God is a consequentialist

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

There's a popular defense of the existence of evil and suffering from apologists. You can read Craig argue this. Basically it's not "logically possible" to make a world in which there are no free beings who won't sin. Sin of course leads to suffering. They argue then that God is still good for making a world with sinners and suffering because he made the "best possible world" among all the possible worlds he could make. The world we're in now has the least amount of suffering and sinners. Hell is the smallest it could be (conceivably, there might have been another world in which everyone went to hell but God didn't make that).

What does this mean? Well, God's a consequentialist. Apparently it's ok for God to create a world that leads to suffering and people being in hell for eternity if it can be justified by the consequences.

If I were God, and I was limited (ha!) in such a way, I would not have created anything, even if I could have created a world in which just only one being went to hell. I'd be self-sufficient anyway so I wouldn't need to create anything in the first place.