# Does it violate free will if the person was never given the desire to do something in the first place? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2025, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339 "2025-12-02T22:09:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2026, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/461 "2026-02-03T14:30:34Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Therefore if you want to show a contradiction, you must do more than admit ignorance as to whether there is unnecessary suffering. You have to go the extra step and show that there actually is suffering to which an omnibenevolent being would not abide. Trivial. I do _that_ any time I take an aspirin. The world is full of preventable suffering, even for us mortal non-omnipotents. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2026, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/462 "2026-02-03T18:31:21Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This is a controversial claim, rejected by Augustine and virtually all Christians in history, except the Gnostics and Manichaeans. I’m not talking about the Christian god, but the incompatibility of omnipotence and omnibenevolence in general. If you say they deny it is possible for God to do evil while being omnipotent, that would be because they have baked omnibenevolence into God’s nature by definition. If you don’t do that for a small-g omnipotent god, I don’t see why the claim that god can do evil should be controversial in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2026, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/463 "2026-02-03T19:34:36Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > We know that God’s power does not contradict itself. No square circles. And we know that God is omnimax, as you say. These are just part of the nature of God, not external factors (by definition there is nothing external to God). Sure there are no square circles, but there are square rectangles. If god is square by nature, fine, but you seem to be saying there couldn’t be any rectangular gods. A rectangular god has a long axis and a short axis. A square god has both axes the same. It’s impossible for a square god to have a long axis, but long axes are possible for rectangular gods. Ergo, square god is more limited than rectangular god. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/464 "2026-02-04T05:07:54Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > My argument, which is basically just restating the evidential problem of evil, is that, all else being equal, we would expect an all-powerful being that wants suffering to be zero to make a world with zero suffering. This is _not_ the evidential PoE. If the expected amount of evil were zero, it immediately follows that the probability of evil existing if God does must also be zero, and you have _deductively_ established the inconsistency of the existence of God and evil. So this is in fact the _logical_ problem of evil. If on the other hand there is a non-zero expected amount of evil, then not every evil constitutes evidence against God (finding only what’s expected can’t lower your credence in a hypothesis), and hence, you must _inductively_ argue for particular examples of evil that exceed what would be expected in the presence of a tri-omni God. _That_ is the evidential problem. These are the only two options. That doesn’t change if we don’t know or ‘have’ an expectation, as you put it. Either the logical argument goes through: then any evil at all disproves the existence of God. Or it doesn’t: then, the expected amount of evil must be non-zero, and not every instance of evil can be evidence against God. But claiming that both the logical argument doesn’t work and that any evil at all should make us doubt God’s existence is just not consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/465 "2026-02-04T07:35:28Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Probably you’re confusing me with someone else, as I haven’t mentioned Reformation anything. You first replied to me in [post 395](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/395), where you quoted my point on why Reformation theologists reject the suffering’s negative utilitarian value. Yes, you can formulate an evidentiary problem of evil which presupposes all suffering is bad, either categorically or in a utilitarian sense, and then you get a litany of contradictions with the traditional concept of God. But you have accomplished nothing by such proof, in my opinion. In classical theism, evil is privation, the exercise of omnipotence implies teleological perfection, omniscience is atemporal, omnescience extends to eschatology, **omnibenevolence covers acts rather than effects** , omnibenevolence does not imply utilitarianism, the world is fallen, suffering is a natural consequence of the Fall, the cosmic telos is salvation in Christ (Augustine-Thomistic) or God’s glory (Reformation emphasizes unrevealed purpose). Add to this the additional premise - modern, not classic - that libertarian free will exists and is good (some Christians deny libertarian free will). From these premises, the evidentiary problem of evil ceases to exist. The classical definition of omnibenevolence itself destroys the evidential inference. There are no mitigating factors at all because suffering is not a defect in the exercise of God’s will. No matter what suffering is observed, it can be _deduced_ that it would be contrary to God’s purposes for Him to prevent that suffering. > [@Mijin](#): > > I genuinely don’t understand your response. > > … > > My argument, which is basically just restating the evidential problem of evil, is that, all else being equal, we would expect an all-powerful being that wants suffering to be zero to make a world with zero suffering. If there are mitigating factors that mean God must allow N suffering then the burden is on those that propose such factors to define them, explain how they tie an omnimax God and also relate it to the amount of suffering we actually see. The problem of evil (evidentiary or logical) is not a tool for Christian proselytization. Let me ask you a few rhetorical questions: What is the purpose of the evidentiary problem of evil? What do you seek to gain by discussing it? What does a Christian theist seek to gain by discussing it? The evidentiary problem of evil as stated presupposes a consequentialist or outcome-oriented account of divine goodness, according to which suffering is a detachable moral negative. That account is fundamentally incompatible with classical Christian theism, in which divine goodness concerns the rectitude of divine willing within a teleological and eschatological order. Consequently, the evidentiary problem does not refute mainstream Christianity as historically or theologically understood, but only challenges a modern, moralistic conception of God. (Hume, you may recall, does push back on mainstream Christianity as he knew it through Scottish Presbyterianism, but he critiques it as if God’s goodness were measured only by observable outcomes, ignoring the teleological and eschatological context central to classical theism.) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/466 "2026-02-04T07:45:17Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > From these premises, the evidentiary problem of evil ceases to exist. The classical definition of omnibenevolence itself destroys the evidential inference. There are no mitigating factors at all because suffering is not a defect in the exercise of God’s will. No matter what suffering is observed, it can be _deduced_ that it would be contrary to God’s purposes for Him to prevent that suffering. It doesn’t hurt the “evidential argument” at all. All it does is effectively _redefine benevolence and God as evil_. Which is both an argument against respecting God, and that the way to be “benevolent” is to torture and murder people. It’s the sort of claim that is only likely to ever be used to “win” theological arguments, since somebody who actually took it seriously would end up in prison or dead. And a _society_ that took it seriously would slaughter itself to collapse almost immediately. Also it _does_ make God out to be evil, which is usually considered undesirable by his followers. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/467 "2026-02-04T07:59:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > … effectively _redefine benevolence and God as evil_ … > > … somebody who actually took it seriously would end up in prison or dead. And a _society_ that took it seriously would slaughter itself to collapse almost immediately. > > Also it _does_ make God out to be evil … At any rate, I don’t see how you get any of that. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/468 "2026-02-04T08:09:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > At any rate, I don’t see how you get any of that. How is this: > No matter what suffering is observed, it can be _deduced_ that it would be contrary to God’s purposes for Him to prevent that suffering. _Not_ calling God evil? It just avoids the word is all. It’s the sort of thing some mad tyrant would say to justify him torturing and murdering as he pleases; that everyone else exists just to serve his desires and that if he has somebody tortured, they are just fulfilling their function. And if suffering and death are “benevolence”, then so is torture and murder. It’s a straightforward relationship, literally mortals emulating God’s “moral” example. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/469 "2026-02-04T08:31:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > _Not_ calling God evil? It explicitly says God is not evil. If you disagree with the conclusion, you must either disagree with a premise or find the argument fallacious. I would appreciate if you could be more specific. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > mortals emulating God A grave mistake. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/470 "2026-02-04T08:34:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > everyone else exists just to serve his desires and that if he has somebody tortured, they are just fulfilling their function. I almost get your point here. I would make an analogy to livestock. It would not hold for people who embrace veganism, and it doesn’t hold for gratuitous torture, though. But by and large, livestock exist to satisfy human desires, and if we have an animal executed, that is all well and good. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/471 "2026-02-04T08:44:16Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > It explicitly says God is not evil. So what? It can say what it wants, but it _describes_ a God that is evil. Any evil being can _claim_ to be good, that doesn’t make it so. And it’s certainly functionally evil; if that’s what “good” is, then everyone _should_ be “evil”. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I would make an analogy to livestock. It would not hold for people who embrace veganism, and it doesn’t hold for gratuitous torture, though. But by and large, livestock exist to satisfy human desires, and if we have an animal executed, that is all well and good. Except livestock aren’t people, and if they were they’d be justified in despising us and trying to overthrow us. A god that treats mortals like livestock is a monster and an enemy, not “good” or “benevolent”. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/472 "2026-02-04T08:58:42Z")
Judging a chess grandmaster’s strategy by whether every pawn survives is a misunderstanding of the game rules. I can only guess that you refuse to entertain the premises and arguments I wrote above. Which is fine. What are your thoughts on Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/473 "2026-02-04T09:24:54Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Judging a chess grandmaster’s strategy by whether every pawn survives is a misunderstanding of the game rules. > > I can only guess that you refuse to entertain the premises and arguments I wrote above. Which is fine. What are your thoughts on Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds? We are not even close to the best of all possible worlds. And an omnipotent could certainly do far better than we have, given that they wouldn’t need to worry about things like historical development, limited knowledge or the laws of nature. And your chess comparison just underlines the problem; if we are just “pawns” to God, that makes God the enemy. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/474 "2026-02-04T09:45:58Z")
A final remark. There is a reason religion has such a strong grip on humanity. Your arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, invite absurdism. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m half convinced you’re right, personally. But most people aren’t willing to live in an existential or nihilistic framework. One of the big selling points for the Protestant Reformation is that it allows people to maintain a sense of purpose and cosmic order while sidestepping suffocating hierarchial authority, compulsory ritual, and the raw, unsettling confrontation with existential contingency that thinkers like Nietzsche demand. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/475 "2026-02-04T10:06:59Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There is a reason religion has such a strong grip on humanity. Thousands of years of systemic killing and persecution. Humans have selectively bred themselves to be irrational in that specific way, since not being willing to make a show of being religious has so often been a death sentence for long enough to be significant even in evolutionary terms. And religiosity has a strong genetic component, so there’s actually something for natural selection to work on. In other words we’re mostly religious for the same reason we’d mostly be over six feet tall if everyone shorter than that at adulthood was executed for 10,000+ years. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/476 "2026-02-04T12:40:02Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > You first replied to me in [post 395](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/395), where you quoted my point on why Reformation theologists reject the suffering’s negative utilitarian value. But what you said was _“You singled out Reformation theologists”_ When I didn’t bring mention them, and when I quoted you, that was not the part I was responding to. But to eliminate any doubt: I have no interest in talking about what different denominations believe, or the history of the church. I am purely interested in discussing the problem of evil itself, on its own terms. Now, if you take the position on PoE that suffering may be a good, or necessary, in itself, then fine. I doubt it’s very convincing for people who are doubting God on the basis of witnessing great suffering, because of the way suffering is distributed. How does it help a bunch of schoolkids’ personal growth to be killed in a mudslide? And do we suddenly “need” less suffering since the invention of painkillers? etc etc > [@Max\_S](#): > > The problem of evil (evidentiary or logical) is not a tool for Christian proselytization. Let me ask you a few rhetorical questions: What is the purpose of the evidentiary problem of evil? What do you seek to gain by discussing it? What does a Christian theist seek to gain by discussing it? I’m discussing it out of interest. I am an atheist so I gain (and lose) nothing significant by discussing this. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/477 "2026-02-04T18:01:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except livestock aren’t people, and if they were they’d be justified in despising us and trying to overthrow us. > > A god that treats mortals like livestock is a monster and an enemy, not “good” or “benevolent”. They’d just tell the about-to-be slaughtered cattle that they were going to a wonderful pasture in the sky, and then everything would be hunky dory. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2026, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/478 "2026-02-07T19:36:42Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I am purely interested in discussing the problem of evil itself, on its own terms. We clearly disagree as to what the problem of evil assumes. But on your own terms, these are your claims: > [@Mijin](#): > > the description of the problem of evil assumes that evil (I prefer the word “suffering”) is a negative in itself and an omnimax god would want it to be as close to zero as possible. > [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t know what I don’t know. _All else being equal_ seeing an instance of orange in John’s world casts doubt on the claim that John seeks _zero_ orange among things under his control. > [@Mijin](#): > > the claim of yours [**Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit** ’s] that I have been disputing is that the observation of suffering gives us _no reason_ for doubt. But you won’t deny Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds, as Rowe does in the standard modern formulation of the evidentiary problem of evil: > [@Mijin](#): > > > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > > There is always a premise to the effect that there is _gratuitous_ evil in the world, i.e. evil exceeding that which we would expect a tri-omni God to permit. > > Once again no. It’s seems you have misunderstood the evidential problem of evil. > > In the above example, is even a _tiny_ bit of orange evidence against the claim that John abhors orange? The answer is yes, because, without knowing other mitigating factors are in effect, the minimal amount of orange is _zero_. You admit (for the sake of argument) that some suffering has instrumental value: > [@Mijin](#): > > Is it possible that there’s such a thing as _necessary suffering_? I guess so, even though I find the free will defence completely unconvincing. But the more suffering, and the more random and arbitrary it appears, the more extensive and complex the mitigations would be required to be, and the less plausible it all seems. And you admit God’s omnipotence does not extend to impossiblilities: > [@Mijin](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > We know that God’s power does not contradict itself. No square circles. And we know that God is omnimax, as you say. These are just part of the nature of God, not external factors (by definition there is nothing external to God). > > Agreed. Taken together, your position appears contradictory. On one hand, you treat suffering as something an omnimax God would ideally minimize to as close to zero as possible; on the other, you acknowledge that suffering is not categorically wrong. If suffering is not inherently bad, why should any instance of it—even extreme suffering—cast doubt on the existence of an omnimax God? You highlight extreme cases but stop short of denying that all suffering might be necessary. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2026, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/479 "2026-02-07T20:11:32Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If suffering is not inherently bad, why should any instance of it—even extreme suffering—cast doubt on the existence of an omnimax God? Because it renders the entire concept of benevolence meaningless if sadism and benevolence have the same result. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2026, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339/480 "2026-02-07T20:16:35Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > We clearly disagree as to what the problem of evil assumes. But on your own terms, these are your claims Firstly let’s be clear on the distinction between my claims and the problem of evil. Because retorts about why we are claiming that suffering is a net negative are disputing the very formulation of this problem. But I didn’t invent this theological problem; it exists because it is extremely common (although not universal) to consider suffering to be bad, without sufficient upside. And, frankly, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to question why people think that way while at the same time ducking questions of what supposed good comes from gratuitous suffering. Anyway, on to the supposed contradiction in my claims… > [@Max\_S](#): > > But you won’t deny Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds, as Rowe does in the standard modern formulation of the evidentiary problem of evil Well I find it to be a ludicrous claim, but not necessarily impossible. Just as, say, if we were in a universe where everything around us was barbed wire and broken glass it wouldn’t prove that the universe wasn’t made by the god of _maximum softness_; who sought to make the comfiest world. It would just make it very, very implausible. > [@Max\_S](#): > > You admit (for the sake of argument) that some suffering has instrumental value No, not quite. I admit it’s hypothetically possible. It’s the difference between admitting a golden teapot might orbit Mars and believing that one actually does. > [@Max\_S](#): > > And you admit God’s omnipotence does not extend to impossiblilities Sure; I’m fine with the definition of Omnimax being the maximum logically possible. > [@Max\_S](#): > > On one hand, you treat suffering as something an omnimax God would ideally minimize to as close to zero as possible; on the other, you acknowledge that suffering is not categorically wrong When did I say suffering is not inherently wrong? Inherently means _in itself_ Acknowledging the possibility of suffering being necessary in some greater context does nothing to say it is somehow a good _in itself_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-violate-free-will-if-the-person-was-never-given-the-desire-to-do-something-in-the-first-place/1025339.md?page=25)