Suffering is necessary as a contrast? (Problem of Evil)

[Snow Turtle]

I don't know, maybe I am not making sense. Is there any way that the world can be imperfect if god is good?

The cheesy line perfection within imperfection comes to mind.

Based on the assumption that the world is a place for learning, and that learning is good. It makes perfect sense how the world is perfect with it's flaws.

It's the reason I started this topic.
Someone argued that God could have created a world where people could learn without suffering. I was wondering if this is logically feasible given what we know about free will.

Here's something I've been pondering about.

Theoretically had we not known about evil, and the ability to cause harm etc. Had God created this world originally, would it really have been considered as partially removing our free will?

The only reason we feel that it is infringing on free will now, is because we have experienced the ability to cause harm. It's difficult to imagine a world where humans aren't capable of doing harm but still have free will.

But is it impossible? Hence the reference to the rock.

 

[Qlip]

So god created an imperfect world? I wonder what is the point in that if he loves good...



He knew that was gonna happen. It was his fault to create the scenario.

I suppose one could say that humans having a partially devine nature had a hand in the creation as well, but I'm just being the Devil's Advocate here, because none of this is my belief. I just thought it'd be important to toss out the official Xtian story to dissect.

 

[nolla]

This was not made by me.

W(x, y) = y is willing to prevent x
A(x, y) = y is able to prevent x
E(x) = x is evil, T(x) = x exists
M(x) = x is malevolent
I(x) = x is impotent

A: If god is not able to prevent evil, then god is impotent.
¬A(god,evil) -> I(god)

B: If god is unwilling to prevent evil, then god is malevolent.
¬W(god,evil) -> M(god)

C: If evil exists, god is unwilling to prevent evil or god is unable to prevent evil.
T(evil) -> (¬A(god,evil) v ¬W(god,evil))

D: If god exists, he is not malevolent and he is not impotent
T(god) -> (¬M(god) & ¬I(god))

1. God exists: T(god)
2. Evil exists: T(evil)
3. By 1 and D, god is not malevolent and he is not impotent: ¬M(god) & ¬I(god)
4. By 2 and C, god is unwilling to prevent evil or god is unable to prevent evil: ¬A(god,evil) v ¬W(god,evil)
5. By 4 and A and B, god is malevolent or god is impotent: I(god) v M(god)
6. 3 and 5 are a contradiction.

By 6, either 3 is false or 5 is false.
If 3 is false, then 1 is false, then god does not exist:
¬3 -> ¬1 -> ¬T(god)
If 5 is false, then 4 is false:
¬5 -> ¬4
If 4 is false, then 2 is false, then evil does not exist:
¬4 -> ¬2 -> ¬T(evil)
Therefore, either evil does not exist or god does not exist. We cannot conclude that god does not exist unless we presume that if god exists, evil exists:
T(god) -> T(evil)
The contrapositive would then be:
¬T(evil) -> ¬T(god)
and thus god would not exist. If this is not the case, then this proof is not possible because if evil does not exist, then god does not need to prevent it. That is, false implies true OR false in C.

Sorry but I can't read that stuff... What does this ¬ mean?

The cheesy line perfection within imperfection comes to mind.

Based on the assumption that the world is a place for learning, and that learning is good. It makes perfect sense how the world is perfect with it's flaws.

Yep, that's what seems logical if we insist that god has to exist. From his point of view it would be something like everything that ever happened and will happen are part of the same view, like a painting. There are flaws which are not relevant to the overall beauty. So, he made it just for the heck of it. If he insisted on being logical and strict about the goodness then why would he make the world in the first place? There is no evil if there is nothing. I mean you can't beat that, zero is the perfect number.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Umm... something like, god depends on good, but good is what is constant and doesn't depend on god. Good is the foundation that god must build on. Unless god can influence what is good. I guess I meant to ask, does god have power over what is good?

I think this argument relies on how one defines "goodness".

I don't know, maybe I am not making sense. Is there any way that the world can be imperfect if god is good?

I believe it depends on how you define "perfect".

B: If god is unwilling to prevent evil, then god is malevolent.
¬W(god,evil) -> M(god)

This argument is false. The only way this argument is true is if you think it good for God to take away free will. On the other hand if it is good for God to give people free will, then he is good by being unwilling to prevent evil.