Someone debate me

[genkaus]

Speaking of mini superheroes, it might be instructive to consider a fictional mini god, like Superman. Although Superman is much more powerful than any human, he is much less (infinitely less?) omniscient and omnipotent than Yahweh is supposed to be. Clearly, the world would have less suffering with Superman in it, as long as the bad guys of the DC pantheon aren't also present. Superman might face a dilemma in balancing his good deeds against the concern that humanity might become too dependent on him to rescue them, like being more careless in construction and pollution and security, and not solving problems they could tackle without him. That is, he could be concerned about stunting humanity's potential and being a moral hazard. So he might do less than he's capable of, prioritizing things like saving the village over capping the volcano or stopping the bombing but not the bomb factories. He would have to strike a balance, using his best (not omniscient but highly aware) judgement.

I think one of the storylines did deal with this. Superman - even when going around his daily life as Clark Kent - could hear a lot of cries for help and consciously chose to ignore them if they didn't seem immediate enough. I think the point was that he would fight against suffering brought on by sudden or arbitrary events but let things take their own course otherwise. Which is why he involves hi,self more with violent crimes and natural disasters than trying to stop white-collar crimes.

It seems clear that Superman would be acting immorally if he did not try to prevent some of the suffering that is in his power to stop, but he could be acting morally in not preventing ALL of the suffering that is in his power to stop.

Actually, that's not clear at all. The only thing that's clear is he'd be acting against his own moral principles if he did not help.

In my opinion, answering the PoE while preserving theodicy, requires this sort of answer: that God is preventing all the suffering he can, consistent with not preventing so much suffering that it stifles our moral development or needed free will or some other highly-important good.

I think this is a very hard case to make, given the amount of suffering that seems so pointless. Superman would be a monster if he let children die by inches as they're slowly crushed by rubble after an earthquake, surely no matter his other concerns, he would save them, even if he didn't intervene in more rapid accidental deaths of children, or at least put them out of their misery.

Much harder than you'd think, because

a) It puts limits on god's power if he cannot figure out a way to prevent suffering while finding alternate ways to accomplish those moral goals.

b) He never leaves any evidence of direct intervention.

c) Never gives any indication of what those goals might be.

d) Seems to have changing priorities if he intervenes in one case while doesn't in another similar one.