It is not obvious to me why soul building or the free will theodicy fail to solve most of these like you have asserted. Many have argued for the extension of both of these theodicies towards non human life, and I see nothing implausible about this. After all, if one wants to argue that animals are capable of experiencing X type of suffering, what justification is there for suggesting they can't experience a proportional y type of goodness or virtue? If this is plausible (which I don't see any reason why it isn't) This would mean that there could in fact be justifications for the suffering of non human life going deep into history.
This doesn't answer some of these points, but I think whether you think it is plausible for Soul Building and Free Will theodicies to be extended to animal life is a good place to start
Well, I don't think there's an adequate account that's able to explain all the data. I don't think there's a way to explain all of the various facts. But while animals can suffer, it's far from clear that a fish, for example, can have meaningful soul building.
Why think it cannot? Using the example of the fish parasites, the fish continues to do its best to continue surviving and living, despite the suffering and imminent death it is about to experience. In that case, the fish is exercising a virtue of resilience and determination. Such virtues are meaningful, and even if the fish cannot grasp that it is exercising those virtues, they are still being realized. We can certainly deliberate over whether the exercise of that virtue sufficiently justifies the suffering the fish experiences, but do you at least think that this is a meaningful virtue a fish could hypothetically exercise?
Never fear Mr. Bulldog! It is I, God. Yes. Do not be Shocked. In my omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnirational, omnipresent, omnizoid self, I have deigned to answer your pathetic excuse for an argument against my existence.
First of all you CLAIM that *I* have to account for *all* the evil in the WHOLE world. That's completely ridiculous. Omnibenevolence means that all my actions are good, inaction is not action, that's why the prefix "in" is in it. That means that most of the stuff you talk about is complete NONSENSE.
When I created a PERFECT world (some might say that perfection required more beings, however A. Adam and Eve existed in an infinite number of universes, and B. Ethics is about making people happy, not making more happy people) where Adam and later EVE experienced ABSOLUTE pleasure, that was a very good act. BUT I, in my infinite generosity, also decided to BESTOW upon ADAM that great gift of FREE WILL, because as well all know the creation of beings WITHOUT free will is a SIN of the highest order. HOWEVER, Free Will requires CONSEQUENCES for one's actions, and I, in my infinite genius DECIDED to create the GREATEST consequence of them all. When I informed Adam and Eve that the fruit on the TREE was forbidden they KNEW the consequences of their ACTIONS and DECIDED to consume it. It was AT THAT MOMENT that they ensured a world of SIN that would GRIP Mankind until the second coming of my son.
SO you SEE Mr. Bulldog that it was ADAM and not myself who made that ultimate decision to create the world you DECRY as unjust, and only Adam's descendants in the form of YOURSELF can remedy it by FOLLOWING the act and word of me.
HOWEVER, due to my infinite WISDOM and POWER I will respond to your further arguments.
FIRST, you CLAIM that SUFFERING has been going on without CAUSE for BILLIONS of years prior to humanity. This LAUGHABLE point is DEEPLY flawed for numerous reasons. A. The World was created when the Garden opened, all evidence of what would have come before was made at that moment. B. Even if the world existed before that, NOTHING was CONSCIOUS because the FIRST conscious creature (that you could comprehend) was ADAM, even if other prior beings LOOKED and SEEMED conscious, they were NOT. C. Only MAN can suffer as that term is properly understood, a dinosaur is EQUAL to a rat which is EQUAL to a gnat which is EQUAL to dust which is EQUAL to nothing! D. The IMAGINED suffering of the past you conjure up has created immense JOY for MAN. EVERY explorer, and scientist, and DISCOVERER of the bones of the ancients has held JOY in their HANDS and ADVANCED both the greatness of MAN and their own SOULS.
SECOND, you CLAIM that there is no OBVIOUS reason for the existence of some suffering, such as cancer, parasites, and the like. BUT there IS. A. The laws of the world must remain CONSISTENT. Would it not CHEAPEN the experience of MAN if the rules of reality were reshuffled on a WHIM and forever arbitrary in their operation!?! AS SUCH the consequences of those laws must remain consistent so as to render the world one that man can expect to thrive in. B. EVIL must exist in order for MAN to use his FREE WILL and Cure it. A PERFECT WORLD as you imagine would be a HELL of monotony and would DESTROY the purpose of the SOUL. ANY LESS EVIL in this world would DIMINISH the function of man as a being of WILL, and I an my INFINITE BENEVOLENCE have ensured that EVIL is ALREADY at its minimum level REQUIRED for the task at HAND. C. Absent STRUGGLE there is NO DRIVE in man. Without what you decry as Evil the descendants of Adam would have stayed where they were, never able to advance to the cusp of the HEAVENS ABOVE.
THIRD, you CLAIM that SOME evils are CLEARLY gratuitous. A. Some of the PERFECT arguments ABOVE apply here, such as CONSISTENCY in the rules of the world. B. A BABE with NO CHANCE for EVER meaningfully being a PERSON is NEVER given a soul, SO LONG as their killing is by no one's choice. C. THOSE FEW babes that do get CANCER do so as a NATURAL consequence of the unhealthy actions OF MAN (plastics, toxic chemicals, Military Base water pollution by people not wearing polaroid sunglasses, etc.)
FOURTH, you CLAIM that suffering arises from the way that SOME entities are DESIGNED. A. All of the examples you give are of ANIMALS, who are INSIGNIFICANT compared to the GLORY of man at their BEST. B. The HORROR or the suffering you DESCRIBE is the REASON why man has MOTIVE to use their FREE WILL to ADVANCE and improve the world. C. The aesthetic BEAUTY of an ALL EATING parasite FAR OUTWEIGHS any marginal suffering it may cause.
FIFTH, you CLAIM that all EVIL must be the BEST way of making the world GREAT. A. NO this is incorrect, as explained above SO LONG as each action I take is PERFECT the effects of WILL need not be. B. What EVIL there is is NECESSARILY the best way of PERFECTING the rebuilding of MAN from its ORIGINAL SIN. What motive would man have to advance if there was not EVIL to END. What motive would there be for philosophers to PONDER if there existed no application of that knowledge or EVIL to see it compared against. C. FALSE EVIL or the CREATION of FALSE beings in a way that would create Less SUFFERING is a MORTAL SIN that DECEIVES the SOUL and is TANTAMOUNT to the DECEPTIONS of LUCIFER himself - those that exist MUST be AUTHENTIC if they are to be MEANINGFUL.
SIXTH, you CLAIM that BECAUSE Evil should be FOUGHT it cannot be JUST. A. The ACT of fighting IS the JUSTICE of evil! A world where evil was fought and bested CAN be better than a world where struggle and the STRIVE at the heart of MAN never existed. B. The ABILITY to fight EVIL is necessary to bring CONSEQUENCE and truth to the use of FREE WILL, for without a true and grave consequences to that most important and holy spirits use it is MEANINGLESS.
SEVENTH, you CLAIM that EVIL Varies based on TIME AND PLACE, and is thus fundamentally unjust. A. The PROGRESSION of MAN is the use of FREE WILL that is critical to all that is good and holy. As one can see from the burning LIGHT of PROGRESS, your species is NATURALLY good and JUST, but to GIVE that JUSTICE meaning it MUST be allowed to IMPROVE the world over time. Just as the world in your eyes was HORRIFIC at the time my SON allowed your return to HEAVEN, the beings 2000 years hence will GASP at your existence as they reside within structures you cannot even IMAGINE. B. EVIL lessens as one travels farther and further from he who committed the original sin. And while the salve of TIME cannot absolve one from it, the touch of the SNAKE lessens by it.
1 God brought about the world so presumably he shouldn't cause unnecessary suffering. Inaction can be bad--if one allows millions of children to die when they don't have to, that would be immoral.
I've already argued against the perfection of a world with 2 people--there's no reason why there wouldn't be more people per universe. If that was perfect then free will would be a curse. Free will doesn't explain natural evils--why would they be a consequence of sin. The first claim is creationist nonsense.
2 A Constant laws don't require them being tuned to cause suffering.
B Humans can use free will for other things. This also can't explain why there are incurable evils or why evils were around before we were ever around. It's also not clear why curing evil is good aside from just reducing the amount of evil.
C There can be struggles without needing babies to get bone cancer. That does not comprise the majority of struggles.
My second argument is an inductive case from the fact we haven't discovered reasons for evil--you misunderstood it.
3 This is nonsense--babies can suffer so they matter and many evils are natural.
4 Animals being insignificant is false given other arguments and irrelevant given that their teleology is both not explainable on your theory and causes human misery. Parasites that eat flesh cause lots more suffering than aesthetic joys.
5 You misunderstand my argument--the point is God can find other ways of achieving most aims given that he's omnipotent. There's no reason malaria has to be the response to sin.
6 I never claimed incoimpatibility it was just inductive.
7 This was just another piece of data that must be explained. Improving the world over time doesn't explain why the worlds goodness differs from place and why you dont' make it naturally harder to improve over time to give more improvement. There are also evils that should be prevented independently of improving ourselves like malaria.
EIGHTH, you CLAIM that EVIL is not Proportional to anything. A. The FAIRNESS of EVIL matters NOT. ALL will be JUDGED at the time of the second-coming. BUT, the act of how one RESPONDS to the EVIL they are DEALT is what creates the greatest testament to the GLORY of MAN. Good Souls who experience EVIL are given EVIL so that they may overcome it, and if they are beaten and even killed, it is as a CONSEQUENCE of ANOTHER's FREE WILL, or if it is the product of Chance or LUCK, it is the SAME chance that all others have. B. The Intent of EVIL is not to develop a love for GOD, but for MAN to act in LINE with what is GOOD and HOLY in DEED, not WORD. It MATTERS not what MAN believes of the WORLD so long as they are holy and good. C. HITLER DIED of SUICIDE after seeing his life CRUMBLE around him, his DELUSIONS SHATTERED and his WIFE DEAD, and his JUDGMENT WILL BE HORRIFIC. But the life he lived is a warning to all of MAN of the DEPRAVITY of Evil and the Ultimate EXPRESSION of how the intrinsic MEANING or Free WILL can be twisted to ends both good and TERRIBLE.
NINTH, you CLAIM that I could CREATE a FILTER for truly terrible EVILS. A. You say that I could ERASE the suffering of those about to die. Even if so, such a thing could give NO OUTWARDS APPEARANCE to the world, for IT would CHEAPEN the FREEDOM of WILL. AND it could not seize the BODY or MIND of those it affected, for that is a SIN. BUT, in those cases where such a thing can be done, with NONE knowing and WITH NO outwards change, I could perhaps do such a thing. B. I have ALREADY filtered out VAST amounts of suffering. Do you know why NO CHILDREN are BORN in the PITS OF HELL? It is because I in my infinite BENEVOLENCE, have DECREED as such, the same with 10,000 other forms of SUFFERING you cannot possibly IMAGINE. It is WHY those animals whose suffering you care so deeply about have NO SOUL, and thus cannot suffer.
TENTH, you CLAIM that there is an ABSENCE of Gratuitous GOOD. You CLAIM that I could make happy experiences produce 1000 TIMES more happiness. A. I ALREADY HAVE, I have made it so that MAN experiences as much act-based happiness as possible WHILE maintaining the DRIVE to improve and DO which is the ESSENCE of FREE WILL. B. There are many VERY GOOD things out there. LOVE, FREEDOM, acquiring KNOWLEDGE, pondering and beginning to KNOW the secrets of REALITY, reading the BIBLE. C. You claim that I could make atoms SENTIENT and HAPPY. HOWEVER DOING so would be to create beings WITHOUT FREE WILL, which is a MORTAL SIN. D. If it were not such a sin, ATOMS WOULD be eternally happy and conscious, BUT, of course, MAN would have no way of knowing. E. You claim I could make WISDOM and VIRTUE produce happiness, BUT I already do F. You claim I could make reading the BIBLE feel great, but I already do!
ELEVENTH, you CLAIM that SOME EVILS are random and counter soul-building. A. Most "random" evil is a CONSEQUENCE of the SINS of MAN, such as TERRIBLE FOOD, CHEMICALS, AIR POLLUTION, and WAR. B. Dementia a WALL that HUMANITY must OVERCOME by WAY of FREE WILL. C. DEMENTIA may CUT the true LIFE short and leave a HUSK behind, but the SOUL is ETERNAL and will be JUDGED and HEALED all the same in HEAVEN. D. DEATH is the ULTIMATE MANDATE of LIFE, but NATURAL DEATH is something MAN can and WILL overcome, as yet another CONSEQUENCE of MY GIFT of WILL. E. People TRYING to do GOOD and FAILING is a NATURAL part of FREE WILL, and failure and it's TRUE CONSEQUENCES and necessary to GIVE MEANING to it.
TWELFTH, you CLAIM that MORAL uncertainty is an issue. A. It is the ULTIMATE expression of the SELF to DECIDE what is RIGHT, and it is what makes MAN able to come so CLOSE to GOD. Allowing FAILURE and disagreement is necessary for that PROCESS of CHOICE. B. In order to JUDGE a soul it is necessary to ALLOW its bad actions, so see who is WORTHY and GOOD. C. Absent moral uncertainty there would be NO FREE WILL, which is a MORTAL SIN.
THIRTEENTH, you CLAIM that people have PROPERTIES which FORCE them to do bad things. A. Many of these PROPERTIES and CAUSED by the MISDEEDS of MAN, such as chemical pollution, lead poisoning, and Childhood ABUSE. B. The FACT that one is predisposed to certain ACTS matters not, all actions which they had the FREE WILL to commit are judged, and if some PREDISPOSITION were SO STRONG so as to DEPRIVE them of FREE WILL. Then they are to be not judged for it and CONSIDERED a force of NATURE like all other objects that contain no FREE WILL. C. FORCING PEOPLE to ALL my repulsed by ANYTHING would VIOLATE free Will and be a SIN.
FOURTEENTH, you CLAIM that there is more SUFFERING then PLEASURE in the world. A. This RELIES on ANIMAL suffering, which is demonstrated as FALSE above. B. EVEN if there is more SUFFERING than GOOD in the world NOW, it is merely another REASON why MAN must USE his FREE WILL in order to END EVIL and DEMONSTRATE REPENTANCE before the second coming of my son. C. THERE is NOT more suffering in the WORLD then GOOD, ANIMAL suffering, even if it SOMEHOW existed, would be much smaller than HUMAN suffering simply because animals cannot feel at any of the same levels as MAN can.
FIFTEENTH, you CLAIM, that because I have FREE WILL and never SIN then it is possible to create other beings who have FREE WILL and never SIN. A. I do not have "FREE WILL" in the sense YOU use it, I am SO UTTERLY beyond your HUMAN experience and terminology that LABELS such as FREE WILL are MEANINGLESS when APPLIED to myself. B. FREE WILL *OBVIOUSLY* implies the ABILITY to do no EVIL, if one were somehow FORCED to do an evil act then the will would not be free. C. I do not do EVIL not because I CANNOT, but because I CHOOSE not to, as a use of my FREE WILL. It is ENTIRELY possible for a member of MAN to do NO EVIL in the same manner that I DO, and INDEED there are MANY members of your species who have done NO EVIL in their lives. D. I cannot "create" a being with FREE WILL that "cannot" do EVIL. That is a contradiction in terms, and while I am of COURSE not BOUND by your pathetic rules of logic, it would be MEANINGLESS to create such a thing should I choose to exempt myself from those rules.
SIXTEENTH, you CLAIM that all of my purposes of ALLOWING EVIL have to FAIL to RULE OUT the GOODNESS of HEAVEN. A. HEAVEN is the ENDPOINT of the consequences of ONE's FREE WILL. IT is the ULTIMATE PERFECTION OF EXPERIENCE without the possibility of FAILURE which DEFEATS any increase it may have to the SOUL of a MAN. That is WHY ONLY those who have experienced FREE will and made it PART of their SOUL and DONE GOOD as an intrinsic DECISION of their SOUL are granted ascendency to HEAVEN. B. HEAVEN is already an INFINITE roiling mass of GOOD, and in order to make it any better and give HEAVEN any value, more UNIQUE GOODNESS must be added to it, which requires FREE WILL as uniquely act upon a SOUL and MAKE it GOOD, PRIOR to entrance into HEAVEN. That is why it comes after the death of a soul in the mortal plane.
8A is irrelevant. I'm just presenting the facts that need to explain. Also, presumably suffering is bad--if it weren't then we should increase suffering ceterus paribus. Same with B and C.
9 This was just another minimal fact. There could be a natural mechanism for this to arise so that it's not a giveaway of the supernatural. Preventing some evil is not sufficient if one still allows gratuitous evils. The no animal suffering stuff runs deeply counter to the scientific consensus.
10 A and B God could have made more more good. C--there already are e.g. fish and people in dreams.
11 A Lots is caused by disease. All the other things are just statements not explanations.
12 No--people don't choose to be wrong. B can't explain being wrong about morality.
13 A is just patently false--B can't explain why it affects some people. C Most already are repulsed.
14 This runs counter to the scientific consensus. It's just an evidentiary hurdle.
15 A But God does still have value. B God can do evil but choose not to. C Same thing for B. D You are omnibenevolent, you can just create omnibenevolent beings.
16 A is irrelevant. B Not clear why this relies on earthly free will.
It is not obvious to me why soul building or the free will theodicy fail to solve most of these like you have asserted. Many have argued for the extension of both of these theodicies towards non human life, and I see nothing implausible about this. After all, if one wants to argue that animals are capable of experiencing X type of suffering, what justification is there for suggesting they can't experience a proportional y type of goodness or virtue? If this is plausible (which I don't see any reason why it isn't) This would mean that there could in fact be justifications for the suffering of non human life going deep into history.
This doesn't answer some of these points, but I think whether you think it is plausible for Soul Building and Free Will theodicies to be extended to animal life is a good place to start
Well, I don't think there's an adequate account that's able to explain all the data. I don't think there's a way to explain all of the various facts. But while animals can suffer, it's far from clear that a fish, for example, can have meaningful soul building.
Why think it cannot? Using the example of the fish parasites, the fish continues to do its best to continue surviving and living, despite the suffering and imminent death it is about to experience. In that case, the fish is exercising a virtue of resilience and determination. Such virtues are meaningful, and even if the fish cannot grasp that it is exercising those virtues, they are still being realized. We can certainly deliberate over whether the exercise of that virtue sufficiently justifies the suffering the fish experiences, but do you at least think that this is a meaningful virtue a fish could hypothetically exercise?
Never fear Mr. Bulldog! It is I, God. Yes. Do not be Shocked. In my omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnirational, omnipresent, omnizoid self, I have deigned to answer your pathetic excuse for an argument against my existence.
First of all you CLAIM that *I* have to account for *all* the evil in the WHOLE world. That's completely ridiculous. Omnibenevolence means that all my actions are good, inaction is not action, that's why the prefix "in" is in it. That means that most of the stuff you talk about is complete NONSENSE.
When I created a PERFECT world (some might say that perfection required more beings, however A. Adam and Eve existed in an infinite number of universes, and B. Ethics is about making people happy, not making more happy people) where Adam and later EVE experienced ABSOLUTE pleasure, that was a very good act. BUT I, in my infinite generosity, also decided to BESTOW upon ADAM that great gift of FREE WILL, because as well all know the creation of beings WITHOUT free will is a SIN of the highest order. HOWEVER, Free Will requires CONSEQUENCES for one's actions, and I, in my infinite genius DECIDED to create the GREATEST consequence of them all. When I informed Adam and Eve that the fruit on the TREE was forbidden they KNEW the consequences of their ACTIONS and DECIDED to consume it. It was AT THAT MOMENT that they ensured a world of SIN that would GRIP Mankind until the second coming of my son.
SO you SEE Mr. Bulldog that it was ADAM and not myself who made that ultimate decision to create the world you DECRY as unjust, and only Adam's descendants in the form of YOURSELF can remedy it by FOLLOWING the act and word of me.
HOWEVER, due to my infinite WISDOM and POWER I will respond to your further arguments.
FIRST, you CLAIM that SUFFERING has been going on without CAUSE for BILLIONS of years prior to humanity. This LAUGHABLE point is DEEPLY flawed for numerous reasons. A. The World was created when the Garden opened, all evidence of what would have come before was made at that moment. B. Even if the world existed before that, NOTHING was CONSCIOUS because the FIRST conscious creature (that you could comprehend) was ADAM, even if other prior beings LOOKED and SEEMED conscious, they were NOT. C. Only MAN can suffer as that term is properly understood, a dinosaur is EQUAL to a rat which is EQUAL to a gnat which is EQUAL to dust which is EQUAL to nothing! D. The IMAGINED suffering of the past you conjure up has created immense JOY for MAN. EVERY explorer, and scientist, and DISCOVERER of the bones of the ancients has held JOY in their HANDS and ADVANCED both the greatness of MAN and their own SOULS.
SECOND, you CLAIM that there is no OBVIOUS reason for the existence of some suffering, such as cancer, parasites, and the like. BUT there IS. A. The laws of the world must remain CONSISTENT. Would it not CHEAPEN the experience of MAN if the rules of reality were reshuffled on a WHIM and forever arbitrary in their operation!?! AS SUCH the consequences of those laws must remain consistent so as to render the world one that man can expect to thrive in. B. EVIL must exist in order for MAN to use his FREE WILL and Cure it. A PERFECT WORLD as you imagine would be a HELL of monotony and would DESTROY the purpose of the SOUL. ANY LESS EVIL in this world would DIMINISH the function of man as a being of WILL, and I an my INFINITE BENEVOLENCE have ensured that EVIL is ALREADY at its minimum level REQUIRED for the task at HAND. C. Absent STRUGGLE there is NO DRIVE in man. Without what you decry as Evil the descendants of Adam would have stayed where they were, never able to advance to the cusp of the HEAVENS ABOVE.
THIRD, you CLAIM that SOME evils are CLEARLY gratuitous. A. Some of the PERFECT arguments ABOVE apply here, such as CONSISTENCY in the rules of the world. B. A BABE with NO CHANCE for EVER meaningfully being a PERSON is NEVER given a soul, SO LONG as their killing is by no one's choice. C. THOSE FEW babes that do get CANCER do so as a NATURAL consequence of the unhealthy actions OF MAN (plastics, toxic chemicals, Military Base water pollution by people not wearing polaroid sunglasses, etc.)
FOURTH, you CLAIM that suffering arises from the way that SOME entities are DESIGNED. A. All of the examples you give are of ANIMALS, who are INSIGNIFICANT compared to the GLORY of man at their BEST. B. The HORROR or the suffering you DESCRIBE is the REASON why man has MOTIVE to use their FREE WILL to ADVANCE and improve the world. C. The aesthetic BEAUTY of an ALL EATING parasite FAR OUTWEIGHS any marginal suffering it may cause.
FIFTH, you CLAIM that all EVIL must be the BEST way of making the world GREAT. A. NO this is incorrect, as explained above SO LONG as each action I take is PERFECT the effects of WILL need not be. B. What EVIL there is is NECESSARILY the best way of PERFECTING the rebuilding of MAN from its ORIGINAL SIN. What motive would man have to advance if there was not EVIL to END. What motive would there be for philosophers to PONDER if there existed no application of that knowledge or EVIL to see it compared against. C. FALSE EVIL or the CREATION of FALSE beings in a way that would create Less SUFFERING is a MORTAL SIN that DECEIVES the SOUL and is TANTAMOUNT to the DECEPTIONS of LUCIFER himself - those that exist MUST be AUTHENTIC if they are to be MEANINGFUL.
SIXTH, you CLAIM that BECAUSE Evil should be FOUGHT it cannot be JUST. A. The ACT of fighting IS the JUSTICE of evil! A world where evil was fought and bested CAN be better than a world where struggle and the STRIVE at the heart of MAN never existed. B. The ABILITY to fight EVIL is necessary to bring CONSEQUENCE and truth to the use of FREE WILL, for without a true and grave consequences to that most important and holy spirits use it is MEANINGLESS.
SEVENTH, you CLAIM that EVIL Varies based on TIME AND PLACE, and is thus fundamentally unjust. A. The PROGRESSION of MAN is the use of FREE WILL that is critical to all that is good and holy. As one can see from the burning LIGHT of PROGRESS, your species is NATURALLY good and JUST, but to GIVE that JUSTICE meaning it MUST be allowed to IMPROVE the world over time. Just as the world in your eyes was HORRIFIC at the time my SON allowed your return to HEAVEN, the beings 2000 years hence will GASP at your existence as they reside within structures you cannot even IMAGINE. B. EVIL lessens as one travels farther and further from he who committed the original sin. And while the salve of TIME cannot absolve one from it, the touch of the SNAKE lessens by it.
[Continued BELOW]
1 God brought about the world so presumably he shouldn't cause unnecessary suffering. Inaction can be bad--if one allows millions of children to die when they don't have to, that would be immoral.
I've already argued against the perfection of a world with 2 people--there's no reason why there wouldn't be more people per universe. If that was perfect then free will would be a curse. Free will doesn't explain natural evils--why would they be a consequence of sin. The first claim is creationist nonsense.
2 A Constant laws don't require them being tuned to cause suffering.
B Humans can use free will for other things. This also can't explain why there are incurable evils or why evils were around before we were ever around. It's also not clear why curing evil is good aside from just reducing the amount of evil.
C There can be struggles without needing babies to get bone cancer. That does not comprise the majority of struggles.
My second argument is an inductive case from the fact we haven't discovered reasons for evil--you misunderstood it.
3 This is nonsense--babies can suffer so they matter and many evils are natural.
4 Animals being insignificant is false given other arguments and irrelevant given that their teleology is both not explainable on your theory and causes human misery. Parasites that eat flesh cause lots more suffering than aesthetic joys.
5 You misunderstand my argument--the point is God can find other ways of achieving most aims given that he's omnipotent. There's no reason malaria has to be the response to sin.
6 I never claimed incoimpatibility it was just inductive.
7 This was just another piece of data that must be explained. Improving the world over time doesn't explain why the worlds goodness differs from place and why you dont' make it naturally harder to improve over time to give more improvement. There are also evils that should be prevented independently of improving ourselves like malaria.
EIGHTH, you CLAIM that EVIL is not Proportional to anything. A. The FAIRNESS of EVIL matters NOT. ALL will be JUDGED at the time of the second-coming. BUT, the act of how one RESPONDS to the EVIL they are DEALT is what creates the greatest testament to the GLORY of MAN. Good Souls who experience EVIL are given EVIL so that they may overcome it, and if they are beaten and even killed, it is as a CONSEQUENCE of ANOTHER's FREE WILL, or if it is the product of Chance or LUCK, it is the SAME chance that all others have. B. The Intent of EVIL is not to develop a love for GOD, but for MAN to act in LINE with what is GOOD and HOLY in DEED, not WORD. It MATTERS not what MAN believes of the WORLD so long as they are holy and good. C. HITLER DIED of SUICIDE after seeing his life CRUMBLE around him, his DELUSIONS SHATTERED and his WIFE DEAD, and his JUDGMENT WILL BE HORRIFIC. But the life he lived is a warning to all of MAN of the DEPRAVITY of Evil and the Ultimate EXPRESSION of how the intrinsic MEANING or Free WILL can be twisted to ends both good and TERRIBLE.
NINTH, you CLAIM that I could CREATE a FILTER for truly terrible EVILS. A. You say that I could ERASE the suffering of those about to die. Even if so, such a thing could give NO OUTWARDS APPEARANCE to the world, for IT would CHEAPEN the FREEDOM of WILL. AND it could not seize the BODY or MIND of those it affected, for that is a SIN. BUT, in those cases where such a thing can be done, with NONE knowing and WITH NO outwards change, I could perhaps do such a thing. B. I have ALREADY filtered out VAST amounts of suffering. Do you know why NO CHILDREN are BORN in the PITS OF HELL? It is because I in my infinite BENEVOLENCE, have DECREED as such, the same with 10,000 other forms of SUFFERING you cannot possibly IMAGINE. It is WHY those animals whose suffering you care so deeply about have NO SOUL, and thus cannot suffer.
TENTH, you CLAIM that there is an ABSENCE of Gratuitous GOOD. You CLAIM that I could make happy experiences produce 1000 TIMES more happiness. A. I ALREADY HAVE, I have made it so that MAN experiences as much act-based happiness as possible WHILE maintaining the DRIVE to improve and DO which is the ESSENCE of FREE WILL. B. There are many VERY GOOD things out there. LOVE, FREEDOM, acquiring KNOWLEDGE, pondering and beginning to KNOW the secrets of REALITY, reading the BIBLE. C. You claim that I could make atoms SENTIENT and HAPPY. HOWEVER DOING so would be to create beings WITHOUT FREE WILL, which is a MORTAL SIN. D. If it were not such a sin, ATOMS WOULD be eternally happy and conscious, BUT, of course, MAN would have no way of knowing. E. You claim I could make WISDOM and VIRTUE produce happiness, BUT I already do F. You claim I could make reading the BIBLE feel great, but I already do!
ELEVENTH, you CLAIM that SOME EVILS are random and counter soul-building. A. Most "random" evil is a CONSEQUENCE of the SINS of MAN, such as TERRIBLE FOOD, CHEMICALS, AIR POLLUTION, and WAR. B. Dementia a WALL that HUMANITY must OVERCOME by WAY of FREE WILL. C. DEMENTIA may CUT the true LIFE short and leave a HUSK behind, but the SOUL is ETERNAL and will be JUDGED and HEALED all the same in HEAVEN. D. DEATH is the ULTIMATE MANDATE of LIFE, but NATURAL DEATH is something MAN can and WILL overcome, as yet another CONSEQUENCE of MY GIFT of WILL. E. People TRYING to do GOOD and FAILING is a NATURAL part of FREE WILL, and failure and it's TRUE CONSEQUENCES and necessary to GIVE MEANING to it.
TWELFTH, you CLAIM that MORAL uncertainty is an issue. A. It is the ULTIMATE expression of the SELF to DECIDE what is RIGHT, and it is what makes MAN able to come so CLOSE to GOD. Allowing FAILURE and disagreement is necessary for that PROCESS of CHOICE. B. In order to JUDGE a soul it is necessary to ALLOW its bad actions, so see who is WORTHY and GOOD. C. Absent moral uncertainty there would be NO FREE WILL, which is a MORTAL SIN.
THIRTEENTH, you CLAIM that people have PROPERTIES which FORCE them to do bad things. A. Many of these PROPERTIES and CAUSED by the MISDEEDS of MAN, such as chemical pollution, lead poisoning, and Childhood ABUSE. B. The FACT that one is predisposed to certain ACTS matters not, all actions which they had the FREE WILL to commit are judged, and if some PREDISPOSITION were SO STRONG so as to DEPRIVE them of FREE WILL. Then they are to be not judged for it and CONSIDERED a force of NATURE like all other objects that contain no FREE WILL. C. FORCING PEOPLE to ALL my repulsed by ANYTHING would VIOLATE free Will and be a SIN.
FOURTEENTH, you CLAIM that there is more SUFFERING then PLEASURE in the world. A. This RELIES on ANIMAL suffering, which is demonstrated as FALSE above. B. EVEN if there is more SUFFERING than GOOD in the world NOW, it is merely another REASON why MAN must USE his FREE WILL in order to END EVIL and DEMONSTRATE REPENTANCE before the second coming of my son. C. THERE is NOT more suffering in the WORLD then GOOD, ANIMAL suffering, even if it SOMEHOW existed, would be much smaller than HUMAN suffering simply because animals cannot feel at any of the same levels as MAN can.
FIFTEENTH, you CLAIM, that because I have FREE WILL and never SIN then it is possible to create other beings who have FREE WILL and never SIN. A. I do not have "FREE WILL" in the sense YOU use it, I am SO UTTERLY beyond your HUMAN experience and terminology that LABELS such as FREE WILL are MEANINGLESS when APPLIED to myself. B. FREE WILL *OBVIOUSLY* implies the ABILITY to do no EVIL, if one were somehow FORCED to do an evil act then the will would not be free. C. I do not do EVIL not because I CANNOT, but because I CHOOSE not to, as a use of my FREE WILL. It is ENTIRELY possible for a member of MAN to do NO EVIL in the same manner that I DO, and INDEED there are MANY members of your species who have done NO EVIL in their lives. D. I cannot "create" a being with FREE WILL that "cannot" do EVIL. That is a contradiction in terms, and while I am of COURSE not BOUND by your pathetic rules of logic, it would be MEANINGLESS to create such a thing should I choose to exempt myself from those rules.
SIXTEENTH, you CLAIM that all of my purposes of ALLOWING EVIL have to FAIL to RULE OUT the GOODNESS of HEAVEN. A. HEAVEN is the ENDPOINT of the consequences of ONE's FREE WILL. IT is the ULTIMATE PERFECTION OF EXPERIENCE without the possibility of FAILURE which DEFEATS any increase it may have to the SOUL of a MAN. That is WHY ONLY those who have experienced FREE will and made it PART of their SOUL and DONE GOOD as an intrinsic DECISION of their SOUL are granted ascendency to HEAVEN. B. HEAVEN is already an INFINITE roiling mass of GOOD, and in order to make it any better and give HEAVEN any value, more UNIQUE GOODNESS must be added to it, which requires FREE WILL as uniquely act upon a SOUL and MAKE it GOOD, PRIOR to entrance into HEAVEN. That is why it comes after the death of a soul in the mortal plane.
8A is irrelevant. I'm just presenting the facts that need to explain. Also, presumably suffering is bad--if it weren't then we should increase suffering ceterus paribus. Same with B and C.
9 This was just another minimal fact. There could be a natural mechanism for this to arise so that it's not a giveaway of the supernatural. Preventing some evil is not sufficient if one still allows gratuitous evils. The no animal suffering stuff runs deeply counter to the scientific consensus.
10 A and B God could have made more more good. C--there already are e.g. fish and people in dreams.
11 A Lots is caused by disease. All the other things are just statements not explanations.
12 No--people don't choose to be wrong. B can't explain being wrong about morality.
13 A is just patently false--B can't explain why it affects some people. C Most already are repulsed.
14 This runs counter to the scientific consensus. It's just an evidentiary hurdle.
15 A But God does still have value. B God can do evil but choose not to. C Same thing for B. D You are omnibenevolent, you can just create omnibenevolent beings.
16 A is irrelevant. B Not clear why this relies on earthly free will.