When you ask them why would an omnipotent and good God allow evil in the world, the most common response Christians (and I imagine Muslims, but I am not sure about that) give is something along the lines of: "Suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and it is more important to God to allow free will than to eliminate suffering. All the suffering is ultimately caused by free will.". What do you think, what is the most effective response to that?

I think one of the best responses to that is: "Suffering has existed for hundreds of millions of years before free will, unless you will claim non-human animals have free will and should be held responsible for their actions.". I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange. Honestly, the responses I received there are so ridiculous that I think my time would be better spent elsewhere.

I think a better response would be What about suffering that is clearly NOT caused by free will?

Boru

(July 9, 2023 at 11:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think a better response would be What about suffering that is clearly NOT caused by free will?

Boru

But the only suffering we can be sure is not caused by free will is one that existed before free will.

What did Mr. Theodicy do?
Where is he being held?
Is there a petition?

(July 9, 2023 at 12:26 pm)no one Wrote: What did Mr. Theodicy do?
Where is he being held?
Is there a petition?

"Theodicy" is a word coined by Gottfried Leibniz and it means, more-or-less, a response to the Problem of Evil.

(July 9, 2023 at 12:24 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 9, 2023 at 11:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think a better response would be What about suffering that is clearly NOT caused by free will?

Boru

But the only suffering we can be sure is not caused by free will is one that existed before free will.

Not at all. Loads of suffering in the here-and-now has nothing to do with free well. People killed and injured by natural disasters, for one. Birth defects. Genetic abnormalities. Someone suffering from crippling depression through the loss of a loved one. And so on.

Boru

Lets not forget This Good God's two all time favorites, hands down. Predation and starvation. I'm not sure it really matters. If god allows suffering or evil because it values some other thing more - that's not really a defense. It's a confession to motivated complicity if we're being as generous as possible. It tends to get worse if you ask why a god values something - like free will - to this extent. More fuel for the soul forge.

I go with the simplest and most evident explanation. Supposing there was a god that didn't want bad shit to happen, or didn't value some other thing so much it was down with bad shit - the reason so much bad shit happens is that this god flat out can't do anything about it. He's on the tip of every rapists penis just losing his fucking mind. Thankfully, we're not limited in this absurd way. We can damn a river, we can vaccinate ourselves and each other, we can eradicate predators and we can grow more food, we can throw assholes down the oubliette.

(July 9, 2023 at 12:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 9, 2023 at 12:24 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: But the only suffering we can be sure is not caused by free will is one that existed before free will.

Not at all. Loads of suffering in the here-and-now has nothing to do with free well. People killed and injured by natural disasters, for one. Birth defects. Genetic abnormalities. Someone suffering from crippling depression through the loss of a loved one. And so on.

Boru

In one of my YouTube videos in Latin, I said that the suffering caused by the COVID-19 pandemic obviously doesn't come from free will. But Andreas Alcor responded to me that he thinks I don't understand what the sentence "Evil comes from free will." means. Here is what he said:

https://flatassembler.github.io/Simulati...dreasAlcor Wrote: 

(July 10, 2023 at 7:38 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 9, 2023 at 12:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not at all. Loads of suffering in the here-and-now has nothing to do with free well. People killed and injured by natural disasters, for one. Birth defects. Genetic abnormalities. Someone suffering from crippling depression through the loss of a loved one. And so on.

Boru

In one of my YouTube videos in Latin, I said that the suffering caused by the COVID-19 pandemic obviously doesn't come from free will. But Andreas Alcor responded to me that he thinks I don't understand what the sentence "Evil comes from free will." means. Here is what he said:

https://flatassembler.github.io/Simulati...dreasAlcor Wrote:Sed hoc iam ab incepto minus prudenter facere uideris: sententiae 'malum necessario uoluntatem (scilicet libertatem sponte faciendi) nostram consequitur' uiri, ut dicimus, coronarii quinquagiens centena milia hominum necantis mentionem faciendo respondes, quasi hoc uirus si numquam adueniret uoluntas uespertiliones edendi aliquo modo retineretur, ut argumentum irrideas. At hoc, quamquam tibi assentior malum non necessario uoluntatem consequi, haud quicquam redarguit, quod ne intellexisse quidem uideris sententiam. Fieri potest ut hoc iam diutius animo uolutaris atque hoc irrisu tuo "ne multa" dixeris, tamen hoc ipsa in pellicula non est manifestum.
Deus enim Christianorum arborem uel, ut in Vulgatis scriptum est, lignum posuit in medio Paradiso, uetuitque Adam uxoremque de fructu eius comesse, sed de hoc ne multa dicam quod omnes fere nos europaei hanc fabulam bene nouimus. Libera uoluntas donata dici potest (utrum assentiamur annon alia disputatio est) ideo quod serpens Heuae de hoc fructu esse persuasit atque Heua, sponte sua, contra numen Dei, fructum sibi carpsit. Si, Teo, rem recordaris, hoc scientiae boni et mali (Genesis 2.9) fuit lignum, inde Adam atque Heua se nudos colligentes erubuere, inde sciunt, secundum Vulgata, homines bonum atque malum esse, inde consequitur malum uoluntatem. Vtrum necessario consequatur necne disputari possit sed alias.
Vtrum haec sententia ad rem nostram, cur Deus mala fieri permittat, pertineat necne etiam disputari possit, tamen nequaquam redigitur ad uirus coronarium atque ad homines hoc morbo mortuos.

Did you not read the public service announcements attached to the forum rules which says that posts should be in English?

(July 9, 2023 at 11:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: When you ask them why would an omnipotent and good God allow evil in the world, the most common response Christians (and I imagine Muslims, but I am not sure about that) give is something along the lines of: "Suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and it is more important to God to allow free will than to eliminate suffering. All the suffering is ultimately caused by free will.". What do you think, what is the most effective response to that?

I think one of the best responses to that is: "Suffering has existed for hundreds of millions of years before free will, unless you will claim non-human animals have free will and should be held responsible for their actions.". I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange. Honestly, the responses I received there are so ridiculous that I think my time would be better spent elsewhere.

Well suffering is most definitely a feature of having free will, I'm not sure it's really "necessary" in the proper sense but just by having free will you are made able to suffer. Any life form that does not have free will, does not suffer, at least not in the human sense of suffering. And it's not like, "John used his free will to stab another person and caused that person suffering", it's more like, suffering is simply part of free will. It's a package deal. Of course, why an omnipotent God couldn't design free will without the capacity for suffering remains to be seen.