A guidance system isn’t required if there is no danger. So physical suffering still demands an explanation on the 3-omni sort of theism. — Astro Cat

If there's no pain, in all likelihood something really bad happens, The Congenital Analgesia link I posted gives you an idea of what a toy world might look like.

If there's no pain, in all likelihood something really bad happens, The Congenital Analgesia link I posted gives you an idea of what a toy world might look like. — “Agent Smith”

I don’t think you’re properly conceptualizing what a toy world is, though. In a toy world there are no physical dangers for pain to alert you to. The hot stove burner can’t harm your hand. Your body is invincible.

The idea is that an omnipotent and omniscient being could create a reality in which there is no privation, disease, or physical danger. Thus pain is unnecessary as there’s nothing to alert you against.

I intelligo woman. :lol:

I believe you're on the right track, on the same track as Epicurus was 2.5k years ago, if your goal is to cast doubt on the existence of the OOO God of Christianity.

It appears that God's alleged omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience thwarts all attempts at crafting an argument in favor of God.

It appears that God's alleged omnipotence thwarts all attempts at crafting an argument in favor of God. — “Agent Smith”

At least any kind of God that most of us wouldn’t consider a monster.

At least any kind of God that most of us wouldn’t consider a monster. — Astro Cat

Malus Deus, da! First there's pain; second, there's too much of it. Double fault.

It's possible that a universe without the possibility of physical suffering would seem miraculous or a put-up job, and that God has good reasons for not "showing her hand".
— RogueAI

Interesting: so you propose that Divine Hiddenness isn't only a question (e.g., it is typically presented as a question: why, if there is a God, does it seem hidden?) but a means to some end (e.g., God obtains some purpose from being hidden) that's so overwhelmingly good that all the physical suffering in the world is worth it to have it?

I'm not saying it's plausible, but it's possible.

Interestingly, I wrote a paper on just this sort of thing a long time ago. I concluded that the existence of animal suffering is so detrimental to the idea of an all knowing-benevolent-omnipotent god, that Christians are better off just supposing animal suffering doesn't exist. We think it exists, but God actually blocks all the animal suffering we think we observe.

Leibniz would argue that this is the best of all possible worlds. A world without physical suffering would collapse in some way that we can't imagine. In other words, a possible world with no physical pain might be logically possible, but metaphysically impossible.

@Astro Cat

Ask yourself, what could be worse than (physical) pain?

Though if God acts in the interest of Himself and not for us in general, I’d argue that isn’t what we intuitively grasp as benevolence. — Astro Cat

Indeed, it needs an unintuitive reinterpretation of omnibenevolence. I've never really thought of that as one of the traditional omnis anyway. There are four knocking about, but people tend to choose three: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. I tend to collapse omnipotence and omnibenevolence into one, as I think what is good is what is willed. But that's not a popular move. When ditching one of these, most choose omnipresence, in order that God may be transcendent and non-spatial. But I like omnipresence for exactly that feature, it gets rid of problematic dualist interaction problems. I'm talking like I'm a theist aren't I?

Can we compare a (toy) heaven and a (toy) universe?
We know our world; I guess heaven would fall back on definitions/uses.
Religions often enough have notions of heaven, said to be the best, the place to be.

Interesting tactic! I hadn't read, but having given that article a quick look-over--

To contrast the theodicy with "Every event has a cause"

For all evil there exists a good which explains the evil
For all events there exists a cause which explains the event

The latter is often proposed as a rational regulative principle. Some people even believe it's true!

Under that, it would seem the rational conditions of the former would be as you say -- an acknowledged regulative principle that one believes is true, but isn't exactly demonstrable. So maybe rational to believe, but not rational to argue for.

To contrast the theodicy with "Every event has a cause" — Moliere

A similar logical structure. Both are metaphysical in Popperian terms. A core difference is that in physics the cause is (usually) proximal; the billiard balls collide, the wave propagates through the liquid. With theodicy the good might be anywhere.

Some physicist say that in quantum mechanics there are uncaused events. Causation is not central to doing physics.

Theodicy in the abstract, perhaps, but I've no doubt that a theodicy complete with ethical calculation could be devised if proximity is the only difference. Something akin to the conservation laws which are clearly not falsifiable as they are stated.

Heh, causation isn't central to doing physics, sure, but in a funny way in which nothing is central :D -- it's just a concept people say they like. I'm not sure to what extent the concept plays a role, though...

One of the differences might be that scientists are willing to entertain a physics without causation. I'm not sure that the theodicist is commonly willing to entertain an evil without a corresponding good. It is more an article of faith, as you say, than a bit that seems to hold but ultimately can be seen as a tool more than a truth.

One of the differences might be that scientists are willing to entertain a physics without causation. — Moliere

Yep.

Physics would survive dropping causation. Theism can not survive a god who wills evil.

Is the Buddhist idea of karma something we can turn to?

For theodicy?

Not in my opinion. If karma plays the same role as heaven/hell, then it serves the same purpose as papering over inconvenient philosophical thoughts, I think.

The strong response, at least from my perspective (and I believe I've made this argument before), is to accept faith.

Or, to dress it up philosophically, the teleological suspension of the ethical.

I'm of the view that evil is best explained as (bad) karma. Somehow we'll have to insert this Buddhist view of evil into theism.

Medieval scholasticism? :roll: