The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[Mystic]

Well, from the perspective, is that non-suffering and peace, will be the end state of every living being eventually. Given that, was suffering worth character building? I propose perhaps it is. Perhaps anything that enriches character building is worth any given suffering, because suffering would be trivial given that every being would living in a state of peace and happiness eventually.

Also perhaps another premise is that for God to create a world which some suffering would bring about a greater good, some suffering would not. Therefore the first premise I purposed in this thread may not be true. It maybe true, it may not be. Perhaps there is delicate balance here we can't articulate.

[fr0d0]

I think I've already said, but I'll say it another way. Suffering isn't inherently evil. To me, evolution is the magical process whereby life exists. Suffering of sentient life forms is integral to that. You, in your limited egotistical world view might find that distasteful, and I understand how, at the micro level we struggle to justify it. The same criteria would apply to plate tectonics / seismic activity / natural disasters. Scientists not so recently proclaimed the necessity of these phenomena to life on earth.

This reality works. God fits with it. Utopian dreams of an un suffering universe don't pan out practically.

[Skepsis]

Well, from the perspective, is that non-suffering and peace, will be the end state of every living being eventually. Given that, was suffering worth character building? I propose perhaps it is. Perhaps anything that enriches character building is worth any given suffering, because suffering would be trivial given that every being would living in a state of peace and happiness eventually.

Also perhaps another premise is that for God to create a world which some suffering would bring about a greater good, some suffering would not. Therefore the first premise I purposed in this thread may not be true. It maybe true, it may not be. Perhaps there is delicate balance here we can't articulate.

What we are talking about he is a creator who can create any world as he wishes, as well as its contents.
It follows that anything not logically impossible or contradictive could be created.
It then follows that a God could create humans with inborn virtues that didn't need to be born from suffering.
Also, the "greater good" defence doesn't work. For example, there are situations where there can be no character building in a situation of suffering, no choice on the part of the sufferers, and no way to stop it on the part of outsiders.
If an African woman dies giving birth to her baby after being chased from her home by rapists and plunderers and the baby perishes shortly after from disease and starvation, what good came from that? Death by nature all around, yet not a soul will ever hear of it.

---

I think I've already said, but I'll say it another way. Suffering isn't inherently evil. To me, evolution is the magical process whereby life exists. Suffering of sentient life forms is integral to that. You, in your limited egotistical world view might find that distasteful, and I understand how, at the micro level we struggle to justify it. The same criteria would apply to plate tectonics / seismic activity / natural disasters. Scientists not so recently proclaimed the necessity of these phenomena to life on earth.

Cool story bro. Also, magic has nothing to do with biology. Just because suffering is integral to life as we understand it doesn't mean that it is justifiable for a loving God to create such a world. A loving God would abstain from creating a world where suffering was necessary.

This reality works.

Sure.

God fits with it.

Nope.

Utopian dreams of an un suffering universe don't pan out practically.

This is why God doesn't fit with the universe. A perfectly moral God wouldn't create a universe that isn't perfectly good and moral, as to reflect himself. No moral human would create a system of suffering, so why would a perfectly moral God do so?
It doesn't have to be the case that suffering = evil for the argument to apply. You are suffering from black-and-white thinking. The argument applies to any form of moral deviation, and natural suffering isn't subtracted from the equasion simply because it is necessary.
It might not even be necessary- could there potentially be a world where no natural suffering existed, nor ever would? Then again, it isn't my problem to have to deal with the proposition that there is no possible world without suffering in some form or another.

[Mystic]

I'm going to quote myself again:

We could have been made so that we innately have all the character we need.

Perhaps (and seemingly to me), this is impossible. We can be created as saints/angel like, but we couldn't have gone through the struggle, and earned value from struggle, and built character in this sense.

I don't think the value that comes out of free-will, and character building, can come out by being automatically given this characteristic.

We can see for example, in Islam, Angels are hardly given that much value, and it's said the human is of much better value if he is righteous. Angels are like robots, don't struggle against the choice of evil, while humans do. We have to struggle against our greed to be charitable, we have to learn to forgive those whom do wrong to us while spite is the natural feelings.

I think giving the value of character building is impossible. It must be earned and striven for.

Also perhaps another premise is that for God to create a world which some suffering would bring about a greater good, some suffering would not. Therefore the first premise I purposed in this thread may not be true. It maybe true, it may not be. Perhaps there is delicate balance here we can't articulate.

As for the last quote, you just showed an example. While free-will brings about a greater good, sometimes, it doesn't and brings the opposite. Yet free-will seems to be a greater good when the goal is character building.

[Skepsis]

Perhaps (and seemingly to me), this is impossible. We can be created as saints/angel like, but we couldn't have gone through the struggle, and earned value from struggle, and built character in this sense.

I don't think the value that comes out of free-will, and character building, can come out by being automatically given this characteristic.

I think giving the value of character building is impossible. It must be earned and striven for.

Since the assertion that a God who could create a universe any way he wants affirms the idea that he could have created intrinsic virtue, it is your burden to prove why you feel this is impossible.

Personally, I don't see why we couldn't simply be born with these qualities. Sort of like evolution, but guided directly by a benevolent God who would dictate the traits needed for virtue to be an instinct.
To be born with the will to help others, be kind, and donate to the lesser priveledged is without a doubt within the ability of a benevolent God.

[Mystic]

It's not that he can't create us Angelic like, it's that perhaps the value and rich experience of character building with the struggle against evil, fortitude against adversity, free-will to chose, etc, is better, and given the long run, that people will be at peace and will be good, it maybe worth it. Things like learning to forbear and forgive evil people without forced to, but through your own choice, maybe be better and more valuable.

What I'm saying is the value of the character that had to chose, struggle, be patient, be strong in face of adversity, and that character, cannot be simply given.

Sure love towards others, having virtues of Angels, this is possible, why not...but it doesn't have that character built through adversity, that strength through forces pushing against it.

[Skepsis]

It's not that he can't create us Angelic like, it's that perhaps the value and rich experience of character building with the struggle against evil, fortitude against adversity, free-will to chose, etc, is better, and given the long run, that people will be at peace and will be good, it maybe worth it. Things like learning to forbear and forgive evil people without forced to, but through your own choice, maybe be better and more valuable.

The value of the experience is derived from the consequences of the experience, in this case. Certainly the value isn't derived from the suffering directly, but rather what is taken from the experience.
This said, why not skip a step and have inborn virtue?
Why would you have to deal with evil people when God didn't allow there to be evil people?
You really aren't "forced" to be virtuous. You are effectively born into existence with virute attached.
You have either accidentally or purposefully side-stepped the question. Keeping in mind that the value of an experience in the case of suffering is derived from the consequence of the ordeal, why not simply be born with these values? Remember, some virtues aren't applicable when evils and injustices are removed from the equasion.

[Mystic]

It seems impossible to me, like creating square triangles. I don't know how to prove it though.

It's like a video game, there is difference between the experience on easy mode and on the hardest mode. Most people like the challenge and go hardest mode, and only notch it down when they feel they can't do it.

It maybe similar, easy mode, and hardest mode, but they are not the same experience.

[fr0d0]

@ Skepsis
This reality without suffering is illogical. Same as a loving God creating beings to love him without suffering is illogical. Neither (love or suffering) can exist alone. They're interdependent. So only a loving God would create this reality.

[Skepsis]

This reality without suffering is illogical.

Why? There technically could exist a reality outside suffering, if you delve into what a God is capable of.

Same as a loving God creating beings to love him without suffering is illogical.

Seems to me a loving God creating any suffering in the first place is the more illogical of the two.

Neither (love or suffering) can exist alone. They're interdependent.

No, I don't think so, but I won't bother to take the time to prove it.
Like I said, infinite love and any degree od suffering are contradictive, regardless of whether or not they must come as a pair in reality. Your point in null because a perfectly loving creator would rather avoid creation altogether rather than create something that is destined, rather, by your interpretation, necessarily, subject to suffering that is often times needless and unavoidable.

So only a loving God would create this reality.

Dafaq?
How, even if I granted you every single point you made, did you get to the statement you made above?
A malevolent God could have made the universe by your same criterion, because good and evil must coexist. The love, in this case, would simply be a byproduct.
You are really going to have a hard time justifying this point.

---

It seems impossible to me, like creating square triangles. I don't know how to prove it though.

It's like a video game, there is difference between the experience on easy mode and on the hardest mode. Most people like the challenge and go hardest mode, and only notch it down when they feel they can't do it.

It maybe similar, easy mode, and hardest mode, but they are not the same experience.

It seems possible to me, and I have provided evidence other than analogy in my logical breakdown of inborn virtue.