[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Not at all. But a god that could achieve his goals without punishment but doesn’t is not all-loving. The parent analogy falls down because parents aren’t all-powerful.
Again, if god was all-powerful, he could achieve the more beneficial results, or any desired results, without causing suffering.
[/QUOTE]
Supposing that God has deemed it to be evil to created limited creatures, and so he is creating beings that are (or will be) omniscient. This will require them to have knowledge of the experience of first-hand suffering. Also, they would be able to tell the difference between knowledge that had been created into them, and knowledge that they had acquired through first-hand expertience, and such they would not be equivalent knowlege. Thus, creating such an omnipotent being would require them to experience first-hand all forms of atrocity. Therefore, to minimize the extent of the suffering, this world was created where the being(s) could be educated in the first-hand knowledge of suffering, without allowing the suffering to leak out and effect anybody. (You may presume the numerous people on earth to all be other neophyte gods, to all be simultaneous incarnations of the one neophyte god, to be artificial, imaginary simalcrums without actual existence, or any combination of the three, as satisfies you best.)
If the creation of an omnipotent being (a good thing) requires the limited and self-contained application of educational suffering, then the existence of a limited world containing suffering does not imply that the non-maximal arrangement of happiness is occurring. (Note also that as time is self-contained in the universe, it is possible that out entire world was created and ‘experienced’ instantanously, imparting the knowledge required without pain of any non-zero duration, and that we’re only ‘experiencing’ it in real time becuase the perception of time is part of the universe.)
And don’t say ‘an omnipotent god could experience suffering without experiencing suffering’ or I’ll whack you with this immovable rock here.
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
If you ask an actor to play a character that is sad, the actor is creating a sad character. That character is sad. If all you are aware of is being the character, then you are sad. Having the actor or an audience enjoy your sadness doesn’t help much.
[/QUOTE]
I dispute that fictional characters are actual, or that the ‘experiences’ of non-existent-never-existed things matter in any real sense. And, if the ‘negative’ experience have no inherent negative consequences, and cause only an increase in happiness, how can they be considered bad? There are no negatives in the equation.
(You may presume for the sake of argument that there will be no ‘imitation’; those who watch Hamlet will not proceed to kill either of their parents or otherwise actualize the imaginary suffering in ‘real’ (heavenly) life.)
