Philosophy Now Forum

First, we must acknoledge that the "Problem of Evil" argument is an internal critique and the aim is look for internal inconsistensis or contradictions.

My argument will come into play when an objector asks, "Why God could not create a better world where we humans would experience spontaneous transformation?". I am assuming that in that different world they would want to preserve their agency. If not, then that's self-annihilation, not a better life.

Before getting started I need to clarify the definitions.

Omnipotence: Ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Spontaneous Transformation: It refers to a transition from a lower state to a higher state without needing anything to overcome.

Agency: The capacity to want and intentionally bring about change.

Overcome: An intentional action that is involved in a transition from a lower state to higher state.

Although these definitions are not dictionary definitions, but they capture the essestial features successfully. And Modal Logic allows for different world with different rules, but it does not allow to violate the essential features of a definition. Violating this rule would allow one to say things like, " In a different world there are Mangoes with four wheels that people drive." lol. It would be a meaningless statement.

Now lets get into business.

My Claim: That initial question by the objector is logically contradictory.

Logical Analysis:
The very word overcoming means that there is some sort of agency behind it who is making intentional efforts. As Intentionality to bring about change aka agency = overcoming a prior state of indecision and then moving to a state a decision. But the demand is to remove the “overcoming” part entirely; meaning that there will not be any agency left. But the objector also wants to retain agency. Thus the whole demand violates the law of non-contradiction. As agency cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Thus it has been proven that such demand is logically contradictory.

I am open to being proven wrong.

One cannot go from stupid to smart without instructions ands educating.

I see us as evolving creatures who are constantly trying to improve ourselves.

Part of our evolution is and must be competing against each other to find our best.

The losers to these competitions are the ones who think evil has befallen them.

They are wrong from my sin POV.

"Sin: The Path to Excellence"
Sin has long been associated with moral failure, but what if we reframe it? I see sin as something essential to human growth—a necessary part of striving for excellence.
At its core, sin simply means “missing the mark.” It’s not about wickedness but about falling short of an ideal. Christianity and even Gnostic traditions acknowledge this idea in different ways. The concept of felix culpa—the “happy fault”—suggests that sin is necessary for God’s plan. Whether or not one believes in the supernatural, the wisdom of this idea is clear: missing the mark is a natural part of aiming for something greater.
To evolve, both as individuals and as a species, we must take risks and inevitably fall short. This process—of setting goals, failing, and trying again—is what drives progress. Every moment of “sin” is evidence that we’re pushing ourselves beyond our comfort zones and striving toward our best possible selves. This is what we do, consciously or unconsciously, at every point in our lives.
Even competition, often seen as divisive, is tied to this idea. Competition highlights our shortcomings, creating a contrast between where we are and where we want to be. It creates leaders, innovators, and excellence by encouraging us to improve. Of course, competition produces losers, and those losses can feel like failures or even evoke the idea of "evil." But in truth, every loss is an opportunity—a moment to learn, adapt, and grow stronger.
This is why I celebrate sin—not as a call to moral failure but as an embrace of imperfection and growth. Without sin, without missing the mark, we would have no benchmarks for greatness. There would be no leaders to inspire us, no innovators to challenge us, and no progress to drive humanity forward.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I see wisdom in the way ancient scribes wove this idea into their teachings. Sin, in its truest sense, is not something to avoid but something to engage with thoughtfully. It is the evidence of our striving, our courage to try, and our commitment to evolve.
So, I invite you: aim high. Take your shot. Miss the mark. Become a sinner in the best way possible. In doing so, you’ll not only create a better version of yourself but also contribute to the collective excellence of humanity.

tempting analysis...

-Imp

.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 4:12 pm tempting analysis...

-Imp

Could you elaborate?

Savan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 8:23 pm First, we must acknoledge that the "Problem of Evil" argument is an internal critique and the aim is look for internal inconsistensis or contradictions.

My argument will come into play when an objector asks, "Why God could not create a better world where we humans would experience spontaneous transformation?". I am assuming that in that different world they would want to preserve their agency. If not, then that's self-annihilation, not a better life.

Before getting started I need to clarify the definitions.

Omnipotence: Ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Spontaneous Transformation: It refers to a transition from a lower state to a higher state without needing anything to overcome.

Agency: The capacity to want and intentionally bring about change.

Overcome: An intentional action that is involved in a transition from a lower state to higher state.

Although these definitions are not dictionary definitions, but they capture the essestial features successfully. And Modal Logic allows for different world with different rules, but it does not allow to violate the essential features of a definition. Violating this rule would allow one to say things like, " In a different world there are Mangoes with four wheels that people drive." lol. It would be a meaningless statement.

Now lets get into business.

My Claim: That initial question by the objector is logically contradictory.

Logical Analysis:
The very word overcoming means that there is some sort of agency behind it who is making intentional efforts. As Intentionality to bring about change aka agency = overcoming a prior state of indecision and then moving to a state a decision. But the demand is to remove the “overcoming” part entirely; meaning that there will not be any agency left. But the objector also wants to retain agency. Thus the whole demand violates the law of non-contradiction. As agency cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Thus it has been proven that such demand is logically contradictory.

I am open to being proven wrong.

My argument will come into play when an objector asks, "Why God could not create a better world where we humans would experience spontaneous transformation?". I am assuming that in that different world they would want to preserve their agency. If not, then that's self-annihilation, not a better life.

Logical Analysis:
The very word overcoming means that there is some sort of agency behind it who is making intentional efforts. As Intentionality to bring about change aka agency = overcoming a prior state of indecision and then moving to a state a decision. But the demand is to remove the “overcoming” part entirely; meaning that there will not be any agency left. But the objector also wants to retain agency. Thus the whole demand violates the law of non-contradiction. As agency cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Thus it has been proven that such demand is logically contradictory.

Can you provide the context of an objector phrasing their question that way? Hard to imagine anyone having actually done so. Is it perhaps a poor paraphrase of the point an objector was trying to make?

The context

Objector: Why so much suffering in this world if God is all good.
Me: Because suffering is needed for spiritual growth even if you do not see it.
Objector: So then why did not God create a world where suffering wont be needed for growth.
Me: But thats not growth, thats spontaneous transformation
Objection: Then I want spontaneous transformation

Savan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 8:23 pm First, we must acknoledge that the "Problem of Evil" argument is an internal critique and the aim is look for internal inconsistensis or contradictions.

My argument will come into play when an objector asks, "Why God could not create a better world where we humans would experience spontaneous transformation?". I am assuming that in that different world they would want to preserve their agency. If not, then that's self-annihilation, not a better life.

Before getting started I need to clarify the definitions.

Omnipotence: Ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Spontaneous Transformation: It refers to a transition from a lower state to a higher state without needing anything to overcome.

Agency: The capacity to want and intentionally bring about change.

Overcome: An intentional action that is involved in a transition from a lower state to higher state.

Although these definitions are not dictionary definitions, but they capture the essestial features successfully. And Modal Logic allows for different world with different rules, but it does not allow to violate the essential features of a definition. Violating this rule would allow one to say things like, " In a different world there are Mangoes with four wheels that people drive." lol. It would be a meaningless statement.

Now lets get into business.

My Claim: That initial question by the objector is logically contradictory.

Logical Analysis:
The very word overcoming means that there is some sort of agency behind it who is making intentional efforts. As Intentionality to bring about change aka agency = overcoming a prior state of indecision and then moving to a state a decision. But the demand is to remove the “overcoming” part entirely; meaning that there will not be any agency left. But the objector also wants to retain agency. Thus the whole demand violates the law of non-contradiction. As agency cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Thus it has been proven that such demand is logically contradictory.

I am open to being proven wrong.

You are right. However you haven't said what the proper question is.

That Buddha got the question right is incontrovertible however Buddha didn't presuppose there be a deity let alone an Abrahamic deity.

Savan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:50 am The context

Objector: Why so much suffering in this world if God is all good.
Me: Because suffering is needed for spiritual growth even if you do not see it.
Objector: So then why did not God create a world where suffering wont be needed for growth.
Me: But thats not growth, thats spontaneous transformation
Objection: Then I want spontaneous transformation

The problem of evil is intrinsic to the Abrahamic God. It's true that we can learn through suffering but false that we can learn through great suffering. God help us if you get to decide on matters of crime and punishment! But maybe you are only being devil's advocate, tongue in cheek sort of thing

Savan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 8:23 pm Overcome: An intentional action that is involved in a transition from a lower state to higher state.

The very word overcoming means that there is some sort of agency behind it who is making intentional efforts.

Well maybe one could say that your definition didn't mention any effort, you changed its meaning later. So simply wanting (that's the action) the spontanous transformation could be enough for it to happen, without effort.

Or maybe one could say that the objector didn't mention any overcoming in the first place.

Savan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 6:45 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 4:12 pm tempting analysis...

-Imp

Could you elaborate?

a pun on the virtue of sin

-Imp

Savan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:50 am The context

Objector: Why so much suffering in this world if God is all good.
Me: Because suffering is needed for spiritual growth even if you do not see it.
Objector: So then why did not God create a world where suffering wont be needed for growth.
Me: But thats not growth, thats spontaneous transformation
Objection: Then I want spontaneous transformation

Objector: Why so much suffering in this world if God is all good.

This question gets to the crux of the matter.

After that, you side-stepped that question by tossing out a red herring about "suffering [being] needed for spiritual growth".

If God were truly "all good", then God would have created an "all good" world with "all good" inhabitants. In such a world, "spiritual growth" would not have been necessary. This seems to better capture the point.

I am assuming that in that different world they would want to preserve their agency. If not, then that's self-annihilation, not a better life.

This is nonsense. For example: presumably "heaven" is "all good" with "all good" inhabitants; presumably "heaven" offers a "better life" than this world.

Savan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:50 am The context

Objector: Why so much suffering in this world if God is all good.
Me: Because suffering is needed for spiritual growth even if you do not see it.

But, suffering would not be needed if 'how to grow spiritually, without suffering' was just provided, and taught, correct?

Savan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:50 am Objector: So then why did not God create a world where suffering wont be needed for growth.
Me: But thats not growth, thats spontaneous transformation

So, why then did God not just provided 'spontaneous transformation', first, and only?

you appear to be just moving the so-called 'problem of evil' to some so-called 'problem of suffering' instead.

Savan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:50 am Objection: Then I want spontaneous transformation

Why not just inform 'this one' that there are just some things that you can not and will not get.

Also, notice that you have claimed that suffering, itself, is 'needed' for spiritual growth, but have not explained if, and/nor why, 'spiritual growth', itself, is some necessary thing, in Life.

Savan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 8:23 pm First, we must acknoledge that the "Problem of Evil" argument is an internal critique and the aim is look for internal inconsistensis or contradictions.

My argument will come into play when an objector asks, "Why God could not create a better world where we humans would experience spontaneous transformation?". I am assuming that in that different world they would want to preserve their agency. If not, then that's self-annihilation, not a better life.

Before getting started I need to clarify the definitions.

Omnipotence: Ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Spontaneous Transformation: It refers to a transition from a lower state to a higher state without needing anything to overcome.

Agency: The capacity to want and intentionally bring about change.

Overcome: An intentional action that is involved in a transition from a lower state to higher state.

Although these definitions are not dictionary definitions, but they capture the essestial features successfully. And Modal Logic allows for different world with different rules, but it does not allow to violate the essential features of a definition. Violating this rule would allow one to say things like, " In a different world there are Mangoes with four wheels that people drive." lol. It would be a meaningless statement.

Now lets get into business.

My Claim: That initial question by the objector is logically contradictory.

Logical Analysis:
The very word overcoming means that there is some sort of agency behind it who is making intentional efforts. As Intentionality to bring about change aka agency = overcoming a prior state of indecision and then moving to a state a decision. But the demand is to remove the “overcoming” part entirely; meaning that there will not be any agency left. But the objector also wants to retain agency. Thus the whole demand violates the law of non-contradiction. As agency cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Thus it has been proven that such demand is logically contradictory.

I am open to being proven wrong.

you response, here, is, obviously, a possible response to the so-called 'problem of evil', just like all other responses are a 'possible response, but 'your response', here, certainly does not 'overcome' the so-called 'problem of evil'. How the so-called 'problem of evil' is 'overcome', properly, Correct, and thus absolutely, is by 'another response'. But, as it is said and written, 'first things first'.