The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[RoadRunner79]

While stated often, I don't think that the case has been made, where logically; to be omnibenevolent, other good attributes must be forsaken.

 

Evil is what an omnibenevolent god forsakes, not "other good attributes."  

That is the question isn't it?

The argument is normally presented as a simple and naïve false dichotomy.  One where comfort and happiness are presented as supreme, and the one making the argument seems to forget about everything else. 

 

The only thing logically incompatible with comfort is discomfort.  The only thing logically incompatible with happiness is unhappiness.  If we call comfort and happiness good, and discomfort and unhappiness evil, then--except for evil--an omnipotent god can have anything it wants in addition to comfort and happiness.  

If what it wants is discomfort and unhappiness, then it is not omnibenevolent.  
If it wants something else and can't have both that and the absence of evil, then it is not omnipotent.  

This is simple, but it's not naive or false: An omnipotent god can have anything it wants that isn't logically incompatible with other things it wants.  An omnibenevolent god doesn't want evil.  Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god can have anything it wants.  

I don't believe that comfort and happiness equate with good (at least not on a logical or definitional level).   This it is more of an emotional problem, than logical.