The Problem of Evil

[Belinda]

But those who ask in faith do not get ultimate and eternal explanations .

Actually, they get all the explanations they may need. See James 1:1-3.

The faith of investigators into a crime is not sufficient for them to get an explanation.

Well, really, B., that has nothing to do with the case. You've extracted any question of God from your example, and you're right: we're never told "just have faith in things, and they'll all come true." Disney might believe that, but nobody else does.

No, Biblically, faith is always "faith in God's character," not just "faith." It's a willingness to invest some hope in the prospect that God will do what He has promised, and will show Himself to be the kind of Person He has revealed Himself to be. Those who have mere "faith in faith" are just foolish.

The saving of the poor, the homeless, the sick, the criminal, the prisoner, and the downtrodden is not popular with most people who are unable to stop being greedy and who want more than their fair share of the finite total of worldly goods. Greedy people fool themselves into believing the total of worldly goods is not finite. And that belief which , despite being unreasonable is common, results in political policies that favour economic growth above other considerations.

Well, "economic growth" is a very good thing for everybody...even the poor. You can see that because if you've been to the Developing World, as I have, you have seen that even our poorest citizens have far more than the average person in a nation with low economic growth. So we do want our countries all to have "economic growth." Without it, everybody ends up miserable.

It's not "economic growth" that's bad: it's things like addiction, crime, single-parenthood, refusal to work, mental illness and so forth that account for poverty in developed countries. And even there, there are social networks and charitable agencies that will give help. There are also welfare programs, food banks, employment services, and other forms of "social safety net" that the poor can access, if they want to. There are no such things in much of the developing world: or at least, not nearly enough of them, and they are not nearly generally available. For the developing world, "economic growth" is the only hope of a better life for the poor. So don't be down on "economic growth."

It's not even "distribution" that's the problem. In developed nations, people can earn wealth, and they generally do. That's why there's a middle class. The fact that some people have more money and some have less is not a product of inequality or oppression, but rather of the natural differentials in education, experience, intelligence, skill, creativity, practicality, diligence, work type, opportunity, and even fortune sometimes. There is no conspiracy to rob the poor. As a consequence of such differentials, some people succeed and others fail -- rather like all of life, actually. You have to take your opportunities, or you can anticipate consequences.

But you're right about human nature: it has good elements, but it also gives us things like greed, covetousness, theft, war, exploitation, and so on. That's why putting a cadre of ideologues in charge of the rest of us only ever results in things like greed, covetousness, theft and exploitation. The only way to prevent that from being as bad as it could be is to put limited terms on all those we give power, along with other constraints like a plurality of parties, the franchise, the rule of law, a constitution, limited terms, and so on. Giving total power to the hands of the government inevitably results in exactly what you fear.

Reason shows that habitual greed is caused by fear of deprivation

Not really. Greed can be caused by many things. Some of the richest people, the farthest from "deprivation" are the greediest, according to you. And if your "fear" theory were correct, then the poorest would be the most rapacious and dangerous, since they would be closest to the prospect of deprivation. That CAN be the case, but is not necessarily so. Greed can be an expression of narcissism, aggression, or even cynicism or contempt. I wouldn't waste a lot of time feeling sorry for the "fear" of greedy people. They can choose to be otherwise, and should.

The middle class, Immanuel, is disappearing as the differnce between the poor and the rich increases.
Rich people who have taken more than their fair share of finite resources are parasitical upon the others who despite their natural inborn greed, have not been successful.Every person rich or poor is naturally fearful and greedy.

Economic growth cannot continue because the finite resources are nearly used up. God will not be rescuing us from our stupid lack of foresight and care.

[Immanuel Can]

The middle class, Immanuel, is disappearing as the differnce between the poor and the rich increases.

But you cannot possible overlook how the role of government interference is making this happen.

Right now, not just many private citizens are so heavily taxed that in countries with socialized programs, the majority of middle-class and small business income is drained off toward inefficient, spendthrift government projects and initiatives. Socialized medicine, for example, is far and away the most expensive program a country can have, and is presently bankrupting my own. The national debts continue to rise, but nothing is being paid for. There is no magic money --government doesn't actually have any. Every cent government "has" is presently being squeezed out of the middle class. The upper classes still have their gated communities, their tax lawyers and their offshore accounts: the poor who receive the benefits are an economic drain, not adding to the pot at all. The average middle-classer eats the tab. And that cannot stay so.

My solution? Solve poverty, instead of draining the middle class and then wasting the money on programs that merely float the misery instead of solving anything. Deal with the social pathologies that are producing poverty, instead of just flushing cash into perpetuating the cycle of poverty. It's the people who rely on government to do the right thing instead of doing it themselves that are killing us right now.

Rich people who have taken more than their fair share of finite resources

Major logical error.

The resources in question are not "finite." Not nearly. In a thousand years, you may be right; there may ultimately be an absolute limit to the wealth that the world can generate, but we're nowhere near that limit right now. Moreover we can, and should, generate new wealth; it happens all the time. Today, the majority of new wealth comes from information industries. Meanwhile, we have discovered vast new reserves of natural resources, enough to last us for a very long while, if we are wise. So effectively, at present, economics are not zero-sum. It's ridiculous, and totally misleading, to argue as if they are.

And the rich do not all get rich by exploiting the poor. That's a myth. It's easier to think of it that way, but it doesn't make it true. Take Bill Gates (of whom I am not particularly fond). In making his billions, from whom did he steal? In selling your your computer, did he rob you? How? He made a product, and you were glad, and you bought one. You won, and he won, and new wealth was created. Everybody wins. What's your problem with Bill?

Every person rich or poor is naturally fearful and greedy.

You may find the greedy rich, of course; they are always around. But I have met wealthy people of extraordinary generosity and compassion. Without the capital that many of them have shared with the Developing World, I can assure you there'd be a whole lot of people starving, sick, uneducated and dependent, who are today well-fed, healthy, educated and independent due to the generosity of wealthy people of the First World.

As for the poor, you can always find lots of poor criminals and addicts, sure. But in general, I have not found the poor to be merely "fearful and greedy." I have been astonished at their generosity, their community spiritedness, and their humanity. If you think they're all greedy and fearful, you have no idea about the Developing World, or what the majority of the people who struggle on less than a dollar a day of income are actually like. The poor are the most actually-generous people on the planet. Take a trip there, and see.

You're mixing with the wrong crowd, B.

[bahman]

Yes, my concern was about your worldview, how God could allow "animal" suffering.

Right. Well, in a world made up of mind, there are no such questions, of course. So when you say, "the world is made up of mind," you've just extinguished any basis for your own alleged objection.

So I'd have to answer the question from my own worldview, without diverting to yours. Therefore, if we are to answer the question at all, we have to take for granted that the existence of God is at least a possible postulate, and that the claim "all is mind" could at least potentially be untrue. Otherwise, your question isn't merely already answered, but worse -- cannot even be asked.

We can agree on the existence of God for sake of discussion. How do you resolve animal suffering in the universe created by a good God?

[Immanuel Can]

We can agree on the existence of God for sake of discussion.

Yeah, we'd have to. Because if you're right, and "all is mind," then no animals have every suffered, and nothing is wrong at all. So only in a world in which all is NOT mind, and in which there is an objective basis for moral concern (which really means there has to be God) is there a warrant for the accusation that too many animals are suffering.

Fair enough?

How do you resolve animal suffering in the universe created by a good God?

I was working on that.

I think we'd got to the part where we'd decided that human freedom would entail the freedom to choose not only good but also evil, and that it was okay for human beings to hurt plants but not animals, and you said that animals should not be allowed on Earth, so they wouldn't suffer.

So far, is that right? If so, I think we can take the next logical step.

[bahman]

We can agree on the existence of God for sake of discussion.

Yeah, we'd have to. Because if you're right, and "all is mind," then no animals have every suffered, and nothing is wrong at all. So only in a world in which all is NOT mind, and in which there is an objective basis for moral concern (which really means there has to be God) is there a warrant for the accusation that too many animals are suffering.

Fair enough?

Almost, I have to add that morality matters when there are only interacting minds. Minds are equal.

How do you resolve animal suffering in the universe created by a good God?

I was working on that.

I think we'd got to the part where we'd decided that human freedom would entail the freedom to choose not only good but also evil, and that it was okay for human beings to hurt plants but not animals, and you said that animals should not be allowed on Earth, so they wouldn't suffer.

So far, is that right? If so, I think we can take the next logical step.

So far so good.

[Immanuel Can]

We can agree on the existence of God for sake of discussion.

Yeah, we'd have to. Because if you're right, and "all is mind," then no animals have every suffered, and nothing is wrong at all. So only in a world in which all is NOT mind, and in which there is an objective basis for moral concern (which really means there has to be God) is there a warrant for the accusation that too many animals are suffering.

Fair enough?

Almost, I have to add that morality matters when there are only interacting minds. Minds are equal.

Well, actually, is "all is mind," then morality never matters at all. Nothing every "interacts." And "minds" aren't "equal," for two reasons: if all is one mind, there are no "minds," and also because "equality" is a term of relative standing...things are "equal to" one another, or "unequal from." But in whose eyes is this relative "equality" established? What makes that valuation ('equal") real? Nothing. In any case, if the material world is an illusion of mind, then apparent 'inequalities" are not anything at all. They're only apparent, not actual.

How do you resolve animal suffering in the universe created by a good God?

I was working on that.

I think we'd got to the part where we'd decided that human freedom would entail the freedom to choose not only good but also evil, and that it was okay for human beings to hurt plants but not animals, and you said that animals should not be allowed on Earth, so they wouldn't suffer.

So far, is that right? If so, I think we can take the next logical step.

So far so good.

There's a lot to discuss there.

For instance, how do we evaluate the relative standing of "animal" suffering? We all probably would feel sad if somebody, say, kicked a puppy; but what if he swatted a mosquito? The former would be less overall damaging...the latter certainly fatal. What grounds our supposition that puppies are more morally important than mosquitoes, we might wonder...Most people, I think would be fine with mosquitoes being swatted. But that is "animal suffering," for sure.

How do we know the moral status of "animal suffering"? What's our index of that?

We might get really perverse, and ask why a puppy being kicked should be morally repugnant, but plant suffering, or the destruction of the global environment should be permissible in the light of the good of human freedom. To kick a puppy is bad; to kill a planet would probably be worse, would it not? And why is it we're okay with the idea that some people must suffer for the creating of free will, but animals cannot? Aren't human beings of higher moral value than mere animals?

I hear you saying, "Well, animals are innocent." Granted, from my perspective: but where do we get this index that allows us to make that judgment? What has "innocence" got to do with who suffers, and who does not? If human beings have actual freedom of volition, it follows that they not only will be able to feed puppies but also feed puppies to tigers. The volitionally free can either help or harm all others. They have to be able, at least potentially, to do either, or they are not (by definition) volitionally free...and you and I have already said they ought to be regarded as volitionally free.

But in your objection, you are suggesting you have an objective moral standard from which to evaluate animals (as "innocent"), to which I can see nothing that entitles you rationally. What grounds this assessment of "innocent" or "guilty"? Or are they no more than words you personally choose to apply, but to which nobody is morally obligated to agree, since they are not grounded in any objective truth about the objective moral status of innocence?

So I'm not certain how you're justifying your objection. You say "Innocent animals should not suffer," but so far, I have not seen what you suppose warrants your judgment there. Is it more than a misguided fellow-feeling, a deluded empathy with the merely ostensible suffering of animals? It might be: but I'm willing for you to show me how it's not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

B. and I were discussing whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will. We both think He would. Again, I suggest you can save us all a lot of annoyance if you read the thread carefully, and think about what we're discussing before you write back.

I did read your point re whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will.
I take that to be giving absolutely-absolute-freewill to his humans.

Ah, that was where you went wrong.

No such thing has ever been promised, and no such thing ever will be. Because while God is not constrained by circumstances, age, knowledge, wisdom, space, resources, illness, or many of the other things that prevent all human beings from having "absolute" volition, we are. Human beings can have moral and physical freedom within limitations imposed by the available circumstances and conditions of life -- but not "absolute" freedom.

If they had "absolute" freedom, we could all flap our arms and fly.

You got it wrong, my point God could give humans absolutely-absolute freedom in a sense which is limited by the already created-human-nature, i.e. physically not be able to fly.

In this case, your supposed God had intentionally given humans the absolutely-absolute freedom to do what is within their physical abilities, i.e. to commit terrible evil acts like 'torturing babies for pleasure' genocides, and the likes.
This is literally where God is involved in premeditated murder and violence for His selfish interests.

How can a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate planned with intent for innocent babies to be tortured for pleasure by humans, be raped and made to suffer?
The typical counter, "God has His reasons and God only knows while infallible humans do not know" is the most desperate and stupid evasion.

Because of the above evils and thus the contradiction, your supposedly omni-wise, omni-compassionate, omni-potent and omni-whatever GOD cannot exist as real.

The theists justification that God can co-exists with evil is merely an excuse for the theists to maintain god as a consonance to soothe the inherent unavoidable dissonance within.

[attofishpi]

I did read your point re whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will.
I take that to be giving absolutely-absolute-freewill to his humans.

Ah, that was where you went wrong.

No such thing has ever been promised, and no such thing ever will be. Because while God is not constrained by circumstances, age, knowledge, wisdom, space, resources, illness, or many of the other things that prevent all human beings from having "absolute" volition, we are. Human beings can have moral and physical freedom within limitations imposed by the available circumstances and conditions of life -- but not "absolute" freedom.

If they had "absolute" freedom, we could all flap our arms and fly.

You got it wrong, my point God could give humans absolutely-absolute freedom in a sense which is limited by the already created-human-nature, i.e. physically not be able to fly.

In this case, your supposed God had intentionally given humans the absolutely-absolute freedom to do what is within their physical abilities, i.e. to commit terrible evil acts like 'torturing babies for pleasure' genocides, and the likes.
This is literally where God is involved in premeditated murder and violence for His selfish interests.

Why are you insisting someone that believes in Christ acts like an Atheist (someone that only has mans JUST_ICE to answer to?

How can a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate planned with intent for innocent babies to be tortured for pleasure by humans, be raped and made to suffer?
The typical counter, "God has His reasons and God only knows while infallible humans do not know" is the most desperate and stupid evasion.

There is no counter, because as usual you are talking BOLLOCKS.
What reason would that be, quote where God is telling me to torture innocent babies and rape them for pleasure.

Because of the above evils and thus the contradiction, your supposedly omni-wise, omni-compassionate, omni-potent and omni-whatever GOD cannot exist as real.

That is because you are stupid and believe in the bollocks afore mentioned by me.

The theists justification that God can co-exists with evil is merely an excuse for the theists to maintain god as a consonance to soothe the inherent unavoidable dissonance within.

Evil is MAN and his lust for money and sexual ecstasy where that lust affects others.

[Belinda]

The middle class, Immanuel, is disappearing as the differnce between the poor and the rich increases.

But you cannot possible overlook how the role of government interference is making this happen.

Right now, not just many private citizens are so heavily taxed that in countries with socialized programs, the majority of middle-class and small business income is drained off toward inefficient, spendthrift government projects and initiatives. Socialized medicine, for example, is far and away the most expensive program a country can have, and is presently bankrupting my own. The national debts continue to rise, but nothing is being paid for. There is no magic money --government doesn't actually have any. Every cent government "has" is presently being squeezed out of the middle class. The upper classes still have their gated communities, their tax lawyers and their offshore accounts: the poor who receive the benefits are an economic drain, not adding to the pot at all. The average middle-classer eats the tab. And that cannot stay so.

My solution? Solve poverty, instead of draining the middle class and then wasting the money on programs that merely float the misery instead of solving anything. Deal with the social pathologies that are producing poverty, instead of just flushing cash into perpetuating the cycle of poverty. It's the people who rely on government to do the right thing instead of doing it themselves that are killing us right now.

Rich people who have taken more than their fair share of finite resources

Major logical error.

The resources in question are not "finite." Not nearly. In a thousand years, you may be right; there may ultimately be an absolute limit to the wealth that the world can generate, but we're nowhere near that limit right now. Moreover we can, and should, generate new wealth; it happens all the time. Today, the majority of new wealth comes from information industries. Meanwhile, we have discovered vast new reserves of natural resources, enough to last us for a very long while, if we are wise. So effectively, at present, economics are not zero-sum. It's ridiculous, and totally misleading, to argue as if they are.

And the rich do not all get rich by exploiting the poor. That's a myth. It's easier to think of it that way, but it doesn't make it true. Take Bill Gates (of whom I am not particularly fond). In making his billions, from whom did he steal? In selling your your computer, did he rob you? How? He made a product, and you were glad, and you bought one. You won, and he won, and new wealth was created. Everybody wins. What's your problem with Bill?

Every person rich or poor is naturally fearful and greedy.

You may find the greedy rich, of course; they are always around. But I have met wealthy people of extraordinary generosity and compassion. Without the capital that many of them have shared with the Developing World, I can assure you there'd be a whole lot of people starving, sick, uneducated and dependent, who are today well-fed, healthy, educated and independent due to the generosity of wealthy people of the First World.

As for the poor, you can always find lots of poor criminals and addicts, sure. But in general, I have not found the poor to be merely "fearful and greedy." I have been astonished at their generosity, their community spiritedness, and their humanity. If you think they're all greedy and fearful, you have no idea about the Developing World, or what the majority of the people who struggle on less than a dollar a day of income are actually like. The poor are the most actually-generous people on the planet. Take a trip there, and see.

You're mixing with the wrong crowd, B.

You do this deceitful strategy by which you pretend to misapprehend. Once again you have attributed to me sentiments that are not mine, and experience that is not mine. The entire paragraph you devote this strategy is therefore void of explanatory power.

As for finite resources, which you deny , quote:

The resources in question are not "finite." Not nearly. In a thousand years, you may be right; there may ultimately be an absolute limit to the wealth that the world can generate, but we're nowhere near that limit right now.

you either lack knowledge, or you deliberately scatter poisonous lies in order to support your politics of economic growth at all costs. I hope you are elderly, and others who think like you are a generation about to give up their decayed ghosts.

[Immanuel Can]

I did read your point re whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will.
I take that to be giving absolutely-absolute-freewill to his humans.

Ah, that was where you went wrong.

No such thing has ever been promised, and no such thing ever will be. Because while God is not constrained by circumstances, age, knowledge, wisdom, space, resources, illness, or many of the other things that prevent all human beings from having "absolute" volition, we are. Human beings can have moral and physical freedom within limitations imposed by the available circumstances and conditions of life -- but not "absolute" freedom.

If they had "absolute" freedom, we could all flap our arms and fly.

You got it wrong

If I did, the fault was in your lack of having specified. What you actually wrote made that reading plausible.

God had intentionally given humans the absolutely-absolute freedom

What is this "absolutely-absolute" that is only "within their physical abilities"? That's a contradiction: that which is "absolute" is without limits, but the physical limits it?

That's what I meant about the way you're writing being problematic.

How can a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate planned with intent for innocent babies to be tortured for pleasure by humans, be raped and made to suffer?

There is no such "plan." But if God gives human beings volitional freedom, it means they can obey or they can disobey. They can do the right thing, but they can do the wrong thing. They can be godly, or they can be wicked. So it's on human beings that they choose evil. God doesn't make them do it; they do it themselves, because they choose to.

The typical counter...

I don't know where that "counter" is typical: it might be only inside your imagination. I would never offer it.

Well, you started with a self-contradictory statement, then you posited a situation that doesn't exist, and concluded with an answer no knowledgeable Theist would give.

[Immanuel Can]

You do...

Ad hominem.

you either lack knowledge...

Ad hominem.

[bahman]

Yeah, we'd have to. Because if you're right, and "all is mind," then no animals have every suffered, and nothing is wrong at all. So only in a world in which all is NOT mind, and in which there is an objective basis for moral concern (which really means there has to be God) is there a warrant for the accusation that too many animals are suffering.

Fair enough?

Almost, I have to add that morality matters when there are only interacting minds. Minds are equal.

Well, actually, is "all is mind," then morality never matters at all. Nothing every "interacts." And "minds" aren't "equal," for two reasons: if all is one mind, there are no "minds," and also because "equality" is a term of relative standing...things are "equal to" one another, or "unequal from." But in whose eyes is this relative "equality" established? What makes that valuation ('equal") real? Nothing. In any case, if the material world is an illusion of mind, then apparent 'inequalities" are not anything at all. They're only apparent, not actual.

The very fact that appearance, body, is an illusion made of mind makes mind fundamental. Our minds are similar and simple.

I was working on that.

I think we'd got to the part where we'd decided that human freedom would entail the freedom to choose not only good but also evil, and that it was okay for human beings to hurt plants but not animals, and you said that animals should not be allowed on Earth, so they wouldn't suffer.

So far, is that right? If so, I think we can take the next logical step.

So far so good.

There's a lot to discuss there.

For instance, how do we evaluate the relative standing of "animal" suffering? We all probably would feel sad if somebody, say, kicked a puppy; but what if he swatted a mosquito? The former would be less overall damaging...the latter certainly fatal. What grounds our supposition that puppies are more morally important than mosquitoes, we might wonder...Most people, I think would be fine with mosquitoes being swatted. But that is "animal suffering," for sure.

How do we know the moral status of "animal suffering"? What's our index of that?

These differences that you mentioned in our moral narrative are human-made which is based on the human condition. To me, mesquite or dog, one shall not hurt.

We might get really perverse, and ask why a puppy being kicked should be morally repugnant, but plant suffering, or the destruction of the global environment should be permissible in the light of the good of human freedom. To kick a puppy is bad; to kill a planet would probably be worse, would it not? And why is it we're okay with the idea that some people must suffer for the creating of free will, but animals cannot? Aren't human beings of higher moral value than mere animals?

I don't think so.

I hear you saying, "Well, animals are innocent." Granted, from my perspective: but where do we get this index that allows us to make that judgment? What has "innocence" got to do with who suffers, and who does not? If human beings have actual freedom of volition, it follows that they not only will be able to feed puppies but also feed puppies to tigers. The volitionally free can either help or harm all others. They have to be able, at least potentially, to do either, or they are not (by definition) volitionally free...and you and I have already said they ought to be regarded as volitionally free.

But in your objection, you are suggesting you have an objective moral standard from which to evaluate animals (as "innocent"), to which I can see nothing that entitles you rationally. What grounds this assessment of "innocent" or "guilty"? Or are they no more than words you personally choose to apply, but to which nobody is morally obligated to agree, since they are not grounded in any objective truth about the objective moral status of innocence?

So I'm not certain how you're justifying your objection. You say "Innocent animals should not suffer," but so far, I have not seen what you suppose warrants your judgment there. Is it more than a misguided fellow-feeling, a deluded empathy with the merely ostensible suffering of animals? It might be: but I'm willing for you to show me how it's not.

Anima cannot understand the difference between good and evil, since they are not rational beings. They simply follow their nature, instinct. At least this is true within your worldwide view. Therefore, they are innocent. Therefore, they should not be harmed for their actions. They should no be here too to suffer from natural evil, sickness for example.

[Immanuel Can]

The very fact that appearance, body, is an illusion made of mind makes mind fundamental.

If what you are saying is true (and I deny that it is, of course), then certain things would follow. One would be that no animals have ever suffered. Neither have any people. Neither is there an environment threatened in any way.

They're all merely products of mind, and hence, have no material reality. So there is no "problem of evil" in such a philosophy. There is, in fact, no such thing as "evil" at all.

Our minds are similar and simple.

This seems inconsistent. If we are not all one cosmic mind, then there is some kind of real separation between minds, which means there has to be some material difference between the different minds that makes each its own mind. The word "similar" tells us that you think these many "minds" are not exactly the same mind.

So you believe in a bunch of minds? But then you have to also be believing in some substantial difference between them that gives them their distinct identities, and makes them a bunch, not a singular mind. So now you're positing some kind of reality, and "all is mind" is false...

To me, mesquite or dog, one shall not hurt.

Why not? All is mind, you say: so there is no "dog" to be hurt, nor any actual "mosquito" to be killed either.

Aren't human beings of higher moral value than mere animals?

I don't think so.

Well, I can see why now. You can't believe either humans or animals actually exist.

...they are innocent.

No, they are non-existent according to your theory. Therefore they cannot be harmed by anything. One cannot harm a ghost or a fiction of the mind. No animal since the dawn of time has ever actually suffered, according to your theory: what' s really happened is only that the great cosmic mind (or the bunch of minds: I can't figure out which you believe in) has occasionally imagined or hallucinated such a thing. But it was never real. All is mind...there is no reality, no animals, and no suffering.

See, I can't make a coherent worldview out of all that. You're going to have to fix your explanation somehow. Either you believe "all is mind," but then none of your complaints about "evils" are real, or you believe in multiple minds, but then you also have to believe in some kind of substance or reality separating the one mind from the next, and thus making the one into many.

Which is it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate planned with intent for innocent babies to be tortured for pleasure by humans, be raped and made to suffer?
The typical counter, "God has His reasons and God only knows while infallible humans do not know" is the most desperate and stupid evasion.

There is no counter, because as usual you are talking BOLLOCKS.
What reason would that be, quote where God is telling me to torture innocent babies and rape them for pleasure.

It is not about you who I presumed is lucky to be born good.

It is so evident there are a certain % of people in this world [past, present and future] who had tortured babies for pleasure [sexual or otherwise], committed genocides and other terrible evil and violence.

How can a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate GOD planned with intent for innocent babies to be tortured for pleasure by humans, be raped and made to suffer?

How is that an omnipotent GOD who has the ability to create the Universe with such precise fine tuning and not be able to fine-tune the brains of humans such that they do not commit terrible evil acts such as torturing innocent babies for pleasure?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah, that was where you went wrong.

No such thing has ever been promised, and no such thing ever will be. Because while God is not constrained by circumstances, age, knowledge, wisdom, space, resources, illness, or many of the other things that prevent all human beings from having "absolute" volition, we are. Human beings can have moral and physical freedom within limitations imposed by the available circumstances and conditions of life -- but not "absolute" freedom.

If they had "absolute" freedom, we could all flap our arms and fly.

You got it wrong

If I did, the fault was in your lack of having specified. What you actually wrote made that reading plausible.

God had intentionally given humans the absolutely-absolute freedom

What is this "absolutely-absolute" that is only "within their physical abilities"? That's a contradiction: that which is "absolute" is without limits, but the physical limits it?

That's what I meant about the way you're writing being problematic.

OK agree, originally it could be misleading, then I explained the context I intended to use.

Note the supposedly God created gravity and physically heavy humans, as such by that nature God would not expect humans to fly like bird.

Thus when I used the term absolutely-absolute it is not with reference to breaking the natural limits.

I was referring 'absolutely-absolute' to the freedom to act and think.
Thus if a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate exists, that GOD could have limited human abilities to prevent ALL humans from commit evil acts and violence.
But, that evil acts happened mean that the supposed GOD does not exist.

How can a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate planned with intent for innocent babies to be tortured for pleasure by humans, be raped and made to suffer?

There is no such "plan."
But if God gives human beings volitional freedom, it means they can obey or they can disobey. They can do the right thing, but they can do the wrong thing. They can be godly, or they can be wicked. So it's on human beings that they choose evil. God doesn't make them do it; they do it themselves, because they choose to.

Since GOD is omniscient [past and future], it is an implied plan.

As I had stated a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate GOD with omnipotence would not and should not have given ALL humans absolutely-absolute volitional freedom, but rather limit humans from committing the full range of evil, e.g. torturing babies for pleasure.

If God has the omnipotence to create an infinite Universe with such fine-tuning of perfect precision, God should be able to create humans without any impulse to commit terrible evils such as torturing babies for pleasure.
GOD is complicit to the terrible evils such a torturing babies for pleasure since God is omniscience of everything in the past, present and future.

Because of the contradiction between omni-wise & omnibenevolent/compassionate GOD and the evidently existence of evil, that supposed GOD does not exists.

Why theists conjure the idea of an all-powerful God is to cling to a God as a consonance to soothe the terrible inherent unavoidable dissonance within.
Prove this is not the case?