. If a human is able to think of improvements to the world that would reduce suffering without affecting free will, an omnipotent, omniscient being should have no trouble with it whatsoever. To give a bit of a silly example, eliminating accidental paper cuts would reduce suffering without impacting free will. That's something I thought up on the spot and I'm not omniscient (at least, I don't think I am?)

I won't tell anyone you are if you are, but if you are, can I have a PS5 (and the time to use it)?

That might be true, though it depends on your understanding of omnipotence. One interpretation is that omnipotence means the ability to perform anything that's possible. By that interpretation, God may genuinely be unable to prevent all suffering while also maintaining free will.

Another interpretation though is that omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible. Creating a square circle, making a weight too heavy to lift and then lifting it, etc. If we go by that interpretation then there's no reason why suffering can't be eliminated entirely while still maintaining free will. You could for example be unable to break a friendship while still having the ability to break that friendship simply because God declares that to be possible. Any paradox of that nature would be inconsequential to such a deity.

I generally do not engage much with the latter interpretation because it's just noncognitive. A person contradicts themselves by even believing it, so the most I can do is shrug.

 

[Erebus]

I won't tell anyone you are if you are, but if you are, can I have a PS5 (and the time to use it)?

Now you're just being unreasonable. Asking for a world free of physical suffering is one thing but a PS5? Come on.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I enjoyed reading your model.

It is possible to build a world in which there is no physical suffering, yet in which there is still free will (or the illusion thereof, depending on where you sit with that particular debate -- key takeaway, with the same amount of free agency we employ now, however much that is. I will henceforth just be using the term "free" and "free agency," but understand this still applies to objectors to causa sui or libertarian free agency).

A related question: If a skilled species from another planet came here, would they recognize our intelligence, and would we recognize its? Would it care about free will or be like an automaton? Why would it leave its planet? Why would it come here?

An omnipotent being is capable of actualizing any logically possible state of affairs. So, it stands to reason that the same God from the Problem of Evil premises (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) should be able to create such a world.

Technically there is a logical problem. The above assumption pins omnipotence to a non-realistic expectation. It presumes true the original question "Can there be a world of pleasure without suffering?" Presuming omnipotence makes it possible merely frames God as the willing cause of suffering, so that is where you need to tie in why you think God's omnipotence is the kind of omnipotence you speak of and to explain why that omnipotence would, to you, make such a place possible.

We already "aren't free" to perform a multitude of physical actions, yet we consider ourselves to be free agents. I can't bring the remote control to my hand with the power of my mind, or walk on the bottoms of clouds, or teleport myself to Andromeda. The mere state of being unable to do some things does not make one "not free." Conversely, we are also "not free" already from doing terrible things: I can't turn you inside out with my mind, or pretty much any of the things Freddy Krueger or Pinhead have done in fiction. (Are they "more free" than me? Is that good?)

Perhaps. Choice, as far as I know, is a potential in neural networks between two opposing desires. "Son, I'm going to buy you 1 candy bar. Choose which one you want, because you can't have both!" Can a choice be made without giving up on another choice? Can there be satisfaction without disappointment?

In such a world, you would still be free to decide what to eat for lunch, which movie you want to see tonight, with which friends. Literally all free actions would still be available to you; even writing fiction in which there are conflicts and bodily harm for entertainment purposes. It does not make sense to argue that you would "not be free."

I agree there could be a lot less suffering, but I challenge whether there could be none which is the premise of the argument.

If it's argued that we need terrible things in order to have some good things, then I agree: with the strong caveat that we'd be better without either. For instance, if there are no houses burning down, then we wouldn't have the undeniably good thing of the existence of firefighters. If there were no smallpox, the undeniably good thing of a smallpox vaccine wouldn't exist. But is it really better to have smallpox just so that we might have a vaccine? Wouldn't it be better to have no smallpox and no need for a vaccine?

It goes back to the nature of intelligence of the kind we appreciate. Can there be love and emotion without the lack of them?

To close out my argument, the theist that believes in a deity that fulfills the premises of the Problem of Evil must be able to account for why physical suffering exists, if we agree that it's possible for said God to create a world in which it's impossible.

Not necessarily, and you have not dealt with the concept of a physical time involved creator versus a transcendent creator outside of time.

 

[Heyo]

But the characters you see in video games are visual illusions created in screens through pixel patterns. The programs in video games are not creating characters, but rather creating pixel patterns on screens that sustain this illusions. All kinds of logically impossible things can hence be created by such illusions... bit like a magic show. So I do not see it follows that what you see in a video game is by default logically possible.

Think of it as a virtual reality game. You have a suit and a helmet that feeds you the sensations. There are two versions of the suit: one is realistic, it feeds you all impacts generated in the game with full fidelity. The other is non-realistic and all impacts are limited to blocking you but not hard enough to hurt you.
Which suit will you be using?

 

[Dave Watchman]

It is possible to build a world in which there is no physical suffering, yet in which there is still free will (or the illusion thereof, depending on where you sit with that particular debate -- key takeaway, with the same amount of free agency we employ now, however much that is.

I don't think that your note is possible.

Though it's fun to contemplate.

I like the Matrix, but life is real.

I knew a nurse who told stories of home care for the dying, he said life is real Dave.

Physical suffering is just a symptom of the issue now at large.

I thought of it too.

What if, instead of annihilating Satan and his followers on Judgement day. He could just make a planet for them all to live on in a far off galaxy. It could be a place where they could all live outside of God's rules and everyone do whatever they want. Satan and his demons, could teach Anton Levey and Alistair Crowley new and perverted sex acts. They could advertise for willing participants and be free to: "do what thou wilt."

But Jeffrey Dahmer would need to be able to rape and kill and cannibalize his victims.

Richard Ramirez would still need to practice his night stalking activities which included:

"On April 10, 1984, Ramirez murdered 9-year-old Chinese-American Mei Leung in the basement of the hotel where he was living, in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. He raped and beat the girl before stabbing her to death, and hanging her body from a pipe.​

So in the Satanic holodeck example, would Richard be able to rape and beat the girl, but the deadly knife's inertia would be instantly drained when coming into contact with her skin?

Or are there other commands from God, which to some do not seemingly cause suffering, that the Creator Himself cannot tolerate occurring in His Universe?

My read on the Biblical narrative is that the God from the Problem of Evil premises, is currently dealing with the "Problem of Evil", but that it's on a much longer timeline that is widely palatable by the biological creatures that inhabit this realm, and also involves other non-biological individuals who are not of our realm.

The penalty for evil is death. It's like the weak and the strong force, it's baked in the cake. So is the pain and the suffering that goes along with it.. You can't have one without the other. Even the C section must be sore without a pain killer.

The answer to this is that in a million years and more, these things will not come to mind. God will wipe away every tear, the former things will not be remembered when evil has become eradicated.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[1213]

...It's easy to imagine how The Matrix could be programmed such that an occupant is literally unable to be physically harmed. ...

In Biblical point of view this world is like the Matrix, nothing of this world can destroy or soul, which is the important thing, body is only like a vessel for soul to experience what evil truly means, as people in the begun wanted to know.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

 

[Meow Mix]

In Biblical point of view this world is like the Matrix, nothing of this world can destroy or soul, which is the important thing, body is only like a vessel for soul to experience what evil truly means, as people in the begun wanted to know.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

I don't think this helps kids with leukemia or anybody else suffering unfathomable physical pain.

 

[Meow Mix]

So in the Satanic holodeck example, would Richard be able to ---- and beat the girl, but the deadly knife's inertia would be instantly drained when coming into contact with her skin?

The notion would be that any physical harm would not be possible to inflict on another person, not just being unable to kill them. So, a lot of this misses the point.

An omnipotent/omniscient being could create a world with physics such that a person is not able to physically harm another person at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

I enjoyed reading your model.

A related question: If a skilled species from another planet came here, would they recognize our intelligence, and would we recognize its? Would it care about free will or be like an automaton? Why would it leave its planet? Why would it come here?

I think it's probable. In order to perform interstellar travel, no matter how alien a species might seem to us, there would be some things in common -- such as an understanding of the mathematics necessary to do this (which, as Carl Sagan long argued, would form the foundation of a mutual language). It's also not possible for an individual to build a spaceship, so such beings would also have some idea of what cooperation is, which means it's at least possible that they'd be altruistic or have a notion of altruism and mutual well-being. There are no guarantees, but I'm comforted by these facts to some extent.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the PoE though, as interesting as it is.

Technically there is a logical problem. The above assumption pins omnipotence to a non-realistic expectation. It presumes true the original question "Can there be a world of pleasure without suffering?" Presuming omnipotence makes it possible merely frames God as the willing cause of suffering, so that is where you need to tie in why you think God's omnipotence is the kind of omnipotence you speak of and to explain why that omnipotence would, to you, make such a place possible.

The PoE only ever works given the premises hold. If someone does not accept the premises, then the PoE is not applicable to them.

 

[1213]

I don't think this helps kids with leukemia or anybody else suffering unfathomable physical pain.

I think it can help to move the focus from material to spiritual. In Biblical point of view this “life” is just temporary thing and the focus should be on higher matters.

For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and whoever will lose his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his life? Or what will a man give in exchange for his life?
Matt. 16.25-26

"Don't lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves don't break through and steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Matt. 6:19-21

Therefore, I tell you, don't be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn't life more than food, and the body more than clothing? See the birds of the sky, that they don't sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you of much more value than they? "Which of you, by being anxious, can add one cubit to the measure of his life? Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin, yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won't he much more clothe you, you of little faith? "Therefore don't be anxious, saying, 'What will we eat?', 'What will we drink?' or, 'With what will we be clothed?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first God's Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore don't be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day's own evil is sufficient.
Matt. 6:25-34

Maybe pain doesn’t go away instantly, but Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. That is why I think it would be best seek righteousness before anything else and keep focus on higher matters. I think that helps to handle all the temporary pain.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[Meow Mix]

I think it can help to move the focus from material to spiritual. In Biblical point of view this “life” is just temporary thing and the focus should be on higher matters.

Even if suffering is temporary, the point of the Problem of Evil is that (given the premises), there is a contradiction with saying God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent while at the same time observing that there is suffering.

For instance, if I slap someone in the face, that’s temporary. Does the fact that it’s temporary mean I’m not culpable for doing it?

 

[1213]

Even if suffering is temporary, the point of the Problem of Evil is that (given the premises), there is a contradiction with saying God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent while at the same time observing that there is suffering.

For instance, if I slap someone in the face, that’s temporary. Does the fact that it’s temporary mean I’m not culpable for doing it?

Because the slap is temporary, not everlasting, I wouldn’t call it a problem. It is a solved issue, all though may be painful for a short moment.

I don’t think evil is a problem, because it can’t destroy our soul, which is the important thing in Biblical point of view.

By what the Bible tells, people wanted to know evil, and that is the reason why we are in this “Matrix”. Here we can really know what evil means (to be without God). I don’t think it is a problem, only something people wanted to know. Here we can learn what it means, but we can also become righteous and find the way back to God.

I think that God allowed us to have this lesson shows He is truly good and loving.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It is possible to build a world in which there is no physical suffering, yet in which there is still free will (or the illusion thereof, depending on where you sit with that particular debate -- key takeaway, with the same amount of free agency we employ now, however much that is. I will henceforth just be using the term "free" and "free agency," but understand this still applies to objectors to causa sui or libertarian free agency).

To convince you of this, I'd like to draw an analogy. There are multiple video games where it's possible to (by various means: cheat codes, console commands, unlockables, whatever) shrug off any damage dealt to the player. It doesn't take a big stretch of imagination to imagine a more complex situation until you end up with something like the world of The Matrix, where a world is simulated so accurately that its (conscious, sapient) occupants don't even realize that they're in a simulation.

It's easy to imagine how The Matrix could be programmed such that an occupant is literally unable to be physically harmed. Any situation you can imagine where they would be bodily harmed, there is an easily accessible solution that a programmer could come up with to prevent it.

Perhaps this could work with conditional physics: for instance, if you're wanting to cut up a potato, your knife is happy to oblige. If you try to sink your knife into your neighbor, the programmed physics of the world automatically drain all inertia from the knife, stopping it harmlessly against living skin. (And so on. This works for natural suffering, suffering from other people, anything involving bodily harm or violation).

Now, anything that can be simulated is necessarily logically possible. So we should agree that it's logically possible for a world to exist where physical suffering is made impossible by that world's physics. You can imagine where I'm going next.

An omnipotent being is capable of actualizing any logically possible state of affairs. So, it stands to reason that the same God from the Problem of Evil premises (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) should be able to create such a world.

One might object, "But Erin, then people wouldn't be free! I could no longer stab my neighbor if I wanted to!"

I would find this objection odd (why would this "freedom" existing be a good thing?), and have several responses:

1. We already "aren't free" to perform a multitude of physical actions, yet we consider ourselves to be free agents. I can't bring the remote control to my hand with the power of my mind, or walk on the bottoms of clouds, or teleport myself to Andromeda. The mere state of being unable to do some things does not make one "not free." Conversely, we are also "not free" already from doing terrible things: I can't turn you inside out with my mind, or pretty much any of the things Freddy Krueger or Pinhead have done in fiction. (Are they "more free" than me? Is that good?)
2. In such a world, you would still be free to decide what to eat for lunch, which movie you want to see tonight, with which friends. Literally all free actions would still be available to you; even writing fiction in which there are conflicts and bodily harm for entertainment purposes. It does not make sense to argue that you would "not be free."
3. If it's argued that we need terrible things in order to have some good things, then I agree: with the strong caveat that we'd be better without either. For instance, if there are no houses burning down, then we wouldn't have the undeniably good thing of the existence of firefighters. If there were no smallpox, the undeniably good thing of a smallpox vaccine wouldn't exist. But is it really better to have smallpox just so that we might have a vaccine? Wouldn't it be better to have no smallpox and no need for a vaccine?

To close out my argument, the theist that believes in a deity that fulfills the premises of the Problem of Evil must be able to account for why physical suffering exists, if we agree that it's possible for said God to create a world in which it's impossible.

(Addendum: I do not argue that ALL suffering is preventable while maintaining free will, just physical suffering. For instance, I do not see how it would be possible to maintain free will while preventing the possibility of things like broken friendships, unrequited love, and things of that nature.

Still, those things are telling: they are not things God would be culpable for, whereas God is culpable for the physics of the world beings inhabit.)

Polytheist here, because I can't explain things, either. I believe in the possibility of a God that's very much tied to the universe, and then lots of spirit-gods. The powerful God tied to the universe, is most powerful, but really isn't even all that powerful, and doesn't interfere for whatever reason.

Picture a video game. It has a creator. But then the creator says, I've done all I can do with this game, and so doesn't release updates. But the players all play the game anyway. And you end up with a whole bunch of member accounts on this never-updated game.

Unless...

Okay, it's never that simple.

The game is programmed to update itself through evolution. I think the programming term for it in a game though, would be something like Machine Learning?

So this God of mine. He's unimpressive. He doesn't sound worthy of worship, really. But in my thoughts, he probably never wanted to be worshipped anyway. This God is probably an introvert.

I'm not sure what other conclusions to make yet, other than I think some traditional views of God may not work.