There is No Sufficient Reason for God to Allow For Evil

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now I am not implying that I can’t be wrong, but for more than a dozen years now, not only have I bored the members of this and other forums with my incessant (and illustrated) description of what I believe is the creative source of this universe,...

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

...but I have also explained why it is necessary for that source to remain hidden from us.

And oddly enough, that last part is relevant to the title of this thread.
_______

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

You wrote therein;

"Which means that the fundamental essence that forms the "physical" reality of the universe behaves in the same way as the essence that forms our dreams and mental images"

In a way what you are proposing is based on Substance Theory,

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties.
  A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.[1]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

In term of God,

• Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world.
  -ibid

Note the counter views;

• Buddhism rejects the concept of substance. Complex structures are comprehended as an aggregate of components without any essence. Just as the junction of parts is called cart, so the collections of elements are called things.[10] All formations are unstable (aniccā) and lacking any constant core or “self” (anattā).[11]
  
  The idea of substance was famously critiqued by David Hume,[39] who held that since substance cannot be perceived, it should not be assumed to exist.
  
  In direct opposition to substance theory is bundle theory, whose most basic premise is that all concrete particulars are merely constructions or 'bundles' of attributes or qualitative properties:

• Necessarily, for any concrete entity, a, if for any entity, b, b is a constituent of a, then b is an attribute.[43]

See Various criticisms of the Substance Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

Let me know, if your theory is not related to 'substance theory.'

Also, how is your theory different from Monadology;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

• The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text
  
  • 1. begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
    2. then it turns to their principle or creator and
    3. finishes by using both to explain the world.

The point is, as implied from Kant's Copernican Revolution, humans should focus on what is given empirically and philosophically existing, known and possible, rather than chasing metaphysical realities that are illusory and cannot be verified and justified.

My counter is your impossible to verify and justify metaphysical thing is driven by the inherent impulse to seek consonance to relieve the existential dissonance.

[seeds]

Now I am not implying that I can’t be wrong, but for more than a dozen years now, not only have I bored the members of this and other forums with my incessant (and illustrated) description of what I believe is the creative source of this universe,...

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

...but I have also explained why it is necessary for that source to remain hidden from us.

And oddly enough, that last part is relevant to the title of this thread.

I have not come across your link before.
I will have a look at your detailed explanation later.

Off hand, I can say your hidden creative source of this universe is not likely to be real.
As Wittgenstein stated,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
In this case of metaphysics, what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.
As such you have no choice but to literally 'shut up' about what is hidden in this case.

So then, according to the VA approach to philosophy, out of the fear of possibly being wrong, one must never use one’s imagination in the search for the ultimate truth of reality.

Indeed, one must simply be satisfied with whatever knowledge one can derive from examining the material features of our phenomenal surroundings.

Got it. Great plan! A revolutionary approach to philosophy of which thinkers such as Plato, for example, should simply have remained silent about his concept of “ideal forms” or of his allegory involving deluded humans trapped in a cave.

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

You wrote therein;

"Which means that the fundamental essence that forms the "physical" reality of the universe behaves in the same way as the essence that forms our dreams and mental images"

In a way what you are proposing is based on Substance Theory,...

...Let me know, if your theory is not related to 'substance theory.'

My theory is loosely related to several of the theories under the heading of Substance Theory.

However, I don’t like associating it with the morass of confusing language and ideas that the old philosophers use to explain those theories; most of which (just like the world’s religions, or even science) are completely lacking in any kind of satisfying answers to the ultimate questions of reality.

On the other hand, I suggest that my theory is much easier to understand. And that’s because an accessible model for it resides right within our own skulls.

In other words,...

(and pretty much confirmed by quantum theory)

...the entire universe seems to be created from an infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything “imaginable,” - just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

Now if you have been checking out my website,...

(and, again, I’m not implying that I cannot be wrong)

...then you should be able to understand what I am getting at by describing the universe as having “mind-like” properties.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now I am not implying that I can’t be wrong, but for more than a dozen years now, not only have I bored the members of this and other forums with my incessant (and illustrated) description of what I believe is the creative source of this universe,...

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

...but I have also explained why it is necessary for that source to remain hidden from us.

And oddly enough, that last part is relevant to the title of this thread.

I have not come across your link before.
I will have a look at your detailed explanation later.

Off hand, I can say your hidden creative source of this universe is not likely to be real.
As Wittgenstein stated,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
In this case of metaphysics, what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.
As such you have no choice but to literally 'shut up' about what is hidden in this case.

So then, according to the VA approach to philosophy, out of the fear of possibly being wrong, one must never use one’s imagination in the search for the ultimate truth of reality.

Indeed, one must simply be satisfied with whatever knowledge one can derive from examining the material features of our phenomenal surroundings.

Got it. Great plan! A revolutionary approach to philosophy of which thinkers such as Plato, for example, should simply have remained silent about his concept of “ideal forms” or of his allegory involving deluded humans trapped in a cave.

Nope I never said the above!
Philosophy is open-ended and and not be fearful thus we need to explore and question whatever is concluded which should always be provisional. I quoted Russell on this many times.

In exploring and question one need to know the tools one is using, i.e. whether it is based on imagination, intellect, or one is using Pure Reason.
Thus any one [Plato and others] can explore freely, but one must make sure one had not jumped and got stuck in la la land. Note,

From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

In Plato and your case, you have strayed off the empirical [known and not yet known] and landed on the fence between the 'No Man's Land' and 'La La Land'.

As a philosopher, Plato would have of course, welcome criticisms of his theories.
Since then Plato's theories had been criticized by many as too metaphysical and not realistic.

Here's Kant on Plato [mine],

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured [too far] out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space [ edge of la la land] of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
[A5] [B9]

Plato thought the laymen were deluded, not knowing that he himself was deluded at a more refined level of Pure Reason.

Here is Kant again [mine];

They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men [including Plato] cannot free himself from them [the illusions].

After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

What is real [known and yet to be known] most effectively must be verifiable and justifiable empirically plus philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge.
Thus I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away; all variables here in are empirically possible.
But to speculate your GOD [essence, substance, etc.] is like speculating a square-circle exists somewhere which is not possible to be real at all.

(http://www.theultimateseeds.com/)

You wrote therein;

"Which means that the fundamental essence that forms the "physical" reality of the universe behaves in the same way as the essence that forms our dreams and mental images"

In a way what you are proposing is based on Substance Theory,...

...Let me know, if your theory is not related to 'substance theory.'

My theory is loosely related to several of the theories under the heading of Substance Theory.

However, I don’t like associating it with the morass of confusing language and ideas that the old philosophers use to explain those theories; most of which (just like the world’s religions, or even science) are completely lacking in any kind of satisfying answers to the ultimate questions of reality.

On the other hand, I suggest that my theory is much easier to understand. And that’s because an accessible model for it resides right within our own skulls.

In other words,...

(and pretty much confirmed by quantum theory)

...the entire universe seems to be created from an infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything “imaginable,” - just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

Now if you have been checking out my website,...

(and, again, I’m not implying that I cannot be wrong)

...then you should be able to understand what I am getting at by describing the universe as having “mind-like” properties.
_______

The main reason and drive relating to the 'substance theory' and all its derivatives is due to the mind seeking consonance to deal with the inherent dissonance.

If you are relying on quantum theory, note that is based on the scientific framework and system [FSK] and its sub QM FSK.
But scientific truths are merely polished conjectures, therefore it follow whatever you concluded based on this premise is merely a polished conjecture.

If you claim "the universe as having “mind-like” properties" then it must have some sort of mind-power to enable its creations.
If you don't claim your 'universe' [thing, GOD-X] is omnipotent, then you will leave room for a thing or GOD-Y that is greater than your GOD-X.
As such, logically, you have to claim your GOD-X is an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can exists.

If your God-X is ontological, then it is impossible to exists as real empirically and philosophically.

Granted you accepted you could be wrong, BTW, what are the benefits and utilities to humanity if your theory is right??

I am confident you are wrong because your theory is not realistic at all plus there are so many counters and alternative theories to your claims.

I claim, the only effective benefit is merely for your psychology, i.e. as a consonance to relieve the inherent dissonance.

[attofishpi]

There is No Sufficient Reason for God to Allow For Evil.

Y wouldn't 'HE'. Sum of us like eating pig. (man reincarnated 666)

Poetry of Andrew Seas
https://androcies.com/

The Last Judgement of Entropy
(to ALL the rapist, murdering, paedophile scum)

Gaze upon,
this listless,
pond,
whose ripples,
form a sin wave.
Owe Son!
Where to which,
to wave and gaze,
about to confirm,
life's grandest,
maze.
Frown.
As I am Peter,
and here upon,
you are judged,
from whence it,
came.
No place for blame,
no time to B_lame.
Chaos,
a lesser place,
not for you,
and your,
disgrace.
You weathered,
the storm,
but whether or not,
your maker's mark,
and all your tales,
of life and throng,
are,
too much to tell?
Yet Peter shall,
heal and,
he'll put upon,
you a bone,
a memory that,
never fails.
Your tell tale sign,
of which,
you'll,
become.
To grow a tail,
for your,
life's wrong.
No longer wo/man,
so suck off,
you, ewe and yew!
Eat from the tree,
after sin,
and lose,
your soul,
to anothers kin.
Once could,
have been in,
our Lord's kin,
but now you're,
just another,
beast below.
Yes you'll bellow,
on judgement of,
being energy,
to entropy.
Too late for sorry...
Bark up the Tree of Know_Ledge,
Leave SAP!
Y PORT NE?

[seeds]

I have not come across your link before.
I will have a look at your detailed explanation later.

Off hand, I can say your hidden creative source of this universe is not likely to be real.
As Wittgenstein stated,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
In this case of metaphysics, what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.
As such you have no choice but to literally 'shut up' about what is hidden in this case.

So then, according to the VA approach to philosophy, out of the fear of possibly being wrong, one must never use one’s imagination in the search for the ultimate truth of reality.

Indeed, one must simply be satisfied with whatever knowledge one can derive from examining the material features of our phenomenal surroundings.

Got it. Great plan! A revolutionary approach to philosophy of which thinkers such as Plato, for example, should simply have remained silent about his concept of “ideal forms” or of his allegory involving deluded humans trapped in a cave.

Nope I never said the above!

Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the arguments you use.

As you yourself stated: “...what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.”

Therefore, if you are going to trot-out that tired and over-used Wittgenstein axiom and apply it to my ideas, then obviously it needs to be applied to Plato’s ideas, or even Kant’s blatherings about a hidden noumenon...

...(not to mention the “scientific” conjectures regarding the [hidden] existence of infinite copies of ourselves residing in infinite copies of this universe - as is laid-out in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

Now regardless of your backpedaling attempt to clarify what you meant, you just cannot seem to understand that your closed-minded attitude toward metaphysical thought is an assault on Philosophy itself.

As a philosopher, Plato would have of course, welcome criticisms of his theories.

And I too welcome criticisms of my theory.

However, before I take such criticisms seriously, it is contingent upon the fact that the criticizer actually understands the theory (of which it is obvious that you do not).

What is real [known and yet to be known] most effectively must be verifiable and justifiable empirically plus philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge.
Thus I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away; all variables here in are empirically possible.
But to speculate your GOD [essence, substance, etc.] is like speculating a square-circle exists somewhere which is not possible to be real at all.

To position the speculative possibility of there being a transcendent source that is responsible for the unfathomable order of the universe (as opposed to the chance hypothesis),...

...again, to place that possibility in the same category as speculating about the existence of a “square-circle,” is pure and utter nonsense.

It is a sign of just how illogical your non sequiturs can be.

If you claim "the universe as having “mind-like” properties" then it must have some sort of mind-power to enable its creations.

Right. And if you studied the contents of my website, then you know that that is precisely what I am suggesting.

If you don't claim your 'universe' [thing, GOD-X] is omnipotent, then you will leave room for a thing or GOD-Y that is greater than your GOD-X.

You are simply demonstrating that you do not understand my theory.

As such, logically, you have to claim your GOD-X is an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can exists.

Again, another sign that you do not understand my theory.

If your God-X is ontological, then it is impossible to exists as real empirically and philosophically.

Again, another sign that you do not understand my theory.

Granted you accepted you could be wrong, BTW, what are the benefits and utilities to humanity if your theory is right??

That’s not for me to determine.

However, you, of all people, should be aware of the fact that the world is in desperate need of a higher and more unifying vision of reality that can supplant the mythological nonsense that presently divides humans into warring factions.

Now the quirky thing is that the new unifying vision (what I call a “new spiritual paradigm”) does not necessarily need to be 100% accurate. No, it just needs to make more sense than the “old spiritual paradigm” being replaced.

I am confident you are wrong because your theory is not realistic at all plus there are so many counters and alternative theories to your claims.

The fact that you do not understand my theory renders the above statement irrelevant.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have not come across your link before.
I will have a look at your detailed explanation later.

Off hand, I can say your hidden creative source of this universe is not likely to be real.
As Wittgenstein stated,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
In this case of metaphysics, what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.
As such you have no choice but to literally 'shut up' about what is hidden in this case.

So then, according to the VA approach to philosophy, out of the fear of possibly being wrong, one must never use one’s imagination in the search for the ultimate truth of reality.

Indeed, one must simply be satisfied with whatever knowledge one can derive from examining the material features of our phenomenal surroundings.

Got it. Great plan! A revolutionary approach to philosophy of which thinkers such as Plato, for example, should simply have remained silent about his concept of “ideal forms” or of his allegory involving deluded humans trapped in a cave.

Nope I never said the above!

Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the arguments you use.

As you yourself stated: “...what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.”

Therefore, if you are going to trot-out that tired and over-used Wittgenstein axiom and apply it to my ideas, then obviously it needs to be applied to Plato’s ideas, or even Kant’s blatherings about a hidden noumenon...

...(not to mention the “scientific” conjectures regarding the [hidden] existence of infinite copies of ourselves residing in infinite copies of this universe - as is laid-out in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

Now regardless of your backpedaling attempt to clarify what you meant, you just cannot seem to understand that your closed-minded attitude toward metaphysical thought is an assault on Philosophy itself.

As a philosopher, Plato would have of course, welcome criticisms of his theories.

And I too welcome criticisms of my theory.

However, before I take such criticisms seriously, it is contingent upon the fact that the criticizer actually understands the theory (of which it is obvious that you do not).

What is real [known and yet to be known] most effectively must be verifiable and justifiable empirically plus philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge.
Thus I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away; all variables here in are empirically possible.
But to speculate your GOD [essence, substance, etc.] is like speculating a square-circle exists somewhere which is not possible to be real at all.

To position the speculative possibility of there being a transcendent source that is responsible for the unfathomable order of the universe (as opposed to the chance hypothesis),...

...again, to place that possibility in the same category as speculating about the existence of a “square-circle,” is pure and utter nonsense.

It is a sign of just how illogical your non sequiturs can be.

If you claim "the universe as having “mind-like” properties" then it must have some sort of mind-power to enable its creations.

Right. And if you studied the contents of my website, then you know that that is precisely what I am suggesting.

If you don't claim your 'universe' [thing, GOD-X] is omnipotent, then you will leave room for a thing or GOD-Y that is greater than your GOD-X.

You are simply demonstrating that you do not understand my theory.

If you think I don't understand your theory, then you should explain why the idea of omnipotence is not applicable to your GOD.

As such, logically, you have to claim your GOD-X is an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can exists.

Again, another sign that you do not understand my theory.

If your God-X is ontological, then it is impossible to exists as real empirically and philosophically.

Again, another sign that you do not understand my theory.

Granted you accepted you could be wrong, BTW, what are the benefits and utilities to humanity if your theory is right??

That’s not for me to determine.

However, you, of all people, should be aware of the fact that the world is in desperate need of a higher and more unifying vision of reality that can supplant the mythological nonsense that presently divides humans into warring factions.

Now the quirky thing is that the new unifying vision (what I call a “new spiritual paradigm”) does not necessarily need to be 100% accurate. No, it just needs to make more sense than the “old spiritual paradigm” being replaced.

I am confident you are wrong because your theory is not realistic at all plus there are so many counters and alternative theories to your claims.

The fact that you do not understand my theory renders the above statement irrelevant.
_______

If you think I don't understand your theory, then you should explain why.

However, you, of all people, should be aware of the fact that the world is in desperate need of a higher and more unifying vision of reality that can supplant the mythological nonsense that presently divides humans into warring factions.

There is no need for your nothing to explain theory.

The practical way to perpetual peace is via the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics and various knowledge plus technology that will enable the moral brain to evolve effectively.

[Skepdick]

And what in the world makes you think that “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” (mere humans) are the ultimate and infallible arbiters of the truth of God’s nature and motives?

The fact that God trusts us, humans, to be able to tell that he's the "good" guy and Satan is the "bad" guy.

We can thus imagine moral better than God's, and immorality worse than Satan's.

Of course, I am always looking forward to the arguments that Satan was the good guy all along... He never trash-talks, right? He didn't even respond to the accusations.

[Dontaskme]

The fact that you do not understand my theory renders the above statement irrelevant.

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

All known theories are mental contructs believed to be real by the believing brain mind mechanism which is just another theory.

All theories are empty appearances within what is NEVER NOT A THEORY

There is nothing to understand, and that is the only understanding for no relevant one.

[seeds]

And what in the world makes you think that “St. Anselm, Descartes, and others” (mere humans) are the ultimate and infallible arbiters of the truth of God’s nature and motives?

The fact that God trusts us, humans, to be able to tell that he's the "good" guy and Satan is the "bad" guy.

We can thus imagine moral better than God's, and immorality worse than Satan's.

Of course, I am always looking forward to the arguments that Satan was the good guy all along... He never trash-talks, right? He didn't even respond to the accusations.

Okay. But as I pointed out to another forum member in an alternate thread:

"...I think a more important question is why did the Japanese deity Izanagi have to use his younger sister Izanami to give birth to the islands of Japan?

According to Wiki in regards to Izanagi:

He with his spouse and younger sister Izanami gave birth to the many islands of Japan (kuniumi), and begat numerous deities of Shintoism (kamiumi). But she died after giving birth to the fire-god Kagu-tsuchi. Izanagi executed the fire god with the "ten-grasp sword" (Totsuka-no-tsurugi). Afterwards, he paid his wife a visit in Yomi-no-kuni (the Underworld) in the hopes of retrieving her. But she had partaken of food cooked in the furnace of the Underworld, rendering her return impossible. Izanagi betrayed his promise not to look at her, and lit up a fire, only to behold her in her monstrous and hellish state. To avenge her shame, she dispatched the lightning god Yakusa no ikazuchi no kami (Raijin) and the horrible hag Yomotsu-shikome to chase after him. Izanagi escaped, but the goddess declared to kill a thousand of his people every day. Izanagi retorted that a thousand and five hundred will be born every day.

Why in the world did Izanami partake of food cooked in the furnace of the Underworld? Didn’t she realize that it would render her return impossible?

I’m quite upset over this whole affair.

Sarcasm aside, the point is that if we are going to entertain mythological nonsense as if it were true, then why be so selective about it?
_______

[seeds]

The fact that you do not understand my theory renders the above statement irrelevant.

...There is nothing to understand, and that is the only understanding...

Come on now DAM, you know that I am not going to respond favorably to such nonsensical statements. So why do you even bother?
_______

[henry quirk]

if god exists, as a person, then, as I say elsewhere...

if he wanted nuthin' but bio-automation -- robots -- then that's what he woulda created

seems to me, since man is not a robot but instead is a free will, god wanted man to be free

the bitch of it is: bein' free means bein' free to be wrong, to do wrong

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities

...and if there is no god this conversation is moot

[Dontaskme]

Come on now DAM, you know that I am not going to respond favorably to such nonsensical statements. So why do you even bother?
_______

I know you don't enjoy responding to me, but I wish you would. I wish every God believer on this forum would respond to me, because all I'm interested in, is trying to find out what the God believers are actually seeing.

I'm not here to attack the messengers, I just want to question the message that's all.

I'm not here to kiss ass, so to speak, I just want humanity to see what's actually real and what is not. I believe that when we can all fully understand what each other is saying, we can collectively find solutions to the obvious sufferings in the world.

[seeds]

I know you don't enjoy responding to me, but I wish you would. I wish every God believer on this forum would respond to me, because all I'm interested in, is trying to find out what the God believers are actually seeing.

Over the years I have spoken volumes to you regarding my beliefs (including illustrations and links to my website), yet you act as if you have never heard a single word I have said.

Furthermore, when someone says something like this to me:

Get this truth, a human being has no more purpose than that of a cockroach or a blade of grass...

...I generally come to the conclusion that we are so far apart in our belief systems that it becomes an exercise in futility to engage with them any further. So that’s one of the reasons why I don’t enjoy responding to you.

I'm not here to attack the messengers,...

Yet in that same post where you compared the worth of humans to that of cockroaches or blades of grass, you said this to me:

...Time to get off your soapbox fool.

So the question is, why in the world would you want to hear anything that a “fool” has to say?

So here’s what I suggest:

I suggest that you just keep on pushing your nihilistic assertions about how humans (as individuals) have no ultimate and eternal purpose,...

...and I’ll just keep on pushing my assertions that our ultimate purpose is so amazing and wonderful that it must be kept hidden from us until death,...

...and as we do that, we can each deal with the fact that everyone else no doubt thinks that we are both just a couple of loons.
_______

[gaffo]

There is No Sufficient Reason for a supposed God to Allow For Evil

God would NOT have any sufficient reason to allow any evil at all.

That is my point, your supposed God will logically not act in contradiction of his own nature.

But you've got his nature wrong. You've listed only the features you, yourself choose to assign to Him, and none that don't serve your purposes. No Theist I know would agree with your list, beyond that God is "good." Those other terms, you just made up yourself.

Therefore when God began to create humans, logically and it follows that God would have imbued human nature with Good and no possibility of evil.

This is time #6, and the last time I'll bother to try to explain it to you: your key problem is as follows:

How do you know that God can have no sufficient reason for the allowing of some evil.

I have given you the answers to the above question but somehow you are unable to grasp it due to confirmation bias.

The point is, it is not logically and is contradictory for God as defined omni-GOOD intrinsically to have sufficient reason to allow for any evil at all.

I believe this is the critical point your overlooked:
It is not me who listed those omni-features for God but your highest regarded theologians [St. Anselm, Descartes and others] who assigned your supposed-God the maximally or whatever omni-Good qualities as an Ontological God.

It you don't backed your God as an ontological God [no greater can be conceived], then your God is an inferior God which leaves room for another superior God to kick your God's arse. No theist would want to do that, so they have to insist their God is an ontological God.

Here is my argument;

• 1. For all ideas of what is supposedly a God, they are all reducible to the Ontological God - St Anselm, Descartes.
  
  2. The Ontological God is 'a Being than which no greater can be conceived'.
  
  3. In this case, God has to be 'a Being than which no greater GOOD or Power can be conceived' - i.e. logically that means OMNI-GOOD and omni-potent respectively.
  
  4. No greater Good or Omni-Good means no possibility of EVIL in whatever the circumstances.
  
  5. Since God is omnipotent, God has the power to prevent Evil in any circumstances.
  
  6. Therefore it follows logically that God would NOT have any sufficient reason to allow any evil at all.

Since there has been real terrible evil and violence committed by humans, a supposed God as defined above cannot exists as real.

per the torah - Exodus i think - not sure tough mem is poor - but know the quote and it in the OT) - "I am good yet create evil"

in te OT. so either as a "Beliiever" one must reject the OT, or affirm that evil has a purpose and is allow (and even created) - per a bigger picture.

but i just a dump athiest, so what do i know? - nothing.

take it up with the OT and "belivers" in YHWH. - pick and choos as you always do, and ignore the rest.


aka S#G Boxer song.

-

carry on.

[gaffo]

The point is, it is not logically and is contradictory for God as defined omni-GOOD intrinsically to have sufficient reason to allow for any evil at all.

that is the Christian/Catholic view - take it up with them.

for me, under thier view that measn "evil" serves no pupue and YHWH is too weak to "kill" satan" and remove Hell.


they reject the OT - where is is stated YHWH is good yet created evil.

but I'm just a dump anthist, take your war up with Christian/jews - those the like to pick and choose and ignore the rest of the "bibl".