God, Suffering, and Special Pleading

[Meow Mix]

I would say suffering only exists in order to inform one of changes needing made to improve one's situation. I don't know that it has anything to do with "spirituality."

If God exists, I insist that He has left the universe on "auto-pilot." Which means it currently makes no difference whether He exists or not.

And which also avoids the PoE entirely by skipping some of the premises (such as omnibenevolence).

As for suffering existing in order to prepare to avoid future suffering, isn't that a moot point if a world is possible where physical suffering is impossible in the first place?

 

[Super Universe]

Do you not consider it malevolent for a being to subject other sapient beings to suffering in order to further that being's own ends? Usually that's straight up defined as malevolent.



It's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to actualize a reality in which the very physics of the universe don't allow physical suffering to occur, though: angels and demons don't excuse that a world was created where it's possible in the first place.



Usually that is the accepted definition of omnipotence -- not the capacity to do anything, but the capacity to do anything that's *logically possible.* So I don't think this statement is controversial.



I'm not sure if this qualifies as omniscient or not. Omniscience is a difficult concept to define, anyway; but it's definable enough for the PoE: does God at least know all the types of worlds possible to create?



This implies that God simply isn't omnibenevolent -- if it's defined as being "at least never malevolent." Taking such a view does escape the Problem of Evil, but it has other implications some might find unsavory.

Do I not consider it malevolent for a being to subject other beings to suffering in order to further that being's own ends? I do not consider it malevolent because that was never the intention. The goal was free will, not serial killers. And if the angels had done their job we wouldn't have the serial killers.

Usually that's straight up defined as malevolent? No, malevolence is the intention to do evil.

It's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to actualize a reality in which suffering is not allowed to occur? It is but that would be a reality without free will and with programmed personalities.

Angels and demons don't excuse the world God created? God created the universe, put some high level angels in charge, and then fragmented into the universe to give life. So, yes, God created the universe so He, in a way, created the earth but He did not intend or cause the suffering that has happened.

God, if omnipotent, could do anything that is logically possible? God has the ability to violate His own laws but that is never going to happen. That is something a human would do, make a law, then break it, then establish it again and then change their minds and get rid of it.

God's omniscience means that He knows every knowable thing about the universe. But, He doesn't just know everything about the universe as it exists now, He knows everything about the universe as it is in the future because to God it's already happened. The bible says that God is the Alpha and the Omega, what this means is that God experiences all time in the exact same moment. To God the material universe has already finished it's expansion and is stable and all species have already finished their evolutionary progress.

My post implies that God is not omnibenevolent? The universe is the gladiator pit. God will not interfere with free will. The angels do interfere within guidelines but even they will not interfere with free will.

I agree with you that the problem of evil is a definate problem. We are at the mercy of some really disturbed and selfish people. If I had the power I would definately do some things differently but it's not my universe.

 

[Meow Mix]

It was initially or atleast in part. Eden was a small pocket of the wolrd, free of suffering and free will at the same time. No need for clothes, weather always perfect. No need to hunt, food plentiful. They also had free will with a single command to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Which they used their free will to defy. You know the rest I am sure.

What is little known is that God created other men that existed outside of Eden for thousands or tens of thousands of years while the events inside Eden took place at the same time in only 20 yearsish? This is the people of the Land of Nod. They had free will the entire time but they also had the suffering.

So you see free will leads us to the same place regardless if we live in a world of suffering or paradise. The only way to avoid paying the price of pain and suffering for free will would have been to never chose to use it to begin with. Which unfortunately is thousands of years hindsight and too late to do anything about. We must play the hand we have dealt to ourselves. And use our free will this time to prove we can obey God with free will.

The story sounds to me like a strange form of entrapment, though. Creating beings with no conception of what lies are, allowing them to be in the presence of a liar, and then punishing them for believing lies doesn't seem very fair.

This is getting into a different but related topic at this point. Why put a forbidden object in the garden in the first place? This is still essentially just allowing the suffering. If I drop a loaded revolver into a baby's crib, I'm still culpable for having done that even if the baby's the one that pulled the trigger.

 

[Enoch07]

It was initially or atleast in part. Eden was a small pocket of the wolrd, free of suffering and free will at the same time. No need for clothes, weather always perfect. No need to hunt, food plentiful. They also had free will with a single command to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Which they used their free will to defy. You know the rest I am sure.

What is little known is that God created other men that existed outside of Eden for thousands or tens of thousands of years while the events inside Eden took place at the same time in only 20 yearsish? This is the people of the Land of Nod. They had free will the entire time but they also had the suffering.

So you see free will leads us to the same place regardless if we live in a world of suffering or paradise. The only way to avoid paying the price of pain and suffering for free will would have been to never chose to use it to begin with. Which unfortunately is thousands of years hindsight and too late to do anything about. We must play the hand we have dealt to ourselves.

The story sounds to me like a strange form of entrapment, though. Creating beings with no conception of what lies are, allowing them to be in the presence of a liar, and then punishing them for believing lies doesn't seem very fair.

This is getting into a different but related topic at this point. Why put a forbidden object in the garden in the first place? This is still essentially just allowing the suffering. If I drop a loaded revolver into a baby's crib, I'm still culpable for having done that even if the baby's the one that pulled the trigger.

To test the theory. Of if we could handle Utopia with free will. We failed.

You don't remeber the decision, but you made it, just as I did, just as everyone did, because it took place before the earth was even created. The whole point was to make our decisions from birth forward without the knowledge of what was before. Its alot to take in, to advanced for even the most devout, let alone a non-believer.

 

[arthra]

I've found that you can also posit a "creation" for a moment where there would be no suffering... All our needs are met... A kind of womb world where we are constantly connected and fed through umbilical cords. I don't think I'd like such a world. I think we're here to strive to meet our needs and help others. One reason we've developed science and medicine is to solve our problems and be of service to others.

 

[Grandliseur]

Why does suffering exist? Most are probably at least familiar with the Problem of Evil:

That discussion's been had a thousand times (usually not satisfactorily, though). Answers come in the form of theodicies which try to explain away evil or defenses which try to demonstrate that evil doesn't contradict God's properties to exist in the first place. However, the point of this post is to talk about the special pleading I so often encounter in these discussions.

I provide the PoE by talking about it in terms of suffering and malevolence: given that God is omnipotent (capable of actualizing any logically possible states of affairs), omniscient (at least the state of knowing which of all states of affairs are logically possible for the sake of this), and omnibenevolent (at least never malevolent for the sake of this), then we shouldn't find any suffering in the world because a world where physical suffering doesn't happen but in which free will exists is possible (we're granting free will is meaningful for this one).

When asked, "Why would God create this world which does contain physical suffering and not one of the possible worlds where there isn't any," the response is usually a theodicy -- readily dismissable -- or, ultimately, special pleading.

By that I mean some variation of, "well it's possible that God has some reason to create the world with suffering that's really good, but is unknowable to you; but despite the apparent contradiction, it was good of God to do so."

And here I get to the meat of what this post is for: this is an unacceptable response -- fallacies are fallacies for a reason. I present an analogy to make the point.

Say that you die and are taken to the afterlife and presented for judgment (or whatever), expecting to reach paradise. Yet instead of receiving judgment, God sets a tiger on you or something. "It's okay," you might think -- "this is God, a benevolent being, so there must be some good reason I just can't understand for this. God is still benevolent despite this, I just can't understand why." Well, 10 years go by and you're still being mauled. 100 years go by -- still being mauled by the tiger. 1,000 years. 1,000,000. Every time you might say, "God has a reason for this that I just don't know, God is benevolent." As it turns out, if special pleading is allowed, God can literally do anything (even the most malevolent, monstrous, demonic sort of thing) and still be "benevolent," somehow, in some "unknowable way." And that's exactly why this sort of special pleading is fallacious and isn't a valid response to the Problem of Evil when contexts have been well-defined.

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?

I find Epicurus' statements childishly inadequate.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

Can moral dilemmas really be solved by power?! I don't think so. Problems of right and wrong, justice and injustice are at times only solved in courts of law, and at times, for the sake of judgment, an experiment, an example - demonstrating upon the pertinent facts involved what is the best course of action.​

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Above, the problem of morality - how to solve - was addressed. So the question at times comes down to first solve the legalities, the evidence regarding the dilemma, and then once the dilemma has been demonstrated to have a solution - then, after that, take action. So again. The conclusions made in this case are off.​

----------------
Just taking those two lines and demonstrating that they are false is enough for his claims.
=========
In Hinduism, this is said about Shiva: (Shiva - Wikipedia)

"Shiva is the "God of Destruction" within the Trimurti, the Hindu trinity that includes Brahma and Vishnu.[8][13] In Shaivism tradition, Shiva is the Supreme being who creates, protects and transforms the universe."​

It stands to reason that the Christian God, not Jesus, also shares the attributes mentioned here for Shiva (not the trinity or the other gods). If the earth's ecosystems must work in harmony, there has to be birth, life, and death. Death includes suffering. The balance must be kept for the systems to work. That human beings intellectually crave to be without suffering or death is in this context totally irrational.

Biblical teachings
The teaching is that human beings who are alienated from God are viewed by him as animals. For this reason, they are subject to the same birth, life, death, suffering cycle of the rest of creation. And, make no mistake, we are all alienated from God at the moment, all die, all grow old if premature death doesn't happen.

The reason we were subjected this 'groaning of creation' is because of the moral dilemma that needed solving, individually, and globally. It was a question of 'good and evil', the right to determine for ourselves or not - what is good and evil, the right to determine our own rulership, or having to submit to God's theocracy. The solution, we are told, is now soon going to be provided.

The questions that needed to be given evidence for were -

can we rule ourselves without dominating man over man?
can we rule ourselves without destroying the earth?
can we live in harmony in a global society?
at the same time, God used the time to put together an administration for the future rule of mankind.​

These questions and more, have all been answered - the legal dilemmas are now adjourned - mankind cannot rule itself, cannot decide what is good and evil itself, cannot rule ourselves without destroying the earth. (this last question has only been answered this last hundred years.)

Death: equals total destruction of the individual. Neither heaven nor hell only sleep in the grave.
God's omniscience: is only omniscient for the past and the now, not for all future events.
God's love is given to all in the sense that they have the sun, the profits of the earth, etc. But, it is restricted in that only those who obey him will get anything beyond this.
At the moment, we have a system that God let's run more or less untouched by him, sometimes more, other times less. He does answer the prayers of the righteous that fit within certain restrictions.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tumah]

But how would we know that we are, in fact, experiencing the greatest possible pleasure ?

With the experience of our lifetime to teach us about degrees of pleasure and achievement.

Why not? Please elaborate on that.

I don't want to use examples from Tanach about G-d not being compatible with falsehood, but they are there.

I don't think that G-d has the capacity to lie though. G-d doesn't have any character traits with which to lie. Technically G-d doesn't have any trait with which to be truthful either, but our application of truthfulness to G-d is in the sense of G-d has done it. At least what I understand from Jewish sources, when G-d thinks, speaks, does, etc., those are just different degrees of creative acts in potential or actuality. It's something that we can point to (had we the capacity to perceive potentiality) as existing. So by extension G-d doesn't do anything that isn't truthful.

I understand that saying G-d doesn't isn't the same as saying G-d can't but I have to think about it more. I never really thought about the possibility.

 

[Tumah]

At what point does it cease being reasonable to believe there is a good reason for it? 1,000,000 years? 1,000,000,000,000,000 years? A google plus years? 10^google plus years? The point is that if special pleading is allowed, there is no length of time where a person couldn't ignore an apparent contradiction because they believe there's an unknowable explanation for the apparent contradiction: it isn't reasonable.

I think that theoretically any number of years short of infinity should be within the realm of plausibility with the caveat that it doesn't overcome the ultimate objective of benevolence by making it impossible to enjoy the benefits of the suffering. That is, the suffering isn't a means to itself, it must lead to greater benefit of pleasure. So any amount of suffering is plausible so long as it raises that benefit and doesn't impair it.

 

[Etritonakin]

Is unnecessary suffering corrected because it's temporary?

If I were to mercilessly beat a baby, but then to pay for the child's college education, I'm at least somewhat malevolent, aren't I?

Technically, if suffering is temporary -and ceases -and is forgotten -the suffering has been corrected.

If you mercilessly beat a baby, then YOU need to be corrected -but that is not what God does -and that correction might be accomplished by suffering of some sort -which can later be corrected after you are corrected.
Paying for college does not correct anything -and you do not have the power to heal all of the hurt you mercilessly caused.

Though God is ultimately responsible for bringing the situation he created to a good end, there is a difference between that for which he is directly responsible and that for which he may hold us directly responsible.

God does nothing mercilessly -though he applies that mercy when it will do the most good for all. He allowed us to do much of what we will -and for it to cause suffering to others -and he also directly causes suffering -but toward that good end.

Suffering -overall -IS necessary now if it is to be completely eradicated in the future.

Technically, it isn't even necessary to our basic functioning that we feel physical pain as we do. It is an extreme force which will forge our spirits -by way of our bodies and minds.
Emotional suffering is due to imperfect states, and physical suffering also teaches us to be serious about making states as perfect as we can.

The fact that you zealously want to do that which will prevent all suffering has been produced by your experience. If we did not live it, it would not be firmly rooted in us.

Though it is not directly necessary for the innocent and vulnerable to suffer -by others, time and chance -or even directly or indirectly by decision of God (plagues in the bible, etc.), it is indirectly necessary -as it will produce a future which will be unimaginable good and joyous for all -which could not otherwise be produced -and the present things will be corrected, and eventually no longer be remembered.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And which also avoids the PoE entirely by skipping some of the premises (such as omnibenevolence).

I don't believe anything can ever be perceived as "benevolent" to all beings at all times. In fact, any God falls down on that right away by creating a system in which living cells are to be consumed as food. Even within plants, each cell that makes up the body is an individual living being.

As for suffering existing in order to prepare to avoid future suffering, isn't that a moot point if a world is possible where physical suffering is impossible in the first place?

The problem being that without something providing everything for you, you are bound to mis-step. If there were no way to inform you that you had done so, you would simply keep mis-stepping. For example, if there were no mechanism within the body to inform you that you were thirsty, you may never drink, and would die without knowledge that you had even done yourself harm by your action/inaction.

Something has to be there to inform you that what is happening is "bad." If the mechanism to warn you that you were getting thirsty were something "positive" - for example, a pleasurable warming sensation in your belly - why even bother heeding it? I would argue that the mechanism HAS TO be negative - it is the only way to insure response from an uninformed, free-roaming being.

 

[Etritonakin]

However, a great deal of this post seems to have an underlying axiom that "some suffering is good because it prepares us for a future." I don't disagree with this notion in this world: after all, resting your hand on a hot stove surely teaches you not to do the same again. However, that's because we live in a world where these bad things are possible in the first place. In a world where fire doesn't burn you, there is no need to get burned to avoid a future fire. The question still arises why we live in a world where suffering is possible in the first place when one of the premises is there is a possible world where physical suffering is not possible yet where free will still exists.

Suffering of some sort will always technically be possible -unless WE learn to make it impossible by avoiding it.
We are now part of the equation -and there are and will be billions of us. God constantly repairing the misery we cause would be pointless and infinitely frustrating for all.

One bible verse essentially says that because consequence or corrective measures are not always immediate, our hearts become set within us to do evil.

Some pain is immediate -and we immediately avoid it, but some things can be enjoyable until they cause major catastrophe and misery.

If our present was less painful, our future would be more painful.

Even as it is, not all will change until that which is temporarily enjoyable is no longer enjoyable.
Some will learn to think it through -but some will need to live it before changing.

If God simply allowed us noobs to all to go out into the universe with great power, there would eventually be universal misery -even if physical pain did not exist -because we would not have been prepared to avoid it.

 

[sayak83]

Why does suffering exist? Most are probably at least familiar with the Problem of Evil:



That discussion's been had a thousand times (usually not satisfactorily, though). Answers come in the form of theodicies which try to explain away evil or defenses which try to demonstrate that evil doesn't contradict God's properties to exist in the first place. However, the point of this post is to talk about the special pleading I so often encounter in these discussions.

I provide the PoE by talking about it in terms of suffering and malevolence: given that God is omnipotent (capable of actualizing any logically possible states of affairs), omniscient (at least the state of knowing which of all states of affairs are logically possible for the sake of this), and omnibenevolent (at least never malevolent for the sake of this), then we shouldn't find any suffering in the world because a world where physical suffering doesn't happen but in which free will exists is possible (we're granting free will is meaningful for this one).

When asked, "Why would God create this world which does contain physical suffering and not one of the possible worlds where there isn't any," the response is usually a theodicy -- readily dismissable -- or, ultimately, special pleading.

By that I mean some variation of, "well it's possible that God has some reason to create the world with suffering that's really good, but is unknowable to you; but despite the apparent contradiction, it was good of God to do so."

And here I get to the meat of what this post is for: this is an unacceptable response -- fallacies are fallacies for a reason. I present an analogy to make the point.

Say that you die and are taken to the afterlife and presented for judgment (or whatever), expecting to reach paradise. Yet instead of receiving judgment, God sets a tiger on you or something. "It's okay," you might think -- "this is God, a benevolent being, so there must be some good reason I just can't understand for this. God is still benevolent despite this, I just can't understand why." Well, 10 years go by and you're still being mauled. 100 years go by -- still being mauled by the tiger. 1,000 years. 1,000,000. Every time you might say, "God has a reason for this that I just don't know, God is benevolent." As it turns out, if special pleading is allowed, God can literally do anything (even the most malevolent, monstrous, demonic sort of thing) and still be "benevolent," somehow, in some "unknowable way." And that's exactly why this sort of special pleading is fallacious and isn't a valid response to the Problem of Evil when contexts have been well-defined.

I will take a hypothetical stab.
It is possible that sentient beings like us exist in the role of co-creators with God(S). The universe does not exist a fixed finished thing but an ever-moving Flux of partially "raw" phenomena that can be shaped by creators like us. Because, the world is half formed- in the sense above - it's interactions with consciousness of sentient beings creates suffering. The existence of suffering is undesirable, and this motives us to strive to eliminate its sources, thus engaging in creative labor that brings ourselves and the world more in finished Resonance.

 

[Etritonakin]

When life forms which do not suffer mentally and emotionally (not having a complex mind), or physically (not having complex pain processing systems which cause theme extreme and complex unpleasantness), as we do are harmed or destroyed, suffering is not really a consideration.

This may seem obvious, but It only becomes a consideration when it exists and can be considered by the self and others.

If God's intent was simply to make a succession of happy and content humans, then not allowing suffering -not allowing us to cause suffering -not allowing us to feel intense physical and emotional pain, not allowing the animals to feel and cause pain and for us to empathize, not allowing natural disasters, maintaining all things for us, etc., would be in order.

As God is reproducing himself -making us gods -we face and experience that which will allow us to relatively quickly become like him -not simply enjoying a simple reality which is created and maintained for us, but becoming masters of reality.

He is essentially telling us that we are going to have to put our big person pants on (I find it rather hilarious that he almost literally says that in scripture).

 

[Clear]

Oh, I agree the PoE can be defeated by simply dropping one of the premises; but that's rather the point of the PoE -- most theists will not even consider it because swathes of worldview depend on those premises. It isn't to say "no god of any kind can exist because of this," but rather "this particular one with these particular properties contradicts observation."

I am a theist. However, I believe Meow Mix is correct in describing the specific point that many theists have adopted a theological model regarding Omnipotence and creation which creates moral dilemmas to their theology. However, I disagree with the modern models and feel the ancient Judeo-Christian models are more rational and more logical.

1) "Modern" creation from "nothing" is an illogical model
For example, the relatively modern theory of “ex-nihilo creation” (i.e. creation from nothing) is illogical and not part of omnipotence which the O.P. defines as “a logically possible state of affairs”. (It's not logical to create "something" from "nothing".) The ancient model of creation from material avoids this specific illogic.

2) Ancient creation from matter is a more logical model
Early Judeo-Christian theology that describe material worlds being created out of chaotic, but pre-existing materials is more logical than creation from “nothing” (ex-nihilo creation). In that model, there are principles that co-exist with God; certain realities which God did not create, but which God takes into account and works with as he carries out his plan.

3) "Modern" creation from nothing creates a moral dilemma for the origin of evil
The relatively modern adoption of Ex-nihilo creation also necessitates God having some moral responsibility for the existence of evil since evil did not exist before God acted (inside the ex-nihilo theory).

4) Ancient pre-existence of self-willed intelligence which God did not create changes the locus of responsibility for evil
If the ancient model of pre-existing material is correct, and, as the Pistis Sophia describes spirits as “self-willed matter”, then the locus of origin of evil also shifts and is more logical as well. The early Judeo-Christian model of pre-existence of spirits having their own independent characteristics returns the basic locus of responsibility of evil to the individual spirit (which intelligence or spirit, God did not create out of nothing in these early models).

My point is simply that the modern model described in the O.P. does have logical problems that the ancient models did not have. Though I like the O.P.s logic (it's not an emotional rant, but a measured, logical description) and though ancient religious models may have problems with illogic and coherence, they are not these specific ones related by the O.P.

Clear
δρακτωω

 

[robocop (actually)]

In Raelism humans were created scientifically by Aliens who gave them religions to help them grow up.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Sometimes, and then Aliens are not omnipotent. That's fine.
Is he able, but not willing? Not usually. They have to weigh our developing independently with interfering.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Evil comes from the nature of life to destroy life.
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Indeed if he sometimes is unable and sometimes unwilling, why call Aliens God?

 

[Meow Mix]

Do I not consider it malevolent for a being to subject other beings to suffering in order to further that being's own ends? I do not consider it malevolent because that was never the intention. The goal was free will, not serial killers. And if the angels had done their job we wouldn't have the serial killers.

An omnipotent/omniscient being can't do anything unintentionally: if a world with particular physics that allow for physical suffering is created, then it can't be a mistake for such a being. That would be malevolent to create over one with physics that don't allow for physical suffering.

Usually that's straight up defined as malevolent? No, malevolence is the intention to do evil.

Addressed this part above.

It's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to actualize a reality in which suffering is not allowed to occur? It is but that would be a reality without free will and with programmed personalities.

Not true. There could absolutely still be free agents. In a world where it's not possible to suffer physically, you still have the free agency to decide what you're doing today, who to hang out with, who not to hang out with, what to have for dinner, whether to go see a movie or go to the park. In what sense are such agents not free? That's freedom.

Angels and demons don't excuse the world God created? God created the universe, put some high level angels in charge, and then fragmented into the universe to give life. So, yes, God created the universe so He, in a way, created the earth but He did not intend or cause the suffering that has happened.

God, if omnipotent, could do anything that is logically possible? God has the ability to violate His own laws but that is never going to happen. That is something a human would do, make a law, then break it, then establish it again and then change their minds and get rid of it.

God's omniscience means that He knows every knowable thing about the universe. But, He doesn't just know everything about the universe as it exists now, He knows everything about the universe as it is in the future because to God it's already happened. The bible says that God is the Alpha and the Omega, what this means is that God experiences all time in the exact same moment. To God the material universe has already finished it's expansion and is stable and all species have already finished their evolutionary progress.

My post implies that God is not omnibenevolent? The universe is the gladiator pit. God will not interfere with free will. The angels do interfere within guidelines but even they will not interfere with free will.

I agree with you that the problem of evil is a definate problem. We are at the mercy of some really disturbed and selfish people. If I had the power I would definately do some things differently but it's not my universe.

Some of this is just going to depend on what happens when we talk about the possibility of world with physics unconducive to physical suffering yet with free will.

 

[Meow Mix]

To test the theory. Of if we could handle Utopia with free will. We failed.

Why would an omnipotent/omniscient being need to "test" any theory?

If horrible things would have never come to fruition if they were never possible to come to fruition, why make them possible?

You don't remeber the decision, but you made it, just as I did, just as everyone did, because it took place before the earth was even created. The whole point was to make our decisions from birth forward without the knowledge of what was before. Its alot to take in, to advanced for even the most devout, let alone a non-believer.

This is not a concept I subscribe to, as you noted.

 

[Meow Mix]

I've found that you can also posit a "creation" for a moment where there would be no suffering... All our needs are met... A kind of womb world where we are constantly connected and fed through umbilical cords. I don't think I'd like such a world. I think we're here to strive to meet our needs and help others. One reason we've developed science and medicine is to solve our problems and be of service to others.

A world where physics isn't conducive to physical suffering doesn't mean a world where there is no incentive to help people or no challenges to overcome. For instance, you can have a world without stubbed toes that still has free will. You can't have a world without, say, unrequited love that still has free will. So people may still be in need of support and love and growth in such a world. But the question still becomes, well why do we live in a world with stubbed toes unnecessarily? Why especially a world with child leukemia, where rape is possible, etc., when it's possible to have a world without those things but which still has what makes life interesting?

 

[Meow Mix]

I find Epicurus' statements childishly inadequate.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

Can moral dilemmas really be solved by power?! I don't think so. Problems of right and wrong, justice and injustice are at times only solved in courts of law, and at times, for the sake of judgment, an experiment, an example - demonstrating upon the pertinent facts involved what is the best course of action.​

The context here is not one of judging what's right and wrong. In terms of suffering, it's having the power to stop suffering. If God wants to prevent suffering, and it's in the realm of logical possibility to do so, but is unable to -- then God isn't omnipotent.
​

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Above, the problem of morality - how to solve - was addressed. So the question at times comes down to first solve the legalities, the evidence regarding the dilemma, and then once the dilemma has been demonstrated to have a solution - then, after that, take action. So again. The conclusions made in this case are off.​

I'm not sure how it's been addressed. If God's capable of stopping suffering, but chooses not to -- there needs to be a good reason. Usually these are the theodicies. None of them are very good, and it bespeaks a lot towards whether God is benevolent.​

Biblical teachings
The teaching is that human beings who are alienated from God are viewed by him as animals. For this reason, they are subject to the same birth, life, death, suffering cycle of the rest of creation. And, make no mistake, we are all alienated from God at the moment, all die, all grow old if premature death doesn't happen.

The reason we were subjected this 'groaning of creation' is because of the moral dilemma that needed solving, individually, and globally. It was a question of 'good and evil', the right to determine for ourselves or not - what is good and evil, the right to determine our own rulership, or having to submit to God's theocracy. The solution, we are told, is now soon going to be provided.

The questions that needed to be given evidence for were -

can we rule ourselves without dominating man over man?
can we rule ourselves without destroying the earth?
can we live in harmony in a global society?
at the same time, God used the time to put together an administration for the future rule of mankind.​

These questions and more, have all been answered - the legal dilemmas are now adjourned - mankind cannot rule itself, cannot decide what is good and evil itself, cannot rule ourselves without destroying the earth. (this last question has only been answered this last hundred years.)

Death: equals total destruction of the individual. Neither heaven nor hell only sleep in the grave.
God's omniscience: is only omniscient for the past and the now, not for all future events.
God's love is given to all in the sense that they have the sun, the profits of the earth, etc. But, it is restricted in that only those who obey him will get anything beyond this.
At the moment, we have a system that God let's run more or less untouched by him, sometimes more, other times less. He does answer the prayers of the righteous that fit within certain restrictions.

Some of this doesn't speak towards the issue at hand. I'm confused on how to respond because it gets so far away from the original issue. It's possible for God to have created a world where physical suffering doesn't exist given the premises, but instead God chose to create a world where it does. That's easily called malevolence in most peoples' books. There's either an excuse for why (these are the theodicies) or a defense to show that God had no other choice if one wants to get around the philosophical problem. The OP was about how one option people often try to take here is special pleading.

 

[Enoch07]

Why would an omnipotent/omniscient being need to "test" any theory?

If horrible things would have never come to fruition if they were never possible to come to fruition, why make them possible?

This is not a concept I subscribe to, as you noted.

To prove it to us. Because we are not all knowing, and all powerful.

We made choice now we must face the consequences. Without consequences choice is worthless. Some of those consequences are positive, some are negative. But to have free will we have to take responsibility for both.

Fair enough I won't delve any deeper into that. Unless you ask about it then.